Report: Obama Tells Wesley Clark "No Thanks"

Steve Clemons at the Washington Note reports that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has told Gen. Wesley Clark his services aren't needed at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Clemons adds in an update:

I have reconfirmed with General Wesley Clark's office that he has not been asked to play a role at the Democratic National Convention. His staff have told me that while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked.

If true, I guess that means Clark will not be the Veep candidate. Too bad. He would have been a great choice and brought a lot to the ticket in November.

< Time To Worry? McCain By 3 In Colorado | Obama Ignoring Arkansas >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is so frustrating how Obama (5.00 / 18) (#1)
    by nulee on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    seems to cut off all kinds of strong Democrats, Rangel, Clark... this isn't adding up to victory, in my opinion.

    yes! (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by jedimom on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    this concerns me quite a bit, it seems so far to be indicative of an almost Bush like tendency to push out valuable people with skills he needs, and it doesn't seem to bode well for 'unity' moving forward...

    especially with what is happening in Georgia, this just floors me frankly..


    They seem very anxious to push out (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    talented people and I'm not real confident about the replacements, whoever they may be. Personally, I think his judgment is highly suspect.

    But on the other hand, what can he do? They all outshine him.


    They don't "outshine" him (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:02:40 PM EST
    They "outsubstance" him.

    Too bad he didn't fix that little problem.


    How (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tek on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:33:26 PM EST
    could he "fix" it?  He is who he is and he has no experience.

    Clark would have been a better president than Obama. Sigh.


    Shine vs Strength (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by dead dancer on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    The breaking point is over "shine", and not strength. Strong dems are acceptable as long as they do not out shine the star of the show.

    Opening acts should not out shine the main event ...

    Only enough lime light for O


    This is just kind of nuts (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    Not just not VP, or not speaking, but disinvited from the convention?

    I mean wouldn't you at least want Clark in the audience?  On National Security night??

    It just seems like they are trying to tick off every major party member they can get away with.

    All this who's speaking and who's going and who gets a major role vs a minor role reminds me of The Mrs. Astor's famous role as gatekeeper and arbiter of 'the 400', the only people who could truly be considered fashionable among late 1800s NYC society.


    It certainly doesn't make sense to snub (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    one of the smartest and most capable military men who is also a progressive.   A lot of men are switching to McCain because Obama is so weak on experience and Clark would be very helpful bringing them back.  Maybe even help carry Arkansas too.  Real dumb move.

    The cited article reads: (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Nadai on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.

    Short of Obama saying, "Show up and you die," it really couldn't be clearer.


    I am shocked (none / 0) (#101)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:34:04 PM EST
    By this totally boneheaded move.  What is the Obama campaign thinking?!  

    Great comparison! (none / 0) (#91)
    by tek on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:34:31 PM EST
    And Mrs. Astor had so much substance.

    Well, if it makes Wes Clark (5.00 / 14) (#2)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM EST
    feel any better, I feel like the Obama campaign told me "No" too, but they did it several months ago.  

    The Unity Pony apparently can't carry that many people.  

    I'm begining to feel much better (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:37:05 PM EST
    about busunder land. We're in pretty good company considering we're just low-info bitter old ladies, lol!~

    I volunteer (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:02:05 PM EST
    to teach Wes how to knit.

    I believe the advantage to all this (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    Wes Clark, Charlie Rangel, etc. being snubbed is that we are getting a very clear picture of who Obama is and our complaints that he won't tell us about his character is no longer as important.

    TUCC Rev. Ottis has a nice role in the religious side of the Obama convention.

    For those who continue to think Hillary will be the VP, wouldn't you think she would insist upon her strong supporters being treated with dignity, and get that request fulfilled?

    Hey (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    Stop bursting my bubble.

    Ahem. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:36:39 PM EST
    Wes Clark, Charlie Rangel, etc. being snubbed is that we are getting a very clear picture of who Obama is and our complaints that he won't tell us about his character is no longer as important.

    I think he is telling us about his character -- or his lack of one.

    Actions speak louder than words.    


    That's what I said (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:39:22 PM EST
    He's SHOWING us, we don't need to hear it.

    Exactly Grace (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    Ottis has a role?! (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:27:49 PM EST
    Are they nuts?!

    He's one of 3 members of the panel (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:31:29 PM EST
    on Thursday who will tell the democrats what religion and the Obama administration will look like in 2009.

    Faith in 2009: How an Obama Administration will Engage People of Faith
    Time: 1:00 PM MT
    Location: Colorado Convention Center
    Moderator: Rev. Jim Wallis

    Rabbi David Saperstein
    Prof. John Dilulio
    Rev. Otis Moss, Jr.

    Here's hoping he doesn't bring (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:34:33 PM EST
    him out in prime time.

    Why would he even tempt that can of worms? {head meet desk}


    1:00 PM (none / 0) (#21)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:37:56 PM EST
    That this theme is going to be running all the way through the convention (something scheduled every single day) has me really worried.

    Then, that Joshua Generation campaign pamphlet should have been taken much more seriously, too.


    Yeah, I'm not very happy (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:43:12 PM EST
    at all with all this Faith stuff. I was thinking with Obama or McCain, we could put it behind us. Heh.

    It's funny because if McCain gets in office, I don't think he'll do anything in that direction and may not keep to his word on judges. Obama, well, he's a freakin' toss up now. What will he do?


    I think when he floated Ridge (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:55:06 PM EST
    it was McCains signal to the conservative right that the religious right will not continue to be in charge of the agenda.

    He ain't gonna be no compassionate conservative. The social spending will be one of the first things to go. It's the only thing that gives me twinges. Darn, this party anyway for putting me in this position.  


    If they succeed in getting a win out of this (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:57:01 PM EST
    election tactic, Dean and Brazile will have a permanent home in the leadership roles of the DNC.

    Keep reminding me (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:05:04 PM EST
    I keep hoping I'll wake up and this will all have been some bizarre nightmare.

    What I wouldn't give to have a party that represents me, my values and my interests.


    They are going to tell us what religion (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:34:44 PM EST
    will look like? Can someone tell me an I still living in the USA and do we still have a first amendment?

    It's offensive. Faith is a personal thing and I certainly don't need anyone to proselytize to me.


    Foolish (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by nell on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:08:10 PM EST
    He is going to bring Otis Moss out? He is present in one of the Rev. Wright sermons, I believe it is the one where Rev. Wright is gyrating his hips to illustrate President Clinton "riding" Monica Lewinsky dirty, just like he "did the black community." Rev. Moss can be seen cheering up and running to slap Rev. Wright on the back approvingly. He was so incredibly amused during this sermon. I could be wrong about which sermon it is, but I am pretty sure this was the one...in any case, no except for Sean Hannity really talked about the fact that Obama said he was staying in the church (I know he has left now) because Moss was a good pastor, except that Moss was cheering on Wright...

    Moss being on that panel could be just what the wingnuts need to bring TUCC back into the picture...


    Wasn't he also the one who (none / 0) (#87)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    gave that rave opening for Father Pfleger, too?

    uhhhh, Yes? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:43:57 PM EST
    Cold, man. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:27:14 PM EST

    I love how BO did this, too...so classy! (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    "I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

    Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come."  

    I'm surprised he didn't just tex his message to Clark.

    They may have. It just says "informed". (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    Perhaps he did (none / 0) (#13)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST
    It doesn't state specifically what method of communication was used :)

    I am starting to believe that Obama's campaign (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by athyrio on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    really believes they cannot lose their base...How stupid!!!!!

    The polls should be enough (none / 0) (#103)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:41:58 PM EST
    to tell them that they are already losing their base.  The more people find out about Obama, the better McCain does.  

    We are currently losing Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and Florida.  When the next poll comes out on Indiana, McCain will lead the electoral vote.  UGH!!!!!  


    Not much of a unity candidate IMHO (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:36:26 PM EST

    The magic eight ball (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:24 PM EST
    has been reading "highly doubtful" on the "Is Obama a Unity candidate?" for months now.

    By the end of the convention, the magic eight ball will probably read "definitely not".


    Brilliant! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    You've finally discovered the source of Obama's strategic insight!

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    aren't there any downticket races to support? I've decided to show up so I can vote for Jim Martin for Senate here in Ga. You can leave Prez blank or vote third party if you must.

    Why not just vote for McCain? (none / 0) (#24)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    Rhetorical question, BTW.

    The relevant concept (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    is to "vote FOR a candidate".

    I really, really like to vote FOR a candidate.  I find having to vote against a candidate a distasteful task.

    There will be more than two candidates for POTUS in my state.  One of them may be worth voting FOR.


    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    it's GA, it won't matter will it? Obama isn't going to carry Ga. And his ads are horrible. They make people want to vote against him.

    True (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    I wasn't thinking of you poor souls in red states.  At least you're not in the other Georgia.

    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    It is confusing these days to live in the GA of USA!

    Vote McCain (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:31:53 PM EST
    Give the Democratic a "Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!

    Works for me (none / 0) (#102)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:37:35 PM EST
    I see little alternative.  Obama is just too inexperienced and too scary.  Snubbing Clark is just one more indication that Obama doesn't know what he's doing.  My children and grandchildren's future is at stake.  I want them to have a future.   If Obama doesn't want to listen to anyone in the military, he may as well tell our enemies that that he's clueless.  Sorry, but that's just too frightening for our future.  

    so much for change (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by bjorn on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    Wesley Clark is not a washington insider, if Obama picks Biden over Clark I will be sick.

    Don't worry, He's going to choose (none / 0) (#104)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:43:56 PM EST
    the unpopular Governor of Virginia who no one has ever heard of.  Even sadder, it won't gain Obama anything.  Just as Edwards couldn't bring in NC, Tim Kaine won't help carry Virginia.  

    I'd say : (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:43:45 PM EST
    Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the "theme" of Wednesday's Democratic convention agenda is "Securing America."

    Wesley Clark's PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA.

    So who's going to speak?  John Kerry?  This is bizarre.

    Yes, I'm starting to think we are going to see (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:48:43 PM EST
    a VP "reporting for duty" if it isn't Kaine.

    All that will be left (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:51:49 PM EST
    will be for the party to have Barack Obama don duck hunting garb(to prove we aren't going to take guns away) to appeal to the voting crowd and we'll have John Kerry 2.0 down pat.

    Oh God (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:49:54 PM EST
    gag me.

    Obama gives the impression (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM EST
    that he can't be satisfied with a subtle snub of those who have disappointed him; he must deliver a knock out blow that no one will mistake. He wants to make certain his aim is straight, and swift.

    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:23:17 PM EST
    well the voters will have their say about this at the polls.

    problem is that (none / 0) (#96)
    by pukemoana on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:08:46 PM EST
    the knockout blow always seems to be aimed at democrats

    You're right, but it's okay because he has a (none / 0) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    huge supporting coalition of religious leaders surrounding him. Doesn't need democrats.

    Yup. Obama takes no prisoners. (none / 0) (#105)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:45:33 PM EST
    I suppose we should be grateful that he's allowing the Clintons to speak at his coronation.  

    Oops, I meant, his convention.  


    I know she wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    But after getting over the initial "dammit, what idiots"-ness of this, it occured to me that if I was Clinton I would immediately put pen to paper, and write the following:

    "To the Obama campaign:

    I have sworn to whatever it is asked of me to support Barack Obama in his campaign to defeat John McCain.  I believe in that goal.  But I must draw a line somewhere, and Gen. Wesley Clark is a great Democrat and a brave Foriegn Policy advocate, as well as a hero who served America exceptionally in the Kosovo conflict.

    The failure to include Gen. Wesley Clark at the DNC convention of 2008 will preclude my ability to participate as well."

    Etc. etc.  Now dammit that would just give Obama the excuse he wants to make sure Clinton doesn't have a part to play too, but maybe if that's what he really really wants, then he should get what he wants.

    But no.  That's not right.  Cause what he wants would be really bad for the country, cause then he would lose and that would be bad for the country.

    Quite a conundrum.

    Anyway, the madness has to stop somewhere and it's clear the Obama base isn't up to questioning these kinds of moves.

    I hate saying this (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    but I suspect Barack Obama may very well be bad for the country. This whole campaign season has reeked of ego trip. The last thing this country needs is another self absorbed person running it with the need to have vacations every couple of months because running the country is "hard work."

    McCain sucks but Obama does not seem like a better choice.


    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by nell on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:12:14 PM EST
    For the first time since the primary began, I found myself questioning this week whether it would be best to vote for McCain with the goal of saving the Democratic brand. Obama actions towards good people, like Wes Clark, who may not agree with him on everything, the excessive religious pandering, the need to take vacations so often, is reminding me a bit too much of GWB for comfort.

    I don't want another GWB in the White House, democrat or republican. What did this country so much hard was not just Bush's policies (though that was a huge part of it), but also his refusal to listen to anyone who had a contradictory point of view. He operates as the decider-in-chief, and he has an arrogance that is difficult to keep in check. I see the same personal qualities in Obama and I want none of it. None.


    I keep hoping Obama (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:19:18 PM EST
    will surprise me by being inclusive, by busting butt to unify the party, by being willing to share the spotlight with anyone, by being a progressive leader.

    I gave up (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:26:49 PM EST
    that hope in June. If he hasn't done it yet, then you really should give up "hope". It's "get in line" "shut up" and "get over it". Ironic, that the last phrase is a Republican trademark from 2000 eh?

    The people who most often use it (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:32:02 PM EST
    never appear to understand how offensive that could be to a Democrat.  Ditto for praising Reagan.

    After 9/11, we were either (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:25:43 PM EST
    patriots or traitors. The answer could be found in whether or not we supported anything Bush wanted to do. We got the Patriot Act and the Iraq war out of it.

    Since Super Tuesday, we are either an Obama supporter, or a ___. The Democratic Party no longer uses a democratic process for nominating its candidate for president. The convention is looking more religious than political, and I really want to know what we will get from an Obama administration.


    I know I know (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:13:51 PM EST
    And even if it's not an ego thing, if it's just wanting to avoid the drama of Clark being there and the question that is held over from the media, even if all it is is a well intentioned effort to control message and reduce distractions, it occurs to me we're talking about the same thing in the long run anyway.

    4 years of a white house focussing more on message control than, say, making sure FEMA shows up on time when you need them.


    And what of Al Gore? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    No Al?
    I got my little email plea from Al Gore to support Obama in June.  A Democratic Nobel Laureate ought to be a "shoo in" to appear at the convention. IMO.

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:15:55 PM EST
    What about that?

    And where's Feingold?  I have issues with Feingold in terms of how he criticizes people in his own party, but Obama's base loves the guy.

    Is he gonna be there?


    Gore is way dangerous. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    The man could get a standing ovation simply by walking onto the stage, or into a room.  He's also a major media magnet.  

    My god (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    The last thing we need is Dems getting Standing Ovations at the DNC convention.

    Only the right Dems (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    are allowed to get standing Os.

    Not sure how you get invited into that, dare I say it, elite group.


    He's a Democrat (none / 0) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:27:00 PM EST
    I doubt he sees a place for himself or his ideals in this gathering.

    Am just sitting here shaking my head (5.00 / 11) (#51)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:16:56 PM EST
    and wondering if the real reason they booked Invesco Field was because, based on preliminary measurments and looking at the trend, it was determined that only an outdoor stadium would be large enough to hold the massively swollen Obama head and the world-record-sized ego...

    I'll give him this, though: he has redefined audacity.

    Wow... (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    I am stunned... How could they push Wesley Clark aside like that? Forget about whetehr he's VP or not; this is quite an insult...

    I find it ironic that the Obama camp would allow all
    the false rumors about Colin Powell speaking at the convention and do this to Wes Clark???

    Unbelievable... The Obama's camp hubris is outrageous. Their "we do not need anyone" attitude
    is really insufferable and will come right back at them sooner or later.

    With talk of Georgia and Putin and Cold War II (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by jerry on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:31:36 PM EST
    and Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and how all of this favors McCain, whether it does or not, the best way to counter that, AND to give a nod to Clinton and her supporters would have been to take Clark as VP.

    Even more than that, Clark was absolutely brilliant when he appeared on FOX TV and demonstrated to Republicans that Democrats ARE strong on security.  I am convinced Clark had a large role to play in bring swing voters over to Dems.

    It's been rare that I've seen eye to eye with the Democratic nominee, but this is the first time they seem to want to poke me in the eye with each decision.

    I have two wing-nutty in-laws that love Clark (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:39:11 PM EST
    from watching him on Fox. They will vote for McCain but their reaction to Clark makes me know that many independent voters would take a closer look at Obama with him on the ticket.

    Clark took alot of flack (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:42:21 PM EST
    when he accepted that spot on FOX. IMO it was the smart thing to do long term. He's earned respect from folks that watch it for going toe to toe with the opposition.

    All those who support Obama (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Prabhata on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:34:20 PM EST
    are "nuts".  Speaking for me only.

    Somewhere in the back of my head (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by tree on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    I've had this sneaking suspicion for months that the DNC this year has been doing a bad remake of "The Producers". So many things have come up recently to support that suspicion. This is just one of them.

    Obama is just too young and immature (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:39:07 PM EST
    for presidential politics.  Peter principle or youthful arrogance.  I read his memoir at the beach this summer and I'm starting The Audacity of Hope tonight 'cause I keep looking for the key to who he is.  I've actually become rather impressed with him.  BUT HE IS GOING TO LOSE IF HE KEEPS ACTING SO STUPID!

    But he has to be better than McCain.

    When you finish the books, be sure you (2.00 / 0) (#75)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    go online to research how much of it is true.

    You are only learning how well Obama can write. He took creative license with the truth. Pay attention to what you are reading. Numerous things are missing reasonable logic and are easily proven false.


    And also (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    Clark is one of the most convincing Obama surrogates.  He seems believable and authentic when he talks about Obama doing X or Y in foreign policy.  

    How is he good enough for TV, but not good enough for the convention?  

    I would've invited him without question.  He is such a great team player.  

    I think it all boils down to ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:49:13 PM EST
    Clark saying Obama was not ready to be Commander in Chief during the primaries.  Obama's political vision is all about himself as a person bringing people together.  He can be self-deprecating but cannot tolerate criticism of him by others.

    Now why does that (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:53:28 PM EST
    sound familiar? Who else has needed to surround himself with yes men?

    There is no way in hell I will ever accept the (none / 0) (#77)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:56:46 PM EST
    'Obama is just like Bush' BS that is popular among some here.

    His ego (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:05:04 PM EST
    appears to be about the same size. He continues to feed this perception everytime he snubs someone who was diametrically opposed to him for no apparent reason other than they were opposed to him.

    I agree with this ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:10:02 PM EST
    but a lot of politicians have huge egos.  Great presidents have great egos.  It doesn't work the other way, 'though.

    Lincoln (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:28:05 PM EST
    didn't surround himself with yes men. The founding fathers weren't afraid to spar. Hamilton and Jefferson were adversaries who lived to spar with each other.

    If Barack Obama were smart instead of trying to snag ex GOP members to place in his cabinet he'd be looking for DEMOCRATS who were opposed to him and be picking their brains for why they preferred Hillary.

    I find it absolutely astounding that he'd float the idea that he'd be welcoming folks from the other side of the aisle into his cabinet but he can't put his ego aside long enough to be gracious to people from his own side of the aisle that opposed him in the primary.


    I absolutely agree ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:31:57 PM EST
    but just because Obama is no Lincoln (and Bush is no Lincoln) does not mean that Obama is the same as Bush.

    The difference is (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    Large ego and confidence.


    Large easily bruised ego


    Again I agree (none / 0) (#86)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    but Bush's ego is not easily bruised.  In a way that makes him even dumber and stupider.

    Bush's ego (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    is certainly not easily bruised, but Obama's seems to be quite fragile.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:06:03 PM EST
    considering that flip flopping and suddenly seeing the light is a politican's stock in trade, it doesn't make any sense politically to use that statement against Clark.   Clark has been singing Obama's praises most effectively for a while now.  The "not ready to be C-in-C" statement is remembered mostly as Hillary's, not his.  

    Clark could easily worm out of that May statement.  Since that is obvious, Obama's decision must be out of some personal thing.


    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:12:14 PM EST
    Obama can eventually accept criticism at least after a few years.  Once he's internalized his new vision of himself.  But not now, not while he's busy imagining himself as president.

    What, is Obama 13 years old?!?!?!?!?! (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:34:16 PM EST
    He's nearly 50, for crying out loud. It's a little late to be internalizing "his new vision of himself."

    We need a stable, mature personality well beyond such silliness. This isn't a therapy or 12-step group. This is the election of the leader of the free world.

    Obama clearly isn't suited for that job, either by experience or temperament. Neither of the Clintons would play it like this.


    In the end (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jen on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    this is an advantage for Clark. When Obama crashes and burns, Clark will be far, far away.

    It also verifies for me what I've always though about Obama -- he's in this for himself, and not for the good of this country.

    Selfless Narcissism (none / 0) (#106)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56:06 PM EST
    In his mind, the good of the country and his own good are one and the same.  He's been so desperately lonely that he finds himself in an idealistic vision of what he's doing for others.  Really a very interesting study in personality.  I'll have to ask my wife for the proper diagnostic code.  Some kind of paradoxical selfless narcissism.

    No. (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:43:29 AM EST
    More like Obama hasn't gotten his butt kicked enough.  The thing I found amazing about the Clintons is how they manage to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and forge steadily onwards.  I don't think I've seen Obama do that even once.

    It's not fun having your a** handed to you, to have supporters turn on you and friends abandon you.  That's when you figure out who you really are and what is really important to you.  That's when you discover the reasons you need to keep on fighting.  


    I agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    McCain (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:12:12 PM EST
    Given the nominees we have President McCain is the best choice for the country and the Democratic party.

    Look at it this way. The next president will be a failure. I would rather he be a republican.

    Obama would be catastophic for he country and the Democratic party. He is running on media adulation. There is absolutely nothing he has done in his entire life to justify the adoration he has gotten from the media. JFK was a war hero. He was tested under fire. Obama has led a charmed life, gone from job to job never accomplishing anything in any job he has held.

    McCain is not Bush. He has been tested under fire. He has a history of working with the opposition party.

    Obama is a lot like Bush. Same lack of accomplishments. Same arrogance. Same delusions of grandeur. We had it for 8 years. We don't need more.

    The Selfless Messiah (none / 0) (#107)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:03:47 AM EST
    I think you're absolutely right about Obama's delusional state.  But Obama's 'selfless messianic delusion of grandreur' is not really the same pathology as Bush, who knows deep down that he's just a screw-up.  Bush's idiocy is that he thinks that if he just follows his own limited lights he can make it good by stubbornly doing the right thing as it was explained to him once when he was sober.

    General Clark (2.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    The Messiah is purging the Democratic party of anyone who was not a cult follower from day one.

    The One is like a movie star who believes his own publicity. In his mind he doesn't need Clark. He doesn't need Hillary. He is going to win all fifty state. All by himself.

    The One is surrounded with cult followers like Markos, Arianna and the rest who tell him he is the the Messiah.

    Loyalty: Obama-Style (none / 0) (#95)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    Gen. Wes Clark stuck his neck out for Obama. He did the heavy-lifting when it came to the thankless task of going on national TV and stating that John McCain's military record does not qualify him to be President. He took a lot of heat for it -but, he was a credible figure to make the charge. It probably took him out of any consideration for the VP spot. Until then it was mostly something you only read in the "comments" sections of blog sites, usually with some rant about how "Songbird"  gave the North Vietnamese nuclear codes or some other nonsense. In other words,  he tried to elevate this criticism of McCain to a respectable level, where it would be taken seriously. He did this to help the Obama campaign. And now, he is not even permitted a speaking role at the convention?

    Apparently he isn't even permitted to attend.... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:36:39 PM EST
    "...no reason to come."

    Obama may be only pretending to diss (none / 0) (#108)
    by prittfumes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:42:04 AM EST
    General Clark. That way it will be a huge surprise when Clark shows up as O's VP nominee.

    Seriously? Why would he do this? (none / 0) (#109)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:49:27 AM EST
    Just a thought. Otherwise, why on earth (none / 0) (#110)
    by prittfumes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:56:01 AM EST
    would do they do something this stupid?

    Because they are this stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:05:58 AM EST
    I actually think Obama is quite smart.  He's just young and inexperienced and immature and not ready for realistic presidential politics.  He's still striving for an identity vision.  Pretty impressive that he's actually able to use presidential politics to try and accomplish this task of young adulthood. Clark spoke the uncomfortable truth when he said Obama is just not ready to be Commander and Chief, so he effectively disqualified himself from participating in Obama's commencement ceremony.

    Excuse the finger flutter ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by prittfumes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:58:31 AM EST
    Why on earth would they do something this stupid?

    Hoping This Is a Head Fake (none / 0) (#115)
    by Deborah White on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:31:17 PM EST
    I'm shocked if this is true. Gen. Clark is probably the best-qualified, and smartest political, choice to be Obama's VP.

    I'm hoping this is a head fake. If not, it causes me to lose a measure of confidence in the judgment of the Obama campaign.