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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama and General Clark | 145 comments (145 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... (2.66 / 3) (#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 (4.66 / 12) (#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 / 6) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 2) (#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 / 2) (#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 / 1) (#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.

    Met him too (none / 0) (#103)
    by shannon on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50:12 PM EST
    at a conference in 2003. The rumors were out that he was going to run for President -- told him he should do it! He simply said, " I thank you for that." I got his autograph and will keep it forever. He's a great guy and would be a great choice for VP.

    [ Parent ]
    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