home

Obama and General Clark

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:33:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Politico:

Clark was sitting at Obama's side when he met with retired flag officers earlier this afternoon. An Obama campaign aide emails that "General Clark attended the meeting that Obama had with retired military and admirals this afternoon and he will be an important voice on this campaign."

I like that the Obama camp made a point of correcting the Politico report that General Clark was not part of the Obama national security team. Ok, I cheerlead for one figure in politics, Wes Clark. So sue me.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< A Time To Lead On FISA | Questions Raised in Aftermath of Drug Raid Death >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama and General Clark | 143 comments (143 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Darn those nefarious Clintons! (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    I'll bet they're sending in Clark to torpedo Obama's campaign.

    /snark

    he'd be a good runing mate. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    He'd also be a great surrogate if that isn't happening anyway.

    Parent
    The Clintons lost (1.50 / 2) (#61)
    by rdandrea on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:43:11 PM EST
    Sorry.

    Parent
    You mean Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:56:05 PM EST
    Yeah...we know.  And it's not 'the Clintons'...but feel free to call her Madame Clinton, Hillary, the Senator from New York. But her name is not "the Clintons."

    And I really dig Wes Clark!

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by talex on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:21:45 PM EST
    he is a free trader like Obama, what's not to like? /snark

    I almost choked when I read a previous diary saying that Obama lying about his previous statements on NAFTA was a good thing and meant he be "a great President".

    Progressives have taken a giant step backward in this election.

    Parent

    what is a progressive? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:30:02 PM EST
    The word always sounds like bull to me.

    Parent
    Sounds like bull to everyone (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:32:08 AM EST
    Because it is.  We aren't fooling anyone by avoiding the word liberal.  There's nothing wrong with being a liberal and we should stop pretending that there is.  

    Parent
    Pretty sure it means (4.42 / 7) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:07:05 PM EST
    characterizing oneself as for equality for all, social justice, pro-environment, worker's rights, etc., and then strutting around on sites likes DKos and TPM with your frat boy friends snickering over using the c-word, b-word, and w-word for female presidential candidates.

    At least that's what it means today.

    Parent

    Fittingly, progressives a century ago (4.20 / 5) (#120)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:32:55 AM EST
    also were not good on women's rights.  Then and now, they have in common the wish that women wouldn't vote.

    Now, though, too many blog boyz who call themselves progressives have a major commonality with progressives in the past:  They were Republicans, too.

    Parent

    Alex82, explain your problem (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:21:40 AM EST
    with this comment -- did you not know that progressives were Republicans? that they did not support woman suffrage?  Are you disagreeing with . . . history now?

    Parent
    Disagreeing... (1.50 / 2) (#127)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:19:53 AM EST
    ...with cheap attacks and a rather flimsy reading of the historical record:

     

    also were not good on women's rights.  Then and now, they have in common the wish that women wouldn't vote.
    Now, though, too many blog boyz who call themselves progressives have a major commonality with progressives in the past:  They were Republicans, too.

     I happen to believe that "progressive" is a stupid attempt to run away from the "liberal" designation, but whatever, I use it these days as well.  It has fallen into regular use.  However, describing those who are self-described modern "progressives" as being opposed to the right of women to vote is obnoxious and false.  Since Woodrow Wilson, a well-known Democratic president during the Progressive Era, supported women's suffrage (after pressure was applied) while opposing racial integration and supporting nativist prejudices, a positive reading of your historical analysis would be charitable, at best.

     Additionally, the party alignment of, say, the early 20th century was very different from the party alignment of, say, 2008.  

     So, I rated your comment a 1.  It was unnecessarily inflammatory, the entire thread is off-topic, by and large, and it was historically inaccurate.  

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:38:41 AM EST
    So, I rated your comment a 1.  It was unnecessarily inflammatory, the entire thread is off-topic, by and large, and it was historically inaccurate.  

    Well, Cream I guess you been told! You're unnecessarily inflammatory! I feel much better knowing the security here against inflammatory comments is increasing. Also, you better revise your history lectures quickly because you've been 'corrected'.

    Parent

    Ha! Alex, you flunk Wilsonian history (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    if you think he supported woman suffrage.  Yeh, you could say it was after some pressure -- since he didn't support it until the end, until most women already had the vote, through their states, so he finally acceded to federal suffrage.  

    And, of course, it was only after he tossed hundreds of suffragists in federal prison, where they were tortured, just for exercising freedom of speech in nonviolent picketing of Wilson.  

    And as for today's so-called progressives, what I read from them on the blogs certainly supports that they don't like women voters even now.  Look, the term was historical mush a century ago, as you would know by reading historians since Hofstadter.  And the term is even mushier nonsense now.

    Parent

    Dont like women voters (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM EST
    now, trans: SOME were rude and vulgar and weren't respectul of the fact that (of course) ALL women supported Hillary, just as ALL blacks and "progressives" supported Obama.

    Ipso Facto, "progressives dont like women voters".

    Parent

    Interesting that "it's mush" (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    and "historical mush", but you still employ it for your purposes as if it were a significant reference point.

    Only when you use it.

    Parent

    No, I consistently argue against (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    use of the term "progressives" as useful then or now.  You don't know what you're talking about, either, in claiming otherwise about me.

    That makes your replies mush, too.

    Parent

    I must learn to develop (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:14:12 AM EST
    your level of patience and forebearance when dealing with people who seem to revel in making false, inflammatory and insulting charges.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:15:58 AM EST
    The level of patience and forebearing required to refrain from giving 1 ratings to comments you disagree with is so, like, challenging. It practically takes a saint to not do that.

    Parent
    Good one, Dr. Molly. So I must be a saint as..... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    ...I rarely do it. LOL. But actually it isn't patience and forebearing, it's really just an abhorrence to wasting my time.

    Parent
    it certainly seems to be challanging for you (none / 0) (#145)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    given that you have done so a fair number of times to me.

    For example (and this is just one of several - its short so I can copy it)

    "so can we conclude that
     (3.16 / 6) (#6)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST

    white Clinton voters have pretty much turned their support to Obama, giving him that post-primary bump that many, but not all, were predicting? "

    A comment about the results of a poll. Not insulting, not a violation of any rule, not trolling, simply a proposed explanation for a poll result. Maybe some people might interpret the poll differently. They might disagree. But give it a 1 rating?

    Oh well, I guesss you're not a saint either.

    Parent

    yes, returning the favor after you (none / 0) (#150)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    started stalking me around and giving me 1's countless times.

    Parent
    you can't count to 3???? (none / 0) (#151)
    by tben on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:33:04 PM EST
    Just for you benefit, I decided to actually invest the time to see whether or not I have been so unfair to you, or nasty, or whatever.

    Browsing through my ratings, I see I have given you a 1 rating three times. Yes, that is 3. Not "countless" times. (apologies if I missed one, I am not going to actually study the archives).

    And were they deserved?

    One was where you said "Talk to the hand...Obnoxious bee."
    A nasty insult toward a fellow commenter. Thats agaisnt the rules, y'know.

    The second was for "I've not changed my opinion that a lot of Obama's support and success has been built by haters"

    A gross and obnoxious personal insult to part of the community here, plus half of our party.

    The third was: "...difference now between saying someone played the race card and saying that they're racist?! It's kind of like the difference between cash and money."

    Which is an absurd falsehood, and one that implies that people who make a factual statement about how a campaign leverages racial divisions are actually accusing that campaign of beleiving in racial superiority.

    So you see - I have been very temperate in my ratings of your comments, giving you 1 only when you clearly use insulting language or make absurdly false charges.

    Unlike you, who seem to admit to givng me 1s because you are pissed at being called on your own excesses.


    Parent

    Thank you for your temperance (none / 0) (#152)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    forebearing and patience with me, tben. I so value your commentary and values!

    Parent
    LOL n/t (none / 0) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST


    Parent
    a liberal (3.00 / 2) (#82)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:45:55 PM EST
    who doesn't want to fight the demonization of that word.

    Parent
    Actually both words (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by talex on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:55:17 PM EST
    have a long sense of history. From wikipedia articles:

    Progressive Era was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1]

    Progressives strongly opposed waste and corruption, seeking change in regard to workers' rights and protection of the ordinary citizen in general.

    Liberal typically refers to one supporting social liberalism, or one opposing conservative or social conservatives positions.

    Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), radical liberalism,[3] modern liberalism,[4] or in North America and the United Kingdom simply liberalism, is a branch of liberalism which contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens and that the state may have a role on this.

    There is no reason to run from either word.

    Parent

    yes, but modern usage (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    of "progressivism" is really disconnected from the earlier use.

    The good reputation of the word based on its historical usage was the main reason that it was chosen as a replacement for "liberalism" by people who did not want to have to directly confront all the social baggage that the right had managed to hang on that word.

    And, to be honest, there may be reasons not to stress the historical nature of "progressivism". It was another time, and there were some unsavory things that the progressives got into - namely eugenics. If your goal is social progress, and you lived in a time where some of the really outrageous things of the 20th century had not yet happened, it was, I guess, rather easy to slip into thinking about how to improve society by improving the gene pool, and you can only imagine what standards for improvement came to the fore.

    Parent

    I wouldn't worry (none / 0) (#96)
    by talex on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:20:33 PM EST
    too much about what you wrote. Not too many people are going to care about that and the explanation is too long for a Repub soundbite.

    For me either word - Liberal or Progressive works just fine. Again there is nothing to run from.

    Parent

    The Democratic Party (5.00 / 10) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:57:12 PM EST
    Lost.  Sorry.


    Parent
    What struck me the most about (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    all of that was that Obama's 'new politics' and 'politics of the future' is mostly a whole bunch of former Clinton admin people and supporters of Hillary.

    What gives Obama?

    It's a Canard (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is on "Change" as a theme.  That's hardly surprising, or even unique.  It's true to some degree, in some areas, and not in others.  Everyone has their own ideas about what "change" means, after all.  As a campaign theme, it's certainly not a bad one to my eyes.

    The caricature picked up by his opponents (and that persists here, even after the primary is over) however, is that the campaign is only about change, and that any connection to "old" washington therefore proves him wrong and invalidates the whole campaign.  Now, that's just dumb.

    It's was clear to a bunch of us early in the primaries that the top two (three, really, if you include Edwards) democratic candidates were, unsurprisingly, very close on the issues and likely to implement very similar policies and appoint many of the same people.  And we were right.  Why is this surprising?

    More to the point: if (I'm assuming you were a Hillary supporter) he's being advised by and looks likely to appoint most of the same people you were expecting to see in a Clinton administration, isn't that a good thing?  Surely Hillary wanted to implement a bunch of "change" of her own.  Is it really too hard to imagine that these agendas have substantial overlap?

    Parent

    any dem is change from Bush (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by coigue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    he's just using it as his battle cry and trying to attract those ex Repugs that are sick of it.

    Nothing wrong with that, especially if it works.

    Parent

    Then I would have rather (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    had Hillary.

    Parent
    Me too! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:05:39 PM EST
    I do love Wes Clark.  What a pity he's working for Obama and not Clinton--who is his mentor.

    Parent
    political mentor. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by coigue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST
    just thought I'd add that.

    Parent
    Clark brings nothing to this campaign (none / 0) (#123)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:35:29 AM EST
    He's a very nice man, but so is Carter.  Neither will help Obama win.  Obama needs more substantial people around him.  

    Parent
    More substantial than ... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:46:15 AM EST
    Wes Clark?

    A West Point Valedictorian, Rhodes Scholar, PPE Oxford.

    Won both the Silver and Bronze Star in Vietnam.

    34 years in the Defense Department, rising to Supreme Allied Commander of Europe NATO.

    I could go on.

    Yeah, no substance there.

    Gimme a break.

    Parent

    By the way (none / 0) (#135)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    I believe Clark studied economics at Oxford and that over the past 4 years he's been consulting internationally on national security and other issues.

    Parent
    And this will help Obama how? (none / 0) (#156)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:39:15 AM EST
    As I recall, Wes Clark didn't do particularly well when he ran for President.  Sorry, I just don't see him as bringing in many voters.  

    Parent
    Is that snark? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:58:23 AM EST
    Clark is nothing but substance. And as for being a "nice man," why don't you ask Milosevic about that.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Seems Odd though (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:59:02 PM EST
    Why not just support the first choice of the people Obama is now trying to bring to his side?


    Parent
    Any Dem would want Wes Clark (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:22:34 PM EST
    on his or her team. Perhaps Obama is just choosing really smart Dems and some others to be part of the team?

    Perhaps (donning flame suit) everything is not about Hillary?

    Parent

    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:42:14 PM EST
    The only people who think it's "all about Hillary" here are the latest flood of Obama sweeties who keep dragging her into every discussion about Obama.

    The point is that, no surprise, Obama's "new" foreign policy appears to revolve around the same old people from the previous Dem. administration he  repeatedly spent so much time in the primaries trying to discredit.


    Parent

    the list (none / 0) (#10)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
    Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
    Secretary of State Warren Christopher
    Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning
    Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
    Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
    Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder
    Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor
    Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
    Secretary of Defense William Perry
    Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State
    Representative Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commissioner
    Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor

    Parent
    Lots of cooks. (none / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:15:44 PM EST
    No chef.

    Parent
    Obama is top chef (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by shmalex on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    Wouldn't Obama be the chef?

    Parent
    "He's not a leader" (none / 0) (#76)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    "show me where he has ever led, he is NOTHING!!!"

    oops, chanelling digruntled Hillary supporters again  

    Guess I need Jindal to get these demons out. ;O

    Parent

    FISA (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    Leadership? Where?

    Shouldn't be talking about leadership. Should be LEADING.

    Parent

    Susan Rice will be key (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:20:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Obviously the man (1.00 / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:18:18 PM EST
    cant do anything right even accidentally,( I can hear it now: "Accident! What, is the phoney trying to say he's human like the rest of us?! Well, it wont work!")

    Parent
    Clark Would IMO Be Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    best choice for VP. Not the greatest campaigner in the world but when it comes to Iraq and foreign affairs he knows what he is talking about (one person on the ticket who does would be nice). He has been a great attack dog against McCain on military issues and national security.

     

    Yes. He is really good (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by coigue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:47:54 PM EST
    on those issues and surprisingly good at many others unrelated to national security. I think he would make an excellent President in 2016....hint hint

    Parent
    How about (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    we don't get ahead of ourselves.

    The dems don't have this one wrapped up, and frankly, they're pissing me off anyway.

    Parent

    How about (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by coigue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:08:56 PM EST
    if I get ahead of myself if I feel like it?

    I don't really care if you're pissed off. I like thinking about pleasant future possibilities, and that is EXACTLY what we should think about when we consider who should be VP....Do we want that person as the candidate in 2016? It isn't ONLY about balancing the ticket and winning this election.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    I like Wes Clark, but not in the White House.

    I mean the congressional dems, btw, who sucketh majorly, as usual.

    Parent

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by coigue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:14:15 PM EST
    See I can use the same debate tactics you use.

    But Hil is still my first choice.

    Parent

    This isn't a debate. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    I have never supported a Clark presidency.  It will not make me want to vote for Obama!

    Not. At. All.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#110)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:40:16 PM EST
    Who would you support as the running mate?  How bout 3 or 4 choices?

    Parent
    Darn right it wasn't. (none / 0) (#116)
    by coigue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:52:45 PM EST


    Parent
    I DO like Wes Clark (none / 0) (#27)
    by zyx on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:20:54 PM EST
    and not just on Iraq and foreign stuff. He had been out-of-country for a long time, and he was campaigning in New Hampshire in oh-four, and he talked to a woman who was working a bunch of jobs to try to make ends meet, and he learned the details of how she was earning and how it just wasn't working. I mean, he had been living in Germany, where part-time workers have health benefits and stuff, and he was just appalled, and he let it be known that he was really, really appalled by the details.

    It may sound like he should have known, but he was busy with being a very intelligent military guy who was wrapped up in details of the life of that stuff, and it seemed to me that he was totally interested in learning about the details of civilian life now that he was in that, too. Very, very bright guy.

    Granted, I don't know everything about him, but he makes a good impression on me.

    Parent

    Wes Clark (none / 0) (#30)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:32:33 PM EST
    was a Rhodes Scholar, just like Bill Clinton and Bobby Jindal.  

    I think that says a lot about him and his intelligence.  

    Parent

    Intelligence (none / 0) (#33)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
    is an asset.

    But intelligent people can be horrible leaders.

    Want me to start naming names?


    Parent

    Pie, (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    I hear you, but it sounds to me like you don't know a lot (enough) about Clark before making a completely informed judgment about him.  Do me a favor (even though we don't really know each other(, and do some more research on him.

    Before 2003 I could have NEVER imagined myself promoting any kind of military person for anything, as I'm one of those far-left peace-types.  And still am.  But he's the kind of security guy that promotes peace until the end, and if you haven't watched him talk against the Iraq and (potential) Iran wars before anyone else had the guts to do so, you really should.

    As far as his campaigning skills go, he's come a long way baby.

    Sorry I don't have links for you at this very second, but I'll dig up some for you shortly.  In the meantime, here's his website, where much is available.

    BTW, Michael Moore, for whatever it's worth, endorsed him back in 2003.  So I'm not alone.

    http://securingamerica.com.html

    Parent

    Why would a "promoter of peace" (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:14:34 PM EST
    Endorse "bush-lite" "warmonger" Clinton?


    Parent
    And before you take this argument (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:30:37 PM EST
    any further, you might want to truly check up on his positions on both the Iraq war, and the potential for an Iran war. He put forth these positions way before he endorsed Hillary, and has consistently stuck with them throughout the years.

    The reason he chose her was because he realized that she, being the New York Senator after 9/11, had very little choice BUT to go along with that vote.  That's politics for you, the same kind of politics Obama is playing right now, appealing to both sides of the isle.

    I do NOT believe that she ever personally really wanted to go to war with Iraq.  Just like I now personally believe that Clark still supports Hillary, but in order to "play the game" to stay politically influential (to fight AGAINST the corruption) he had to endorse Obama.

    I do not in a minute believe that he is truly behind Obama as much as he was behind Hillary.

    There are things politicians need to do in a current climate to retain a viable voice in the future processes.  And Obama is certainly aware of this, and playing along, just like the others.

    I'll believe in hope and change when I actually see it.

    Parent

    No kidding (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:36:09 PM EST
    I'm not trying to paint Clark as warlike, I'm taking his endorsement of Clinton, and Kyl/Lieberman as leverage on real issues.

    I don't know if Clinton's vote was politics, she seemed to think a president should be given the authority and responsibility for how the situation was handled, and I'm sure, if she was president she would also want to be given such authority and responsibility to handle such a situation.

    As it turns out, it should be obvious, the other intent here is to show how anyone who had reservations about Clinton's Iraq AUMF vote was just simply being completely moronic.  Or prone to CDS themselves.

    As it happens, perhaps we're ALL demogogs on certain issues!

    Parent

    She also knew (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    security clearance or not, what intelligence was telling BC about Iraq and WMD, and probably a lot more.  BC was convinced they still had them.

    I didn't like her AUMF vote, but I understand it and don't consider it to be "original sin."  Kerry and a lot of other Dems. voted for it, too.

    Parent

    Clark would take VP (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:11:38 PM EST
    and probably would be more than happy to be Obama's running mate....

    Parent
    Because she's not. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    And he knows it.

    Parent
    But he even supported (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:25:53 PM EST
    Kyl/Lieberman.  And even a "centrist" like BTD knew Kyl/Lieberman was caving in to Right Wing warlike rhetoric!

    Parent
    Have you forgotten Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:35:04 PM EST
    approval of an almost identical piece of legislation, labeling Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization prior to Hillary's vote to do the same?

    Why single her out, when he did the same?  And why isn't this being compared fairly?

    Parent

    Oh I know all about it (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:36:47 PM EST
    Come to find out Obama was bullcrappin his way through the primary.


    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:45:54 PM EST
    Thanks Edgar08.

    Parent
    Is the Primary over yet? (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:10:19 PM EST


    Parent
    There were TWO votes on the Iran (none / 0) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:26:03 PM EST
    Revolutionary Guard? I only knew of one. Hillary, Ted Kennedy, and many party elders voted Yea on that. But, the vote I know of, Obama didn't show up for work that day and didn't cast a vote.

    In at least one debate he criticized Hillary for her vote, and claimed he would have voted against it. Not sure why Kennedy and all the others voted for it since Obama was sure it was bad to vote YEA.


    Parent

    I didn't know that, Gabriele (none / 0) (#129)
    by BoGardiner on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:15:04 AM EST
    Can you provide link(s)?  What a pisser, though of course the skewed coverage by now shouldn't surprise me.  I should have joined TalkLeft a lot sooner.

    Parent
    IIRC in a recent speech to a Jewish audience (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:02:52 PM EST
    he labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Good thing he missed the vote. Now he can take both sides of the issue. Surprise. Surprise.

    Parent
    He already did (none / 0) (#108)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:27:56 PM EST
    during one of the early debates. He criticized Hillary for voting YEA on that issue, and said he would have voted NO.

    Parent
    Necessary but not sufficient (none / 0) (#50)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    No doubt they can. It would be more to the point if you cited examples of stupid people who made good leaders.

    Parent
    And Pie, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    btw, I just want you to know that I love all the posts from you I've read (plenty).  I'm in agreement with 99% of the ones I've read, and I check in daily.  This is my first disagreement with you, but I just had to chime in on that one.  I hope we can have a productive outcome.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#125)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:04:15 AM EST
    Ed Rendel would be a much better campaigner and would guarantee PA.  Rendel is cool.  

    Parent
    how much are you worth? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:40:54 PM EST
    gotta know if suing you is worth the time. i cheerlead for gore, but i am a big fan of clark.

    heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I cheerlead for Clark too.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    ...even more than for Clinton. I was a latecomer to Hillary this election cycle and actually surprised myself with how strongly I came to feel about her candidacy. But Clark has always been my top choice. I get from him a sense that I don't get from too many other politicians that it really is about country and service for him above all else.

    Parent
    Once a Clarkie (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    always a Clarkie is my bet.

    I don't know of a single fan/cheerleader from the 'draft days' of '03-04 who isn't still a great admirer of Wes Clark, general or civilian.

    The saddest thing for me (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dave B on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:06:31 PM EST
    When I traded in my dodge dakota a few weeks ago was having to let go of that "America Needs Wes Clark" sticker.

    Parent
    I think my Clark sticker (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:16:36 PM EST
    saved me from a traffic ticket in Seattle last year.  The cop mentioned it as he gave me 'only a warning this time!'

    I think I'll hang onto this car for a while longer!

    Parent

    At lot of us who weren't (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:55:01 PM EST
    actual "Clarkies" in '04 are huge admirers, like me!  He might even make a great president, but he can't cut it as a candidate.

    There was a fantastic PBS Frontline program some years ago about Bosnia/Kosovo that centered on Clark and Holbrooke and both their differences and how they worked together.  Clark's intelligence, perceptiveness and just plain humanity, especially for a military guy, just impressed the hell out of me.

    Parent

    Yes. A multi-faceted (none / 0) (#124)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 01:37:25 AM EST
    talented human being.  There's a reason he and the Clintons get along so well...all of them unafraid of other smart people...not so ego-driven that they are worried about being outshown.  They not only like other smart people, they hire them and then - what a concept - let them do their jobs.

    I've often wondered what it was about Arkansas in the 50s that those single white mothers without great means or connections raised two boys like Bill and Wes, totally without prejudice, but with a proclivity for public service to country and the intelligence to be Rhodes scholars, 'first in their class.'

    Quite remarkable for that time and place.  Something in the water?

    Parent

    You are so right (none / 0) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:13:54 PM EST
    Count me among the great admirers.

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:58:31 PM EST
    ...I have come to appreciate him much more after he lost in the primaries.  He was inept at campaigning, unfortunately.  I supported him.  I liked Dean, too, but I felt that Clark would make mincemeat of King George. But he seems to have improved.  He actually did an excellent job attacking McCain the other day.

     He does bring out the really rabid anti-Clinton people, the "black helicopters massing at the Canadian border" folks that we all remember so fondly for their creepy radio programs back in the 90s, but those people are going to vote for McCain or the Constitutional Party candidate anyway.  I would be happy with a Clark VP.

     

    Parent

    "inept at campaigning" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:24:46 PM EST
    doesn't quite describe what happened in Clark's '04 race.  If you remember, he entered very late (when most experienced staff were already engaged in other campaigns), he was new, new, new to campaigning and inexperienced at this very special activity...and the public at large did not know him.

    Still...he improved as time went by and made more progress than many of his detracters and opponents.  Seemed to me he did better than John Edwards, then and now...another inexperienced campaigner in '04 (except for one lucky senate race).

    I'd say Clark did about as well as some of the "ept" and experienced campaigners who went nowhere...ie. Dodd, Gephardt, Biden to name just three.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:43:28 PM EST
    ...coming in so late was a major problem.  With his resume he should have been a top contender, and that would have meant more than TN.  

     Clark really had what it took, I think.  Looks, charm, graduate degree, very significant military expertise, etc.  His policy positions were sound and he could even afford to be a little more left.

     Instead we got Kerry, which...I still don't understand.  I couldn't convince a lot of people to go for him in MI and I have no idea why they were so impressed with Kerry.  I like Senator Kerry, but the guy who denounced DOMA as gay bashing on the Senate floor was not the guy to run in 2004.

     Regardless, I like Clark.  He would be a great VP.

       

    Parent

    More than anything else, (none / 0) (#142)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:09:05 AM EST
    ...I think that among Democrats Clark suffered from having been a Republican in the past. I think that he broke ground in that regard and that made way for other former R's like Webb to gain traction in the Democratic party. But in 2004 I just don't think it was going to happen. That's my opinion anyway.

    Parent
    Clark was never a democrat (none / 0) (#153)
    by miriam on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    He was a registered Independent.  (Check Arkansas.)  I can't figure out where that particular myth got started, unless it's that most career military are (or were) Republicans.  But not Clark.  I worked my head and heart off for him in '04 and would do so again in a minute.

    Parent
    Heck (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:30:55 PM EST
    Obama caters to the rabid anti-Clinton people.

    Parent
    "rabid anti-Clinton people" (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:23:54 PM EST
    The people Obama can't let go.

    So maybe Clark isn't such a good idea.


    Parent

    This is a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by SamJohnson on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:03:06 PM EST
    If Blanco and the Brownie had let Clark's team take over the Katrina response early on as was offered, I have no doubt an enormous amount of grief, death and damage could have been prevented.

    You sure that was Clark? (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:57:53 PM EST
    I thought that was that other superb Arkansan Clinton guy, James Lee Witt, former FEMA director.


    Parent
    Rodney Slater and Wes Clark offered very early on (none / 0) (#126)
    by SamJohnson on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 03:18:27 AM EST
    Founded in 2001, James Lee Witt Associates (JLWA) is a crisis and emergency management consulting firm based in Washington, DC with offices in Atlanta, Chicago, and Sacramento.  JLWA has unrivaled experience and hands-on knowledge of public safety, disaster mitigation, continuity of operations, and emergency management issues.  JLWA bridges government agencies and non-profits with industry and constituents, advises educational institutions, and assists state and local governments, as well as international bodies to prepare for and recover from disasters and crises.

    JLWA is uniquely positioned to bring together policy architects and technical experts in public safety, with leaders from all levels of government and private sector partners to forge solutions to emergency management challenges.

    The JLWA staff includes seasoned crisis and emergency management leaders with significant experience in the public sector to provide consultation on key issues of public safety.  The team is proficient in the details of emergency management, committed to the responsibility of the profession, and understands how crisis and emergency management work fits into a larger political and social climate.

    JLWA is comprised of two main practice areas: Crisis and Consequence Management and Strategic Advisory Services.



    Parent
    No Problem! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dave B on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    Ok, I cheerlead for one figure in politics, Wes Clark. So sue me.

    I have fond memories of reading Armando on the Clark general discussion threads during the 2004 campaign.  There were some great discussions, and I still think that Wes is the man.

    I met Clark (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Lil on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:29:16 PM EST
    at a non partisan VFW event 2 summers ago. He was great. He paid particular attention to my the 5 year old daughter and she still has his card in a toy wallet she plays with. He definitely had major credibility with the vets at the event. I had hoped he'd run again. I like him a lot.

    now why would (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:33:04 PM EST
    change agent obama want to be seen with same old 90s malaise bushist kyl/Lieberman supporting clark, anyway?

    The Answer is that Obama sets (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    the tone and agenda, and of course former Hillary supporters can be part of Obama's team--assuming they are willing to row in the same direction as Obama.

    Parent
    so if clark (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:09:09 AM EST
    thinks kyl/Lieberman is agood thing he better not say so while working for obama.

    Got it.

    Parent

    Here's a mirror. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:41:50 PM EST
    Use it.

    13-mbr advisory team vs 40-officer photo-op. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:12:12 PM EST


    Some $#@% seems to have taken offense (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:00:34 PM EST
    ... to this abbreviated comment, so I'll spell it out.

    Clark as not named to Obama's 13-member national security advisory team. He appeared at an Obama "appearance" with ~40 flag officers, bestowing vicarious military cred on Obama.

    Obama's campaign indicated Clark will be active in the campaign. Contra the premise of BTD's post, no indication was given to the effect that he will (or will not) be consulted on policy matters.

    Parent

    Would Obama name Clark to his national (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:11:52 PM EST
    advisory team if he was seriously considering him for the VP slot?

    Parent
    Sure - but he hasn't. No signal. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Love Wes Clark (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:12:52 PM EST
    Exudes decency, intelligence, honesty, loyalty, honor, respect for all (including women). Would prefer him for President, though, not as VP under Obama.

    Clark Rocks (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    I didn't know anything about him until I saw him at a campaign rally on C-span last election cycle. He is amazing, and the only reason he isn't a serious contender for President is that the media seem to be choosing our candidates lately.

    I joined Clark Campaign in '04 (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    What led me to do this were Clark's appearances on CNN during the lead-up to the Iraq War; he was continually indicating that he thought there was no immediate reason for war and that he felt the Administration should take time to gather more information.  The courage of a military man at the time to advise against war and to urge gathering of "facts" led me to his campaign.
    I posted above that Clark's area of study at Oxford was econonmics.  
    He also has credibility with many in the international community, including Muslims.

    Parent
    maybe the fact (none / 0) (#67)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    that he didnt choose to run has something to do with it.
    I agree, he is great candidate. But I dont know what the media has to do with him not running...

    Parent
    Yeah, like Edwards chose to drop out (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    He dropped out because the only way he could have gotten any press would have been to light himself on fire. Clark ran in 2004 and got virtually no attention. He was smart enough to not even try in 2008, but he would have been a d**n good Presidential candidate.

    Parent
    He got... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    ...a lot of attention early on.  I had been hoping he would run.  Unfortunately, Clark was a political newbie and had disastrous run ins with the media, including the NY Times. His support vanished.  

     If he had run in 2008, things might have gone differently.

    Parent

    Ding. Ding. Ding. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    That's entirely correct. I felt that the media had a lot to do with killing Clark's run. They kept telling us he was a bad campaigner but provided very little coverage of him other than constantly telling us he was a bad campaigner. He made a few gaffes that pale in comparison to some of the ones made in this primary by any of the major candidates and the Rethugs tried to smear him with some "character" slams from his former colleagues. But that was all we heard of him.

    I remember sending an email to Howie Kurtz (something I rarely bother to do, email these airheads) because he commented in a column that Clark didn't stand a chance because he wasn't connecting with people and was a bad campaigner. In my email I told him that Clark did connect with people, that I had just been to a Clark rally and he was awesome, engaging, looked you eye in the eye and really listened to what people said to him. Kurtz seemed perplexed enough about this description of Clark that he actually emailed me back to tell me I was wrong. LOL. He wasn't impolite. It was just that I found it so absurd to be told by someone that my impression (which I thought was mine to own and characterize as I saw fit) was incorrect.

    Parent

    Appears that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:35:18 PM EST
    is getting some of the best from Clinton administration and Hillary's campaign.  I am betting that she is in agreement with all this and helped facilitate their placement.

    Still not voting for Obama but like Clark....as long as I don't find out that he abandoned Hillary.  I react to anyone abandoning my candidate.

    of course he is getting the best (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by tben on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:47:51 PM EST
    thats how it always works. Someone emerges from a leadership fight, and then the party rallies round and people find their positions in the new order.

    Much as it may have seemed that way, the primary was not a contest between two different parties, it was for leadership of the same party.

    I think anyone could have predected at least 1/2 of the members of the nominees foreign policy advisory team a few years ago. No matter who ended up being the nominee.

    Parent

    I'm hardly crazy about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:46:30 AM EST
    I did just read about his National Security Team though and I'm pleased.  I wouldn't know who half of these people were if I had not married a soldier, but now that I have and now that I do I am happy with this list because these people are the voice of military sanity in my opinion.

    Senator Obama's Senior Working Group on National Security:
    • Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
    • Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
    • Secretary of State Warren Christopher
    • Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning
    • Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
    • Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
    • Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder
    • Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Adviser
    • Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
    • Secretary of Defense William Perry
    • Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State
    • Representative Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commissioner
    • Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Adviser

    Of course Madeleine Albright is my favorite.  Warren Christopher for the ultimate hawk balancing.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#137)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    Sam Nun.

    How do those in this group meld with Brezinski et al who have been advising Obama on foreign policy throughout the campaign?

    Parent

    Good question, dunno (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:55:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Clark's a "lifer." There's something (1.00 / 2) (#59)
    by tokin librul on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:37:11 PM EST
    screwed up about lifers, officers or enlisted. I don't trust 'em. Lifers mostly don't trust civilians...

    He's a high level lifer (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:32:45 PM EST
    He's had to deal with a lot more civilians than the average military person. When you get as high as Clark, you can't be insular.

    Parent
    My Dad was a lifer, as was his (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    father who gave his life in the service of his country.....Clark's personality reminds me of my Dad....kind, good, smart, strong.

    Parent
    Go ahead and flame me, but ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by robrecht on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:17:46 PM EST
    Long before I thought a unity ticket was advisable (Hillary on top, of course), I supported Wes Clark as Hillary's best running mate and I still think he's probably Obama's best choice as running mate.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:23:29 PM EST
    Last fall Clark would have been my choice for Hillary's VP. You'll get no flames from me.

    Love him for Obama's VP as well.  I hope he is the pick.

    Parent

    P.S. (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:41:31 PM EST
    I hope he is the pick because I'm convinced Hillary will not be the pick.  She would still be the best choice IMHO.

    Parent
    Not every person who voted for Hillary (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:27:32 PM EST
    wants her to be Obama's VP. So as far as I'm concerned no flames are necessary for you stating your honest opinion. Wouldn't flame you for your comment even if I wanted the VP to be Hillary BTW.

    Parent
    I think people think this is a typical site (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:46:07 PM EST
    In a lot of places, if you disagree with the status quo (or even with a large minority), then stating your opinion to the contrary will get you flamed. It's hard to get used the the civility on this site.

    Parent
    Me Too (none / 0) (#69)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    Wes Clark has the creds that would complement Obama beautifully.  By the way, I am still an ardent Hillary supporter but do not want to see her as VP either.  She should not be anyone's assistant.  She is too good.  Also, she would outshine Obama and that would not be good for anyone.  

    What does anyone think of Wes Clark on the ticket in terms of electibility though?  All I see is if Romney, then X, if Crist, then X, if Webb, then X.  Seems the pundits think that the VP should be able to deliver and otherwise undeliverable state. Boston papers have quoted Sen. Kerry as interested in VP, if asked, though it seems he is more interested in Sec. of State, as is Dodd.

    Parent

    Wes Clark would definitely help with electibility. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:23:43 PM EST
    Assuming Obama remains relatively scandal-free, Clark would help deliver Arkansas, help boost the ticket's national security cred (which would help with swing-voters), and probably help with some Hillary supporters.

    I think that only 5 other people have a realistic shot at V.P. and none of them (except maybe Hillary) would help as much as Clark.

    Parent

    If you examine Clark's 04 Primary results (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    You'll see he has substantial appeal in rural areas.  He won the Oklahoma primary and he came in second in several states -- I believe TN, among others.  His 1st place in OK and 2nd place in other states were not secured until late in the evening as rural votes were tallied.

    On another note: As a grad student now in psychology, I did a paper last semester on PTSD in combat veterans. What prompted me to do this was hearing about Clark speak informally, barely holding back tears, about trying to console the mother of a U.S. soldier who had tried to stop him from killing himself but ended up watching the suicide.  Clark really cares about individuals and this country.  You may not agree with all of his positions, but his patriotism stems from many things, among them great empathy for fellow citizens in need.

    I personally believe he would help Obama on the ticket.  I also think his many strengths as someone who has had the courage to speak unpopular positions, his caring about others and his substantial intellect well suit him for any one of a number of cabinet positions.
     

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    he should bo ahead and resign his Senate seat then. I understand that he actually has competition in the primary.

    Parent
    Yes, he does have competition this time (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:46:14 PM EST
    I think not since he was first elected (1968?) has he had another Dem running? He has essentially run unopposed for all these years. LOL  Word is that the Mass. Dem legislature was very unhappy with Kerry because of his early endorsement of Obama.  Mass. legislature was overwhelmingly for Hillary. Kerry is mad that he may actually have to campaign.  He wanted the summer off.

    Parent
    Kerry elected to Senate in 1985 (none / 0) (#98)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:12 PM EST
    I heard the last challenger was 24 years ago.

    Did anyone see his challenger on Fox tonight?  The interview is up at Fox, although a better interview is at PBS/Greater Boston.

    I still don't think he has a chance in hell against Kerry, but I sure don't mind making Kerry work for it a bit.  

    Parent

    He does not have a chance (none / 0) (#131)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:58:10 AM EST
    but this means Kerry has to campaign. It means he does not get the whole summer off.

    Parent
    Clark might be able to bring (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 09:25:20 PM EST
    Arkansas?  I have not seen anyone say that authoritatively though. He would do well in the west too - NM and CO.

    Parent
    I don't know much about Clark, (none / 0) (#104)
    by WillBFair on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:52:22 PM EST
    except that he's got charisma. But he also has a ton of military cred, which would probably do a lot to make Obama legit on national security. Obama will need something to counter his dictator parties, also known as the darling baby lambkins theory of foriegn policy.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

    It seems to make sense (none / 0) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:47:40 PM EST
    Clark could be the heavy and likely would do well against whatever GOP opponent he faced in the debates.

    One of my early top 5 choices.

    Republican women for Obama? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:52:12 PM EST
    The following article was published in the San Francisco Chronicle. It seems that many Republican women are already considering voting for Obama. Will Sebelius or Clark as VP help in sealing the deal?
    Clark probably more than Sebelius... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    ...IMHO. Republican women, just going from how they poll, are more security minded than Dem. women. Clark on the ticket would make them feel better about those issues. These are not, by and large, feminist voters.

    Parent
    Obama and General Clark | 143 comments (143 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment