Dear Mr Trippi - please don't speak for Clarkies, OK?

[robbedvoter]

He just lied on Hardball that we would go to Edwards - it's bad enough I lost my voice out there - to have it usurped by that ....(I'll let deanies paying his commission fill in the blank)
THIS CLARKIE IS NOT GOING TO PATRIOT ACT-I'D START A WAR EDWARDS.
In fact, Mr Trippi, the more I look at Edwards, and hear you lying in my name, the faster I go to Kerry.

[LandOLincoln]

1. Hear hear. Besides, every time I think of Edwards I think of his

good, good friend and advisor, Hugh Shelton. :puke:

[Jai4WKC08]

11. Did you happen to see...

Article today in The New York Review of Books?

"There has also been a generally deceptive quality to John Edwards's campaign. The populism is new. A man of considerable charm, and a persuasive speaker as well as being very clever, Edwards has managed to convince most of the political press that he has been running a "positive" campaign while in fact he's engaged in some rough attacks on his opponents. (His staff compiled a memorandum—from which he later dissociated himself— which among other things called Dean an "elitist from Park Avenue.") Perhaps it's the trial lawyer in him. Before he was first elected to the Senate in 1998, he specialized in personal-injury cases, winning verdicts for as much as $150 million, with as much as 30 percent going to the lawyers. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Hugh Shelton, who has publicly smeared General Wesley Clark as a man of questionable character, without ever saying why, is one of Edwards's advisers. Still, it was surprising that in November of last year Jennifer Palmieri, Edwards's press secretary, said of Clark, without citing a name or any evidence, "military leaders he has worked with, and who know him best, seem to have a lot of concern about his ability to lead."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16965

Really good article. All Clarkies should read.

[BootinUp]

20. I'd read it, but I already suspected Edwards of these tactics

and I am tired of reading about how they treated a good man.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. I hear ya

But this one was overall positive, for a change.

A few excerpts:

At a huge rally outside Manchester on Saturday afternoon, January 17, he stirred up more emotion than I have seen since Robert F. Kennedy addressed large crowds. Clark's stump speech was largely about values. He distinguished genuine patriotism—a commitment to American traditions of civil liberties and vigorous dissent— from fake patriotism—the indifference to rights and intolerance of dissent that characterize the Bush administration.

The Bush administration for a while took the threat of Clark's candidacy seriously, and tried to undermine him by spreading the charge that he had been inconsistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. This was unfair. He maintained the position of his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002, that a congressional resolution "need not, at this point, authorize the use of force" and that "if efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail ...then we need to form the broadest possible coalition, including our NATO allies...if we're going to have to bring forces to bear."

The press—-some reporters encouraged by the Bush administration—-also attacked him for not distancing himself from the left-wing humorist Michael Moore... Clark said in a press conference after the rally, and in the debate in New Hampshire on January 22, that he wasn't going to tell anyone what form their dissent should take. This is a fundamental principle for Clark, one that he defended even before he entered the race.

And in an end-note:
Particularly unfortunate was the widespread journalistic failure to investigate the smear campaign against Clark by a group of former military officers, not just Shelton, who dislike him intensely, partly out of jealousy, partly because of policy differences in the Balkan wars, and partly because of his brash and seemingly confident personality. They were supported by former Defense Secretary William Cohen, an experienced knife-wielder against those who get in his way. Some journalists passed on, without identifying the source, Cohen's attacks on Clark's character.

[HuskerDem]

58. I think Wes Jr. was TALKING ABOUT EDWARDS when he said

That politics is full of people who are not what they appear to be. It's a very apt description of Edwards in my opinion.

[LandOLincoln]

30. Thanks for the link. That's an excellent article, although I thought

the claim that Kerry had taken more money from special-interest lobbyists than any other US senator had been pretty much debunked, or at least put in context ($650,000 wasn't it, over 15 years?)

In any case, it's clear Edwards is following the Bush/Rove model, seeming to remain above the fray while letting surrogates do the real bloodletting.

[diamondsoul]

50. TADA! There's the lawyer coming out.

Twist the facts to suit your own ends- hmmm sort of like playing up his friendship with Kucinich only to turn around and ask to cut him out of the debates.

I've said it for weeks now and had a gut feeling Edwards would end up stabbing Kucinich in the back. Poof here ya go. He's a lawyer, through and through.

Funnily enough it seems the Edwards people haven't bothered to ask people who worked UNDER Clark as a leader what they think. As someone who saw his leadership in action, I STILL have much respect for him.

[Tank in Texas]

59. Answered Already

Sorry... these allegations have been answered already. Old news.

[Mobius]

88. I didn't know that Shelton was friends with Edwards

yick:puke:
I mean really. What a worm Edwards is for hanging around with the biggest purveyor of bullshit in regards to Wes Clark.:hurts:

[KC21304]

2. I was wondering about that too. Glad to hear he was wrong.

I saw Clark with Kerry at Madison WI. They were great together and I hope they are the ticket.

[Adelante]

3. Where did he get a stupid idea like that?

How strange.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. how do you reconcile these statements?

"THIS CLARKIE IS NOT GOING TO PATRIOT ACT-I'D START A WAR EDWARDS"

Mad about the war, will hold IWR against Edwards...

"In fact, Mr Trippi, the more I look at Edwards, and hear you lying in my name, the faster I go to Kerry."

But not Kerry?

[Jai4WKC08]

13. No inconsistency

Edwards said on MTP he still supports the war, that he wasn't misled, and that he'd have gone into Iraq if he were president.

I don't understand your second point, assuming there is one.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. I guess Kerry is an idiot then

If Kerry thinks that "Bush fooled me" is going to cut it, he's sadly mistaken. At least Edwards is taking a real stance - pro attacking Iraq and getting their oil - instead of Kerry's "I didn't know Bush was bad and wanted the oil." Honestly, how stupid does Kerry think we are? Oh, that's right, Kerry is winning because of name recognition and "electability" - just hope the Corporate Media stays on his side, because they can break him as easily as they can make him.

Clark is more of a whore than I ever realized - I'm ashamed I gave him so much money :(

[dogman]

18. Edwards agreeing with Cheney is better?

At the SC debate he said the Iraq War was justified by 9-11. Even Bush said that's not true.

[Jai4WKC08]

21. Well, your money was well spent

The one think Kerry's said I like the best:

We never thought he'd FUCK it up that bad.

Edwards is a neo-con. But whatdya expect, with Shelton's advice.

[Adelante]

23. Kerry's winning because there's a war on

And he is the only candidate left standing with foreign policy experience and who can be an effective commander in chief.

And don't call Wesley Clark a whore, you whore. :grr:

[democratreformed]

24. Which would I rather have?

Someone who now says I was wrong and I am sorry. Or someone who says I don't care that we killed thousands of innocent people for OIL and I still think it was the right thing to do?

[BootinUp]

26. Dont let Who get you excited

Who never supported Clark in any posts that I can remember.

[democratreformed]

27. Sorry, Jim

I let them get to me again, didn't I? Will I ever learn? Thanks for dragging me back.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

67. Clark was the first candidate I ever gave money to

I was a long time pro-Clark poster on DU for a very long time ... I even met Clark once. It all seems pretty clear now that he just ran interference for Kerry. I didn't realize that Clark was just more of the same - pro-war actions with anti-war words, and more pro-corporate crap than any normal American can swallow.

Truly, I should have kept the cash. And I always know never to believe what the campaign staff posts on the internet.

[Jai4WKC08]

100. You sound like

One of Matt Bennett's "empty vessel" Clark supporters. You wanted to believe that Clark was "anit-war" instead of looking at what he actually said and had done with this life. Then when you find out he's not what you preconceived him to be, you blame him for being deceptive and, what did you call it, a whore?

Good lord, the man led a war. A real live shooting war, with dead people and everything. Hell, he was the one who was pushing for the authority to escalate to ground war, a much uglier proposition, had the air war not gotten the job done. Altho no one was more glad that it turned out to be unnecessary.

Clark has never said he is anti-war. He said war should only, only, only be used as a last resort, not as a tool of partisan politics. I would submit that almost all soldiers feel that way, since it is we who risk our lives when people start wars, and we who see our best friends dead and buried, we who see close-hand the dead children and other living things.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

118. well, you're wrong

"You wanted to believe that Clark was "anit-war" instead of looking at what he actually said and had done with this life. Then when you find out he's not what you preconceived him to be, you blame him for being deceptive and, what did you call it, a whore?"

That's just an ignorant characterization of a situation you know nothing about. I read Clark's speeches and policy papers and interviews. I applauded his attacks on Bush's policies. In the end, Clark doesn't seem to have any problem with attacking Iraq and privatizing their economy and stealing their oil - he just didn't like the way it was done by Bush, just like Kerry. At some point during his campaign, Clark started to sound like a typical DLC Republican - his only populist proposal was supporting the (already existing) progressive income tax. His solution to class war? Cut taxes on corporations to beg them to keep jobs here. No thanks.

Obviously, I didn't expect the man who bombed Serbia to be "anti-all-wars". I also didn't expect Clark to roll over for Kerry either. Ah well, you live you learn.

[BootinUp]

106. whatever

I think your claim is too much to swallow without some proof.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

123. yeah, I care enough to lie to you

whatever

[mgarretson]

132. You're mistaken Who...

I volunteered for about 9 days in the NH Clark HQ and I saw people working 12-14 hours a day everday. I saw the General speak while I was up there and the bags underneath his eyes were noticeable. Back home in OK, I saw staffers and volunteers putting in long hours for the campaign and I chatted with Wes, Jr. for quite a while the day before the primary here and he looked just as tired as his father was.

Wes Clark and his family spent 5 months campaigning for the Presidency, sleeping rarely and traveling all over the country to talk to voters... His staffers and volunteers spent countless hours calling voters, canvassing, and talking to our friends and neighbors about this man...

And because you disagree with who he chose to endorse when he backed out, you attempt to cheapen that experience for all us? That's shameful... Clark wasn't a perfect candidate with perfect answers to every question but to call the man a whore and suggest he was only a stalking horse after all the all the hard work people put in, is just WRONG.

From Clark Country,
I'm Another Clarkie for Kerry!

[HFishbine]

41. I'd rather have one who says

"I was wrong and I am sorry." When is Kerry going to say that?

[emulatorloo]

47. He wont say it and here's why

because he is not wrong in the principal that bad people with bad weapons who want to hurt us ought to be disarmed.

OTOH I believe he has indeed said he was wrong to trust this admin.

[HFishbine]

52. You repeat the junta's straw man

The Bush administration, when challenged about the need for this war, respond by saying we couldn't have a bad man with bad weapons.

Leaving aside the extremely relevant issue that there were no weapons, that argument, which you repeat, assumes that the only alternative to a bad man with bad weapons was war. That's a straw man argument that ignores the fact that there were alternatives to war.

[emulatorloo]

57. Don't believe I said that. . . .

you are jumping to major conclusions if you think I {or JK for that matter} am saying the only alternative to "bad man w bad weapons" is GWB's unilateral war as a first resort.

[robbedvoter]

33. Get bent - is that allowed?

You wou;dn't understand "Anerica deserves the best president IT CANN GET
Out of the options available, better the one who doesn't start wars like Bush, OK?

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?
EDWARDS: I would.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?
EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[BootinUp]

35. ok by me

[Old and In the Way]

39. Not really hard to understand at all.

From a post by cindyw-

"If you cannot admit Kerry and the Congress was lied to then you cannot say that Bush lied."

[emulatorloo]

44. I know this thread is dead

and you'll never see this reply, and it won't matter to you even if you do.

But I gotta tell you a lot more people were in the category of trusting that GWB wouldn't lie about this.

What JK says will resonate with those people. They trusted that the president wouldn't lie.

So I believe that you are sadly mistaken.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

81. Then we can only conclude

That there are a LOT of stupid people out there if they honestly believed the president wouldn't lie. Why would they believe this? Because he had been so honest and up front in the past? Remember NCLB, "I'll fully fund it" oops sorry I didn't really mean that, ain't gonna do it, but gotcha. The Patriot act, "we will only use it to fight terrorist" opps sorry did I say that we aren't going to run rampant with it, oops gotcha again. And the list goes on and on. Anyone who still believed this president wouldn't lie is lacking. Millions of Americans and Eurpoeans didn't buy it and recognized the pattern of flat out lies by this president but the American congress bought it hook line and sinker. And preach "we were mislead" on their soap box. What's that tell you? Well guess what, that is also this president's claim. "I was misled" the CIA those idiots misled me. So now, I would like to know the difference. If it works for congress to say they were lied to and that is in fact an acceptable reasoning how come the same defense is not also acceptable by Bush?

[GodHelpUsAll2]

91. Didn't think anyone would reply

No one wants to touch that question.

[emulatorloo]

114. I had to go to work! but here's my reply

A lot of people gave GWB the benefit of the doubt after 9/11 - people (and our allies for that matter) rallied around and felt that he had matured and would rise to the occasion. . .thought I don't put a lot of faith in polls look how he was polling before 9/11 and look how he was polling afterwards.

I have no doubt that GWB will use the "I was mislead by the CIA" argument. OTOH I am 90% sure that there are enough people around who know about the GWB intel manipulation and are going to speak up about it. . .for example, Ambassador Wilson is on Kerry's team as an advisor. . .

[democratreformed]

97. A large percentage of the population don't even know what those things

are - or know only what they have heard on television. So, yeah, I wasn't fooled. But you know what? A majority of Americans haven't come to terms with the fact that the government cannot be trusted - even on issues that effect life and death.

Let me illustrate my point. Last year, my dad and I were discussing my opposition to the war. One of his comments was "WE don't have weapons of mass destruction." This from a many who lives @150 miles from the Pine Bluff Arsenal. I was so amazed. Shocked even.


Is my dad an idiot? No, he's a man who has worked his butt off his whole life and built a multi-million dollar company. But, you know what? He just doesn't pay attention to a whole lot except for what it takes for him to make it from day to day. Even though his company has done well, he still has to work hard every single day to keep it going. He still has to worry about where his life is going since he lost his partner - my mom, whom he had planned on retiring with and enjoying what he had made. If my sister hadn't pointed out certain things to me, I would probably, myself, still be oblivious. I, too, was totally wrapped up in getting by from day to day.

Even though more Americans have become more aware, we still have a LONG way to go.

[LandOLincoln]

107. I was one of those people not following that closely,

except for the runup to the war, and I kept telling myself it was a bluff. Right up until the day the first boots landed on Iraqi soil, I was telling myself that NO ONE could be so stupid as to send troops into Iraq, at least not until Afghanistan was secured and on its way back to the level of civilization it enjoyed in the 60s (and/or until Saddam's WMD were actually found).

[Jai4WKC08]

112. The difference is simple

The difference between Congress' being misled by the President, and the President's being misled by the CIA is as simple as, "The buck stops here."

The CIA works for the President, believe it or not. To whatever extent they don't, it's his responsibility to bring them in line. It is the President who is responsible for everything the executive--to include the CIA, does or fails to do, and it is he who MUST be held accountable.

Outside of open source (CNN, newspapers, etc), the Senate has no other source of foreign intelligence than what the President provides.
(Sidenote: in this case, it probably wasn't the CIA who was cherry-picking the intelligence to paint the picture they wanted, but that's another issue)

Congress failed in not voting up or down on a formal declaration of war, or requiring the President to come back and ask for one, but that's a different issue too. And certainly not the first time in the last, oh, 55 years or so.

I doubt seriously that anyone of the Dems really "trusted" Bush & Co, in any general sense--certainly not their underlying motives. But there's a big difference between promising you'll fund NCLB or not misuse the Patriot Act, and specifically saying, we know there is a chemical warfare facility at this location, or they have X number of liters of that bio-toxin. There was no reason to believe that sort of specific information was just made up, as it apparently was.

[diamondsoul]

49. Don't be ashamed.

I really think even now that Wes Clark is a good and honorable man. Unfortunately, I also think he's been badly used by the Democratic machinery. There's no such thing as a perfect politician- hell no such thing as a perfect person, ever!- and that includes my guy as much as I adore him.

I think Senator Kerry trusted someone he should have known couldn't be trusted. Does that make him a bad guy? No, but it does make me think he doesn't have the sound judgement I want to see in a President. His statement opposing "marriage" for same sex couples solidifies that for me.

Will I vote for him as the nominee? Absolutely, but I will NOT help him get the nomination because I do NOT believe he's the best candidate to be the next President.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

70. No, sorry, I really do NOT believe that Kerry is that stupid

Kerry - like ANY American who reads the newspapers - knows the history of the US in Iraq, the US corporations and foreign corporations that have fought for the oil profits, the long time plan by PNAC, the fact that Clinton proposed invading, etc.

Is Kerry REALLY going to say he had no idea that the Iraq war was about oil? Does he think we are that stupid? Perhaps we are.

Now if this "Bush lied to me, and I believed him" strategy wins, then hey, Kerry has a winning strategy. But please don't insult our intelligence here. EVERYONE - including Kerry - knew what was going on.

[HuskerDem]

62. Do you hear yourself? PRO ATTACKING IRAQ AND GETTING THEIR OIL????????????

This is what you admire? Why not just go all the way and just support Bush instead of Opie Taylor?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

63. Kerry is FOR attacking Iraq and getting their oil

Kerry wants to stay in Iraq (i.e., occupy their country for years) and hasn't said jack about preventing US corporations (or other foreign corporations) from getting a piece of the oil profits. Kerry also voted for the war. The Democratic party, along with Republicans, have had plans to do just that for years.

I don't admire it, that's why I'm voting for Kucinich. Are YOU going to be voting for a pro-war (Kerry, Edwards) candidate?

The Democratic Party has ALWAYS been the Pro-War party, and little to nothing has changed. "Progressive Internationalism" is just a new name for old fashioned "neo-imperialism". Try to sell it to some other sucker...

[Jai4WKC08]

87. Can we stay on topic here?

Did I say that? Like I've never digressed... oy.

Oh well, what I wanted to say is... the thread is about whether Clark supporters would be more likely to support Kerry or Edwards, since Trippi specifically said we'd be going to the latter.

Kerry believes that, now that we're in Iraq, we can't just cut and run. That is in perfect accord with Clark's position all thru his campaign. And before. It's in his book.

I don't know what Edwards' position on what to do now is--I'm assuming it's not that different from Bush, especially with Shelton's advise--but Kucinich's near-immediate withdrawal is not the course of action Clark has ever proposed.

Disagree with Kerry and Clark's position if you want to, but don't characterize it as pro-war. Letting the country fall into anarchy, or three competing sub-states, or both, is much more likely to lead to more war. And most likely OUR war, since we were the ones to start the ball rolling.

About the IWR, Kerry says that Bush lied to the Senate about the threat from Iraq. Clark believes that too. He reports that Rumsfeld lied to him and some 400 other retired officers. In fact, the whole misunderstanding (to characterize it generously--I'm really far more cynical) in the Nagourney NYT article of Sept 19th, the one upon which Clark's so-called flip-flop was based on, was because Clark was saying that he and Dean weren't "inside the bubble" of the information that Kerry and the other Senators were exposed to, that Dean was right but if he (Clark) had been in the senators' shoes he "probably" would have voted as they did.

Edwards otoh has specifically said that he was not duped, and that he would have gone in anyway. That is NOT in line with Clark's views.

I don't think you're correct that Kerry has said nothing about US corporate profits from Iraqi oil, but I can't quote chapter and verse.

[mikehiggins]

28. C'mon. Does anyone really know what position Kerry took on any

of this stuff? Where he really stands? I sure don't.

Still, Trippi is tripping. Some Clark supporters have gone over to Edwards but most that I know of are either sticking with Clark or supporting Kerry.

So it goes...

[Care Bear]

38. Trippi

may have helped with the early Dean campaign, but look at all the damage he's doing now.

I don't like him.

Kerry changes his mind every 2 minutes and that has been going on for his entire career.

However, I believe Kerry will be the nominee. Too bad because Bush already has aimed their complete strategies against him, as they earlier had with Dean.

Edwards could actually beat Bush because of his charm and emotion. Someone posted about him affecting crowds like no dem since RFK - you are right, my friend.

Angry independents and out-of-work non-fundie repukes would vote for Edwards where they will NEVER vote for Kerry.

The democrats are imploding again. Flame away; but, please remember this in November!

[Anwen]

5. I don't think he was lying.

He made a wrong assumption, perhaps, but what else are political commentators paid for? :)

He shouldn't have made such a broad brush statement like that, as I'm sure not every single Clark voter is going to go to Edwards. However, some probably are. I don't think they are all going to one single candidate, right?

[mrgorth]

6. He has to know

that was endorsed Kerry. Was it a mistake?

[Jai4WKC08]

8. No, no mistake

I thought it might be the first time he said it. But then he explained how he "knew" it was so.

Of course, some will go to Edwards. We make up our own minds, and Clark even said we should. But the vast majority will support Kerry. Esp now that Clark is back on the campaign trail.

[Jai4WKC08]

7. Trippi's a liar

Trying to bolster Edwards, who's looking pretty weak tonite. He probably wouldn't mind driving a wedge between Kerry and Clark either.

Good thing I didn't have a heavy object or I might have one less 35" tv. LOL

Trippi had the nerve to say, oh, it's all over the internet. Many will vote for their candidate (which is true) a few Deanies and Clarkies might drift to Nader (not on a bet, not for Clark supporters), and the rest are all going to Edwards.

Even claimed Kos was a Clark/Dean blog and now endorses Edwards.

What a liar.

[Adelante]

16. What bullshit

:grr:

This is tactical, no question.

[flpoljunkie]

42. Kerry was Dean's chief rival. It is all about pettiness, now, Trippi.

[Tim_in_HK]

111. Yep.

That's it in a nutshell. Much else relating to this is BS.

[NightNurse]

53. Tricky Trippi: STEALING MILLIONS from the Dean Campaign.

As a freshly minted millionaire-don't you think Tricky Trippi could afford a first class shave and shirt/tie?:puke:

[Nazgul35]

61. actually...

Kos came out within the last two days and officially endorsed Edwards...you might want to scroll down the page...

I also believe that in this country, you can not be accused of lying when it is your opinion you are offering up...

He attempted to support his argument with facts as he saw them, some of it was anicdotal, some actual, but to label someone a liar, rather than argue the opposite view point is just plain over-the-top....

[HuskerDem]

68. UGLY FUCKING TRIPPI LIES AGAIN - make no mistake, he was lying, it's his

only REAL talent. Trippi is the case of a person with an extraordinarily slimy black soul who found a way to make a decent living out of it. Then he REALLY hit the jackpot when he got his mitts on the Dean money machine. Vegas couldn't have been kinder to him. Powerball wouldn't have been easier.

Kos endorsed Edwards? WHO FUCKING CARES? One jackass with a laptop and a really exaggerated sense of self importance pulls his brown nose out of Deans ass and plants it in Edward s's. SHOCKING.

[Nazgul35]

72. perhaps a closer reading

of the post I was responding to would cause you less CAPS...

The poster suggested that Trippi was lying about the dKos site, I pointed out that in fact Kos had endorsed some one....

It was not offered up as supportive evidence that Trippi was correct, rather it was offered as evidence that the poster was incorrect that Trippi's characterization of Kos was wrong....

still...this is like alot to do about nothing....

[Jai4WKC08]

113. No question about the endorsement

Trippi lied when he said that 1) it's all over the internet (kos was just an example); and 2) he said kos was a Clark and Dean site.

Now, I know kos was for Clark way back in the draft days for a short time, and I know he had, what, one regular who was pro-Clark (and who, if I'm think of the right guy, supports Kerry now). But Trippi as much as said that kos was equally for both Clark and Dean and that just ain't so.

I saw the conversation on re-run later, and it seemed like Trippi was just throwing Clark in with every statement so it wouldn't sound like he only knows about Dean. But someone not familiar with the situation wouldn't know that. Anyway you cut it, it was a bold-faced lie.

[KittyWampus]

69. Part Of Calling Trippi A LIAR Involves Motive And Intent

It seems niave to believe he was just offering up an opinion as some uninvolved by stander.

No, Trippi is willfully spreading misinformation.

Most likely trying to suck up to Edwards in the hopes of latching on to what HE thinks could be a winning campaign.

Hell, it's his last chance of relevancy in the near future of politics.

Mismanaging 40 million is definately going to have Trippi on the bench for a while.

[robbedvoter]

101. Also, dissing Clark by implying we will not follow him, so he has no say

That's the part that got me - reminded me of the VP "he lied" trick. This man is dirty.

[LandOLincoln]

110. Yup. I've hated Trippi's guts ever since

the Trippi/Stephanopoulous/Dean gangbang of Clark two weeks before Christmas.

Maybe Trippi can get a recurring role in The Sopranos.

[BootinUp]

9. Hell, according to Hardball, Clark never had enough votes to bother

with!

[SEAburb]

12. That's funny!! nt

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

[mikehiggins]

29. Since I've already blocked that station from my cable box I

really have no way of knowing what they said. And I find it very hard to be concerned about that either.

[SEAburb]

10. another sleazy tactic by Trippi, what's new

Clark endorse Kerry, but his supporters abandon him and go to Edwards. I don't think so.

Remember this is coming from the same guy who undercut Clark the day after he announced his run, by putting out the story Clark was asked to be Dean's VP.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Oh yeah

Thanks for the reminder. I watched him lie about THAT one too, on Stephanopolis. Had to wriggle back out of that one later.

[dogman]

14. Has he ever earned an honest dollar?

First Dean now Matthews. I wish he'd go work for Nader or better yet Bush.

[retyred]

25. Trippi makes his money

sucking off candidates and their supporters, the guy is sleeze, all the money dean supporters gave and Trippi walks away with the fat bank account and dean claims to be broke.

Speaking of less than up n up, from what I read earlier, dean still has $9 mil. then there's a letter supposedly from dean asking for money to help close out his website.

Someone is ....... someone, bigtime.


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
"The "ONLY" true Democrat from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"
So I read this book

[revcarol]

93. I don't have a dog in this fight,

(except I felt that DK and Clark were the two progressive grass-roots candidates, both "coincidentally" ignored by the media), but has anyone been able to check the NEW MONEY facts on Trippi?

Is he sucking overcharged commissions from Edwards ads? ANYONE?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. Didn't He Say Something Like This About Clark?

That he "stubbornly hung around for an extra week and cost Edwards some momentum" ??? Did anyone hear something to that effect? I assume he meant that Clark should have conceded that Edwards won Oklahoma despite getting more votes, because Edwards is the media darling and the newsroom story departments have decided they need more drama in the race in order to sell commercial time and that a Kerry-Edwards confrontation is more accomodating to that end.

[democratreformed]

22. Yeah, something like that.

No Edwards for me, either.

[LandOLincoln]

32. Matthews said that--the whore. n/t

[jenk]

71. it's because Clark blew a 20 point lead in Oklahoma

and embarrassed himself in the process. He wanted to drop out that day, but Gert talked him out of it.

[LandOLincoln]

76. He didn't "blow" a 20-pt lead, Edwards got a last-minute

endorsement from some !%& legendary football coach, and also got a televised or recorded plug from him, which was then run repeatedly on Super Bowl Sunday.

Wonder if Tweety et al. are now gonna imply that Kooch is a Clinton operative who deliberately sandbagged Edwards in Hawaii?

[Adelante]

79. Robocalls by the !%& legendary football coach nt

[jenk]

126. yea, barry switzer did it

latest excuse from the losers

[mgarretson]

134. maturity

Jenk, your maturity shows, through and through...

I'm not sure if you're from OK but we had a Governor's race here in 2002 in which a virtual unknown from the state legislature won. Former OU football coach Barry Switzer is widely credited with influencing the win. Switzer's huge in OK because OU football is huge and he performed well as a coach. Edwards most certainly got a boost out of the last minute calls Switzer made on Super Bowl Sunday.

Let's also not forget that Edwards raised the most money in OK and visited the state the most... so we can just as easily ask why Edwards blew the race...

but OK's delegates are a non-issue at this point anyway, since neither Edwards nor Clark is leading in the nationwide delegate count.

From Clark Country,
I'm Another Clarkie for Kerry!

[robbedvoter]

34. Anyone had Trippi's website?

I'd like to send him this thread with my compliments. Also, a nice post on my list:
HEY JOE TRIPPI!!!
Reply-To: [e-mail]

If you read this, pls explain the following to me:

If Clark suppoters and Dean supporters are NOT going to Kerry, then
WHY is Kerry winning in Utah and Idaho WITH over 50% of the vote!!!

Simple addition contradicts your assertion!!! With you in charge of
Dean's campaign, we now all understand why Dean only got some 190
delegates for his $45,000,000 !!!!

In conclusion, your in over your head on Hardball!!! Better go
back to your day job. Oops! Sorry! I forgot, YOU DON'T HAVE ONE!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. Edwards is the LAST guy I would vote for.

I would vote for Kerry, Kucinich, Sharpton, Ham Sandwich before I would vote for Edwards. It looks like he's finished anyway. After last nights results.....he's finished. Pretty BAD showing. So far, Edwards has won 1 state. :eyes: He's not going to be the nominee. TRIPPI, GET A CLUE!

[democratreformed]

115. My sentiments exactly n/t

[maddezmom]

37. Trippi also thought Clark supporters would go to Dean

that didn't seem to happen, either. :eyes:

[Care Bear]

40. Trippi needs to go away, but

I feel unfair saying that when just about all the cable pundits are so full of it, he fits right in. :shrug:

[robbedvoter]

43. Couldn't post this earlier:

My last post which didn't make it
Subject: Edwards thought it too! Same day, he said that Clark leaving gives him
Message:
a boost and then Clarkies would come to him.
His operatives are spamming all our yahoo boards like crazy see
http://www.forclark.com/story/2004/2/19/101820/877
and
http://www.forclark.com/story/2004/2/20/72724/0080
get a clue people. We drafted/followed Clark because we believe in him. Because his issues are ours (no to war, Patriot Act, PNAC, bigotry) not because we think we have some power thingy - and we are NOT willing to follow any body to get it.

[Cuban_Liberal]

45. Mr. Trippi isn't with the Dean campaign any longer.

It's inappropriate of you to try and take a gartuitous swipe at Dean supporters over this matter.

[maddezmom]

48. it's a "swipe" at Trippi, not Dean supporters n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

125. Then whu was it neccessary to mention Dr, Dean at all? n/t

[NightNurse]

54. Track him down,Tie him up and get your Money Back

he even looks like a Young Nixon!:puke:

[robbedvoter]

46. Clark 1 state, Edwards 1 state, Kerry 16 - why 2 front runners?

Why was Clark pressured to drop and Edwards is a front runner? Please Mr Trippi, you so good with numbers, help me here!

[NightNurse]

55. 19-1-1? Hardball Circle Jerk Needs A Hoss Race!

Tweety was exceptionally BFEE tonite.!
I don't EVER endorse violence against ANY woman:mad: however....
I'll make an exception in Noodle-Sucking Noonan's:freak: case!

[BigMcLargehuge]

51. test

test

[HuskerDem]

56. Right there with you Rob, Trippi is an effin slime ball

always has been. Ugly sonofabitch.

[John_H]

60. Uh-Oh check Edwards' filings for payments to trippi!!!!

[Nazgul35]

64. why the manufacturing of outrage here?

:shrug:

I mean come on! Trippi is allowed to offer up his beliefs about this campaign as much as any other....he is allowed to be wrong!

But to label a person as a liar because you do not agree with his assessment is over the top....nothing more!

Your voice was not usurped....it is called the vote...

Isn't there more important things that all of you could be doing this morning than manufacturing false idignation and mock outrage over an individual on a low-rated cable show offering up his personal opinion?

Really!!

[jenk]

65. luckily

the clark supporters on DU are not representative of the clark supporters nationally. i think about 60% went to Edwards and 35% to dean, 5% to Kucinich.

edwards wouldn't be able to rise from single digits in all those states without taking a large chunk of clarks eroding base.

[HuskerDem]

73. Yeah, congrats on Edwards big victories last night - oh wait

he didn't have any. I guess the evidence doesn't quite bear you out does it?

I can understand why you would WISH Clark supporters went for Edwards nationally............ but they didn't and why on earth would they? Clark supporters are against the war, strong on national defense, liberal on social issues and we want a candidate with REAL experience in foreign affairs. Edwards falls woefully short.

[jenk]

75. even befor clark dropped out

a large chunk of his base went to edwards

the national clark supporters are not the bitter lynch mob here at DU, without them edwards could not go from single digits to 20's and 30's, and without them he would not be one of the 2 candidates left.

clark was never clear on anything, changed his positions daily, and had some rather pathetic attacks on edwards and kerry before tennessee. That's why they abandoned clark, he wasn't ready for prime time.

[LandOLincoln]

80. Hugh Shelton. Hugh Shelton. Hugh Shelton. Hugh Shelton.

Now, what was that you were saying about Clark supporters going to Edwards??

BTW, you're doing a whizzbang job of recruiting Clarkies for Edwards. Keep it up.

No...really. :evilgrin:

[Tank in Texas]

95. Advisory position. Advisory position. Advisory position.

I am not trying to recruit. Just defending a decent man from be misrepresented.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

85. Oh, you mean these problems that Clark had?

when the media repeatedly discussed such relevant and important problems with Clark as when he jokingly referred to the difference between him and Kerry as those of a Lieutenant and a General? Or when the media kept noting that during a speech, when asked where he was wounded, Clark didn't clearly point to the right body part he was discussing? Or the media's focus on Clark's reference to himself as an "insider", which he immediately corrected by saying he was an "outsider"? Or the media focusing on Clark's statement that he was the only candidate who came from a poor background, which was largely although not entirely the case? You mean those extremely relevant points covered by the media ad nauseum? That lack of clarity? Do you mean that particular "prime time" focus on Clark that he wasn't ready for? Obviously you know nothing about Clark and his clarity and complexity on the issues. As far as the "bitter lynch mob here at DU", you have only to look at yourself for the lynch mob mentality. Your statements about Clark are beyond outrageous, when you say he wasn't clear any "anything", "changed his positions daily", and had "pathetic attacks" on other candidates". Outrageous. Hopefully, for all our sakes, you know something about the man you are supporting, other than the fact that he was the "son of a millworker".

[Nashyra]

90. Clark supporters did not abandon Clark

A few of the Clark supporters went to Edwards, very few. Clark was very clear, he might have made some mistakes on the campaign trail but he was always very clear. Edwrds is not ready for prime time that is why a majority of his supporters chose to follow his lead and back Kerry. We trusted him enough to draft and support him for President, we trust his judgement on who to support since he stop campaigning for the President, but he has not stopped campaigning for a change for America. There is absolutely nothing "pathetic" about Clark, what is pathetic is the fact that Edwards tried to use Hugh Shelton to discredit Clark and then said nothing about it. And Edwards is not one of 2 candidates left he is one of 4, anyone of the candidates could have stayed in the race it all depends on how much in debt they wanted to be left with.

[mgarretson]

136. so...

So I guess being a trial lawyer who looks pretty and says "I feel your pain" is a better alternative? Edwards is a good guy but all he ever seems to do is talk about "Two Worlds" and how he grew up as the son of poor mill workers. He can sell his image but what's behind it? A one term Senator from NC who's a multi-millionare?

Jenk just seems to like riling people up...

From Clark Country,
I'm Another Clarkie for Kerry!

[Tank in Texas]

83. Quite a few Clarkies and Deaniacs on Edwards blog

Actually, we have had quite an influx of Clarkies and Deaniacs on the Edwards blog and they have all been welcomed warmly. Develop some class people- your candidate had some.

[maddezmom]

92. great news

as for your develop some class comment...hmmmm no comment. :eyes:

[Tank in Texas]

94. Way to go!!

I knew you could do it :-)

[BootinUp]

109. well stated HuskerDem!

[Adelante]

86. Edwards-Dean propoganda strategy from Trippi

False claim scenario: Clark support went to Edwards and not Kerry. Clark appears weak as a grassroots leader compared to Dean, because he can't carry his supporters. Kerry begins to undervalue Clark's endorsement thereby weakening its effectiveness and their alliance. Poor confused Clarkies turn to Edwards-Dean.

Guess what? It's not working. It never will work. Clark has always recognized there can be no domestic progress until our foreign affairs are settled, because there is where our national treasure is directed until any new president can turn it around. Overwhelmingly, Clark supporters saw this the same way: the new administration has to be ready to run a war out of the box. Once Bob Graham dropped out, and excluding Clark himself, there was nobody with the necessary national security mindset and foreign affairs capability required in a commander in chief, except John Kerry.

There are Clark supporters who have gotten behind Kucinich or Edwards. There are Clark supporters who wish to remain ABB. There are Clark supporters who have been holding out for Clark to be back out on the trail before getting behind Kerry. And there are Clark supporters who got behind Kerry immediately. But overwhelmingly Clark supporters are behind Clark and will trust his judgment before Dean's or Edwards's judgment. You can bank on it.

This is just more nutso propoganda:

"60% went to Edwards and 35% to dean, 5% to Kucinich" :crazy:

[diamondsoul]

98. See I don't get this thinking-

"Clark has always recognized there can be no domestic progress until our foreign affairs are settled, because there is where our national treasure is directed until any new president can turn it around. Overwhelmingly, Clark supporters saw this the same way: the new administration has to be ready to run a war out of the box."

No offense and with utmost respect for General Clark, how do you settle foreign affairs by remaining an occupying force in a country that never should have been invaded?? Why would he not want an administration that is ready to END a war out of the box?

The worst part is Kerry's assertion that he wants to send a force of 30,000 or 40,000 (depending on which reports you read)Active Duty troops to Iraq when General Clark and he MUST know that manpower doesn't exist in deployable condition! It's NOT possible without conscription and both men having military backgrounds OUGHT to know it.

[Uzybone]

105. LMAO

and none went to Kerry of course....uh huh.

[Jai4WKC08]

117. Now you're being what Trippi is

Edwards numbers haven't gone up that far. Certainly not last nite, where Clark was pretty strong.

And the idea that Kerry got 0% of the Clark vote is ludicrous.

If you're gonna make stuff up, you ought to at least make it believable.

Oh I forgot. Edwards runs on the idea that everybody's stupid.

[Tank in Texas]

66. "Dear Clarkies- Quit Misrepresenting John Edwards, OK?"

So you'd rather go to "I'LL VOTE FOR YOUR WAR AND THEN FLIP-FLOP ON MY OPINION WHEN IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT" Kerry.

THE TRUTH ABOUT EDWARDS & THE PATRIOT ACT:

Edwards sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was his job to participate in the writing of the Patriot Act. It is not meaningful to criticize Edwards for either his vote or the fact of his participation in the act. Such criticisms can only be directed against those outside of a committee directly related to the Patriot Act.

What can be judged are Edwards' specific contributions to the Patriot Act, such as particular clauses he worked to add or remove from the Act. If someone has those details, I would like to learn more about them. But, the existence of Patriot Act II suggests that Democratic participants in the drafting of Patriot Act I succeeded at least partially in limiting its scope.

Edwards supports revision of the Patriot Act and the removal of domestic intelligence duties from the FBI. Edwards will create a new agency for domestic intelligence, along with a new oversight agency, the Office of Civil Liberties. The goal is to have domestic intelligence agents who are trained to assault terror and not the Constitution of the United States.

The Senate debate excerpt below includes Edwards advocating for a sunset provision. There was a subsequent House-Senate discussion of the Act, for which I could find no transcript. The final version of the Act did include a sunset provision. Pointers to a transcript of that debate would be appreciated.

From the Senate Floor Debate, 10/11/01 :

---
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1510, the Uniting and Strengthening America Act.
In the aftermath of September 11, we face two difficult and delicate tasks: to strengthen our security in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, and at the same time, to safeguard the individual liberties that make America a beacon of freedom to all the world.
I believe that when the President signs this anti-terrorism legislation into law, we will have achieved those two goals as best we now can.
The act is a far-reaching bill. I will mention just a few key aspects of that bill.
First, the legislation brings our surveillance laws into the 21st century. Here are two of many examples. Under current law, the FBI can use a basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but the FBI needs a different kind of warrant to get to voice mail. This law says the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both. Another
example: Under current law, a Federal court can authorize many electronic surveillance warrants only within the court's limited jurisdiction. If the target of the investigation is in the judge's jurisdiction, but the subject of the warrant is technically an internet service provider located elsewhere, the warrant is no good as to that ISP. This bill allows the court overseeing an investigation to issue valid warrants nationwide.
Second, the act gives law enforcement officers and the foreign intelligence community the ability to share intelligence information with each other in defined contexts. For example, the act says that under specified conditions, the FBI may share wiretap and grand jury information related to foreign- and counter-intelligence. I appreciate concerns that this information-sharing authority could be abused. Like Chairman Leahy, I would have preferred to see greater judicial oversight of these data exchanges. But I also believe we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.
Third, the act enhances intelligence authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). When I met with FBI agents in North Carolina shortly after September 11, they told me their number one priority was to streamline the FISA process. We've done that. We've said, for example, that the renewal periods of certain key FISA orders may be longer than the initial periods. This makes sure the FBI can focus on investigations, not duplicative court applications.
A more controversial change concerns the purpose of FISA surveillance. Under current law, a FISA wiretap order may only enter if the primary purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence gathering. The administration initially proposed changing the ``primary purpose'' requirement to a requirement of ``a purpose,'' any foreign
intelligence purpose. At a recent Intelligence Committee hearing, I was one of several Senators to raise constitutional questions about the Administration's initial proposal. The last thing we want is to see FISA investigations lost, and convictions overturned, because the
surveillance is not constitutional. S. 1510 says that FISA surveillance requires not just ``a purpose,'' but ``a significant purpose,'' of foreign intelligence gathering. That new language is a substantial improvement that I support. In applying this ``significant purpose''
requirement, the FISA court will still need to be careful to enter FISA orders only when the requirements of the Constitution as well as the statute are satisfied. As the Department of Justice has stated in its letter regarding the proposed FISA change, the FISA court has ``an
obligation,'' whatever the statutory standard, ``to reject FISA applications that do not truly qualify'' as constitutional. I anticipate continued close congressional oversight and inquiry in this area.
A forth step taken by this legislation is to triple the number of Border Patrol, INS inspectors, and Customs Service agents along our 4,000-mile northern border. Today there are just 300 border patrol agents to guard those 4,000 miles. Orange cones are too often our only defenses against illegal entries. This bill will change that.
Fifth, the bill expedites the hiring of translators by the FBI. It is unthinkable that our law enforcement agents could have critical raw intelligence that they simply cannot understand because they do not know the relevant language. This statute will help to change that state
of affairs.
Finally, the bill makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists. We make it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount with no reasonable, peaceful purpose, a crime to harbor a terrorist, a crime to provide material support to terrorism. And we say that when you commit a crime of terrorism, you can be prosecuted for that crime for the rest of your life, with no limitations period. Statutes of limitations guarantee what lawyers call ``repose.'' Terrorists deserve no repose.
As Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch have both said, this legislation is not perfect, and the House-Senate Conference may yet make improvements. For example, the Conference might clarify that, as to aliens detained as national security threats, the law will secure the due process protections and judicial review required by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Zadvydas v. Davis and INS v. St. Cyr. The Conference might also sensibly include a sunset of the new surveillance authorities, ensuring that Congress will reconsider this bill's provisions, which touch such cherished liberties, in light of further experience and reflection.
The bill is not perfect, but it is a good bill, it is important for the Nation, and I am pleased to support it.

The Edwards reform plan includes:

r Establish new protections for library and business records, limit the government's authority to search homes without giving people notice and require the Department of Justice to disclose more information about its use of special surveillance powers.

r Strengthen due process rights for people arrested on American soil as an "enemy combatant" without access to a lawyer or a day in court. He says appropriate limits on choice of lawyers and judicial forum could be imposed.

r Creation of a new Homeland Intelligence Agency. He says the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a law enforcement agency, not an agency able to track and stop terrorists. The agency would focus entirely on intelligence gathering and analysis, have an independent Office of Civil Liberties, and be subject to new judicial review and public disclosure requirements.

[HuskerDem]

74. No NEED to misrepresent someone who's so openly pro-war

[robbedvoter]

78. Misrepresent? I'm only using his very words:

Q: The PATRIOT Act is two years old. There has been criticism of John Ashcroft for enforcement of legislation you authored. Shouldn't those who wrote the legislation take responsibility?
EDWARDS: There are provisions, which get no attention, which did good things. The reason we need changes is because it gave too much discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused his discretion. We know that now.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm

Damn you , John Ashcroft! You seemed so very trustworthy and all - how can you disappoint John Edwards so much?
(and I didn't even get into the Wellstone amendment, the bankruptcy law and the vote on war with Syria, mind you)

[Tank in Texas]

82. No, you're labeling him...

... and there are plenty of labels for your favorite ex-candidate as well. Read my post, because it doesn't sound as if you did.

[robbedvoter]

102. You mean like Shelton labeled Clark?(or libeled, rather)

We are honest and argue our points. I use your man's words, not inuendo like his surrogates do.

[Tank in Texas]

103. Why on the attack?

Why do you continue to attack? It is obvious you harbor some anger issues about Clark's dropping out of the race. I am sorry you feel this way about John Edwards but I feel you're misinterpreting what actually occurred.

The Clarkies that have come over and joined the Edwards blog actually took the time to ask us about the charges you mention and then listened to our answers. Kind of like Wes Clark probably would do himself.

[robbedvoter]

104. I do. GOP-ers voted for Edwards to kick Clark out of the race

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html


Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry

Voters who are enthusiastic about * Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry

Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards

Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.
These questions were only asked in Wi, but it happened in SC and TN as well.
And let's not forget Shelton. And starting a war. And the spin against Clark when Edwards won less than Clark. Am I pissed? Royally.
Do I also think GOP-ers want him as opponent so the "wartime preznit" crowned at Groud Zero have NOTHING debated (except jobs - that worked well in 2002)? Yup. Disaster in the race, plastic candidate, no experience, no integrity, no character (I am a lawyer - didn't meet any other WHO NEVER DID ONE PRO BONO CASE IN HIS CAREER - how selfish and greedy can one be?)

[Tank in Texas]

122. Oh come on!

You have nothing to be pissed about. Your interpretation of the poll data is flawed and your conspiracy theory about Repugs voting "to kick Clark out of race" is just sad. THIS is how you interpret an appeal base that goes beyond liberal Dems? Wonder how you would have interpreted Clinton's '92 exit polls in the general?

As far as the war, Kerry voted for it too and "your man" endorsed him not 24 hours after spreading the intern rumor.

"Spin against Clark-" what spin? You mean somebody besides Kerry got some media coverage?

I really did like Wes Clark, he seems like an honorable guy but I'll be damned if I'll sit by and let you badmouth somebody like John Edwards. You obviously know nothing about the guy or his history from the junk you are spouting. I ask you to review Edwards' cases and find out who he was defending against what- cases like little girls eviscerated in swimming pools vs. giant corporate malfeasance.

[LandOLincoln]

129. "My man" (I wish) did NOT "spread the intern rumor."

That Drudge lie has been exposed a number of times for just what it is. Here's one:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1337

[robbedvoter]

77. My letter to Hardball:

[e-mail]
Subject: Please tell Mr Trippi to stop speaking for Clarkies

We drafted Clark not for the "power' thingy but because we were inspired by his opposition to war, patriot act, his integrity. It's about beliefs. It these words are too hard for mr Trippi, just tell him the secret word: "Shelton"
I wasn't planning to do it just yet, but Trippi's words were so offensive to me and to General Clark, that after sending this, I am on my way to Kerry's site to sign on. Compared to what he's selling, Kerry looks pretty good . Behold:


MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?
EDWARDS: I would.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?
EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[robbedvoter]

84. Mr trippi, do you know who Shelton is? lemme 'splain you:

This week Edwards hauled out former Joint Chief of Staff chair Hugh Shelton to attack Clark. As everyone knows the military vote in the South is a big deal, and Shelton, along with a lot of other military people, don't like Clark. The way Edwards sees it, if he can just hang in there with a third or fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he's got a decent chance of winning South Carolina.

In September Shelton said that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of "integrity and character issues." He never said what these were.

Then last week Matt Bennett, Clark's communications man, said he was "simply astonished" at Edwards's use of Shelton and "politics-as-usual mudslinging." "General Shelton . . . initiated what has become a smear campaign that the Republicans have gleefully taken up," said Bennett.

Edwards kept the tiff going with a snooty reply directly to Clark: "Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction." Concluded Edwards: "I will continue to seek his advice," adding, "When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics."


John Edwards's Mudslinging Ways
November 12th, 2003 4:00 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0347/mondo5.php

[jpgpenn]

89. Trippi is a corrupt weasel!

:puke:

[West Coast Democrat]

96. I heard that too! Someone email this guy!

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

[robbedvoter]

99. Posted on trippi's blog as well changeforamerica

Dear Mr Trippi
I am a Clarkie. I don't have a voice in the media anymore - please don't assume you are it. What you did last night on hardball vas offensive and disingenuous - like the VP trick.
We Clarkies picked our candidate for his stands and integrity - not for "having the power". as such we are immune to ambulanca chasers who drag Shelton around.
I was planing to wait until November, but your remarks made me so angry, I just signed on with the Kerry campaign - just for the pleasure of kicking your butt.
have a nice day!


Firther merriment to be had here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnitedForClark

[BootinUp]

108. bravo! -eom-

[jpgpenn]

116. Kudos!

:yourock:

[West Coast Democrat]

119. I posted on Joe Trippi's blog also

There were several related posts. I hope Joe takes the time to read them.

[citizen snips]

120. Do I see jealousy .

Because Edwards beat Clark.

[Jai4WKC08]

127. That make zero sense

Since Kerry beat us worse.

'Course he's beating Edwards pretty bad too.

[citizen snips]

128. It makes perfect sense.

Than why am I seeing all these nasty threads about Edwards from Clark supporters?

[Jai4WKC08]

131. It makes NO sense

Read the thread. There are plenty of valid reasons given. Shelton, the war, the "fair-haired" free media, and a dozen others.

Or blow it off as jealousy. Doesn't matter one way or t'other.

But if we were only jealous of Edwards, we'd be doubly jealous of Kerry. Remember, we had moved up to 2nd behind Dean in NH before Kerry blew out of Iowa. Kerry was the spoiler at the beginning of the end. Edwards didn't beat us there, even with his Iowa bump, and he didn't beat us in the majority of states a week later. But Kerry did.

[BurtWorm]

121. If he said that about Deanies, he doesn't speak for me either!

On that issue, anyway, I'm with you.

[Tank in Texas]

124. NEWS FLASH- Trippi didn't mean ALL Deaniacs! Duh!

I don't think he meant ALL of Dean's or Clark's supporters. Facts are facts- the Edwards blog HAS seen quite a number of Deaniacs since the good doctor quit actively campaigning, several Dean groups have pledged their support for Edwards. We saw a smaller surge just after Clark dropped out too. So some people have flocked to the Edwards camp. How does this affect anybody here personally?

[KC21304]

130. Actually I think he did say ALL. I know that I was very surprised

to hear him say what he did, and I wouldn't have been that surprised if he had said many, or most.

[Duder]

133. You can read what was really said:

MATTHEWS: Where are your fellow warriors now? Where are all the Deaniacs right now?

TRIPPI: It‘s interesting.

There are two groups. There‘s a bunch of them that feel they are going to stay with Governor Dean thick and thin and vote for him in these primaries and fight for delegates for him. And there‘s this whole other group that‘s moving quickly to Edwards. The same thing is happening with the Clark people. You see it on the Net. You go to the sites, and they‘re either going to stick with Clark and vote for him where he‘s on the ballot or they are moving to Edwards.

It‘s really interesting. None of them—you can‘t put a—not very many of them are moving to Kerry. And they really aren‘t gravitating to him at all. And the other interesting thing is that people, there are some moving to Nader out of both groups, but not that many at all. They‘re still staying within the party. But they either like the guy they were with and they‘re going to stay through thick and thin or they‘re moving to Edwards. And I think it‘s a problem for Kerry long-term.

This is like the canary in the coal mine. If these people—he‘s—the guy who‘s winning this thing is running away, winning all these states, and these new people that have gotten involved with both Clark and Dean aren‘t moving to him.

Transcript

[Mass_Liberal]

135. You are absoloutely right

Trippi has no right to speak to you whatsoever. He also doesn't have a right to speak for Deanies, who he took massive amounts of money from (as a personal commision).

But I do have to say that your logic makes no sense to me. "PATRIOT ACT-I'D START A WAR EDWARDS". Well, Kerry voted for those as well. So if your issue is the War, i'd write in Clark (I'll be voting Dean in primaries)

[Jai4WKC08]

137. "PATRIOT ACT-I'D START A WAR EDWARDS"

Refers to the fact that Edwards co-authored the Patriot act, or claimed to have, and he has stated he still supports the war, was not duped or lied to, and would have invaded Iraq as president, even with what he knows, or should know, now.

That's pretty different from Kerry's position.

Personally, of the two issues, the war is the more important to me. And I'm far less concerned about who supported it to begin with than about who's best qualified to end it, successfully, now. That was what originally got me involved with the Draft Clark movement.

Edwards hasn't got the experience or knowledge. I'm not even sure he has the will.

[Exgeneral]

138. Patriot Act--I'd start a War

Sounds EXACTLY LIKE KERRY.