S*** on toast

S*** on toast
: Andrew Sullivan says that after last night, Clark is toast. I agree. I’ll bet we’ll see him sliding and Edwards rising as a result. The voters are still looking for the alternative to the alternative.

  • Bridget

    Clark is not toast. I think he did a good job explaining the London piece to Brit Hume who had to admit he had the article in front of him which had further discussion of what needed to be done and what still has not been done, as well as he pointed out that 1) he wasn’t about to diss American policy in a foreign medium and 2) he wasn’t about to give anything but encouragement to our servicemen and women. I would have answered the question on Michael Moore the same way: I agree Michael has the right to say what he pleases about the president and I too have heard the same things about his so-called service in the armed forces. If Bush wasn’t the son of a big oil man and politician, he would have been tossed in the brig. The lamest questions were asked of Clark who the republican party fears most. Cute, but it won’t work. Clark is a gift to this country and more people are realizing that all the time. The questionners consisted of Brit Hume from Fox, Peter Jennings (Fox-light) and 2 other conservatives. Hope the next time the republicans hold a debate they’ll invite me to ask questions. I think all the candidates did a very fine job, and were courteous to each other. The only hostility came from the questionners and I don’t think those questions reflected the questions that democrats would have liked to have answered.

  • Sandy P.

    Peter Jennings is Fox-Lite?
    Since when?

  • http://www.rogerlsimon.com Roger L. Simon

    Yeah, I agree, he’s toast. But about Edwards, I’m not so sure about. I wanted to like him but I don’t think he did particularly well on the debate. It will be interesting to watch the polls.

  • Marcus Allen

    Bridget said, “Clark is a gift to this country.”
    Yikes!

  • Declan

    Extra-crispy.

  • nc

    Bridget:
    No offense meant to you personally, but if your views are held by Clark, I would have to agree with Jeff.

  • http://tvh.rjwest.com HH

    ABC which has consistently had the most critical coverage of the Iraq war, especially when Jennings is delivering it, and now he’s Fox-lite… It is to laugh.
    Clark’s explanations made no sense. War in Iraq was British policy too and Clark went out of his way to praise Blair, as well as Bush. His definition of “encouragement” is also bizarre. He flunked that and the potential Sister Souljah moment.

  • belloscm

    Clark is many things, but a gift to his country he is not. Talented and brilliant, yet he was fired from his SACEUR job for losing the trust of his immediate superiors (CJCS, SecDef). Being that he lost his command due to questions about his character and integrity, I can understand why he has the support of many of the Clinton crowd. That some (too many) people have been fooled into thinking that he is the second coming of Eisenhower is very troubling to me.
    The meat of the charge that Bush “deserted” is the absence of people who said that he did not. Where’s the due process here? By the way, in the worst case scenario, missing ANG duty gets you: a) extra weekend drill duty or b) assignment to active duty. No one goes to the brig for missing National Guard drill. Rich or poor, it doesn’t matter.
    Bridget, if you haven’t served, I suggest that you read more (a whole lot more) about the military.

  • Bob

    Edwards (the “alternative to the alternative” or “candidate by default” for the TNR types) will disappoint. The guy could not even win a second Senate term if tried.
    There is this pipedream that an Edwards candidacy can change the issues terain and make the election about economic populism. This is silly. If nominated, Edwards will either be (1) viewed as unqualified to be President (probably true); or (2) ridiculed for making a fortune by suing not big corporations, but doctors who are already paying small fortunes for med mal insurance (definitely true).
    Most important, an Edwards nomination will just confirm the suspicion that Dems are not serious about national security and terrorism. One Senate term and no military background ??!!
    I will admit that Kerry has an uphill climb if nominated, but he will keep it close. Edwards could result in a huge defection from Seniors (like ’94 and ’02) and a Republican blowout.

  • Don

    General Clark is the candidate that can appeal to southern Democrats, independents and many moderate Republicans who are alarmed about Bush.
    Nominating a liberal anti-war Democrat from New England will just ensure a Bush landslide this fall.

  • Ebb Tide

    Interested parties may find this interesting:
    Fact Check looked into the MM/Clark thing:
    http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131

  • Ebb Tide

    Fact Check posted this article on Wes Clark and the Michael Moore comment about Bush:
    http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131

  • Ebb Tide

    Ooops sorry, my bad.

  • onecent

    If Bush wasn’t the son of a big oil man and politician, he would have been tossed in the brig. For what offense, for God’s sake?!!!
    Hope the next time the republicans hold a debate they’ll invite me to ask questions.
    Perhaps, Bridget, that could be arranged using your psychiatrist as an intermediary.

  • angell

    Michael Moore also said this–and NOW he endorses the very man who targetted those kids–Michael is an embarrassment to the human race–neither a democrat nor a republican–just an anti-American–a rich one who enjoys all the luxuries he denounces.
    http://www.commondreams.org/kosovo/views/mmoore.htm

  • Ben Keen

    Bob:
    Edwards’ one senate term and no military experience vs. GWBush’s terms as TX governor (a rather weak post, comparatively) and *ahem* limited military experience? C’mon now; that dog won’t hunt. On those to counts he isn’t a fifth the man his pop was.