From a Die Hard CLARKIE: Why What WES CLARK says about OBAMA doesn't make any sense!

[FrenchieCat]

As a steadfast and devout Clarkie, I am deeply disappointed in Wes Clark for speaking out against Obama's CIC qualifications in the way that he has. Considering that Obama really may be the Nominee, Wes Clark is literally jumping into the frey in assisting to bring down the party that he has always said he would work hard to lift up; the Democratic party.

This is not as though there has been no voting already. This is not as though Hillary is ahead and simply attempting to put Obama away. No, this situation is not like the time a month prior to Iowa in 2003, when Gen. Clark said that he wouldn't be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney (and anyways, Hillary needs a Dick Cheney Veep or a Former President Husband too).

Since the summer of 2003 until Wes Clark announced his support for Hillary Clinton in October of last year, I had donated to his campaign, to his PAC, to candidates running that he wanted me to support. I have called states, written letters to the media, to Governmental Representatives, and responded at various websites. I was one of his staunchest defenders at DU in particular. I bought his books, went to his speeches when he came to my neck of the woods, and even flew to New York from California to his "Securing America" PAC opening, etc...

In other words, I have done everything in my power humanly possible to support Wes Clark in each and everyone of his endeavors.

Here's the website that I have maintained for the past couple of years with the expressed purpose of defending the General: http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/

Unfortunately for me, today, Wes Clark has broken my political heart. Whether I will be able to get over it, I don't know.

I had to work in S.F. today, and so I was unaware of his newly stated public opinion about Barack Obama until I got back this evening.

I have read and listened to his words as he raises doubts as to the abilities of the most effectively inspiring candidate that has come along in a great while, and one who is very definitely in line to becoming the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States of America.

The more I thought about it, the more I questioned why Wes Clark would say something like what he has stated about Barack Obama, when this is nothing he has ever said about Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, now nor then....and we all know that Bill Clinton had no more Foreign Policy experience then did Barack Obama during his first run (actually, based on the committees that Barack sits on and the legislation that Barack has been able to pass, Barack has more Foreign Policy experience than did Bill Clinton). And we know that sleeping with the President is not a credential for becoming CIC, especially if you don't attend National Security Meetings or have National Security Clearance at the time that you find yourself in the White House.

Well, Let me explain further.....

In 1993, the Clinton Administration allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered with Machetes in Rwanda, while the world stood by. General Clark was one of the few who offered a military plan to the Clinton administration to send troops there to stop the violence. He was ignored and his plan went nowhere. Why? Because the Clinton Administration didn't want to chance the political fallout and lowered poll approvals after the Somalia disaster.

Did Wes Clark publicly criticize Bill Clinton for this unforgivable occurrence ever; before or after he was retired from the army? NO.

In 1994, Wes Clark was made Director of Strategic planning for the Joint Chief of Staff under Clinton. He has talked about this, during speeches many times; the fact that there was no global strategic plan put in place by the Clinton Administration. It was his job to get it done, and so he tried....but he has maintained that we still don't have a real effective strategic plan, to this day.

In 1999, Wes Clark had been begging the Clinton administration to intervene in Kosovo for quite sometime, according to one Samantha Power (2003 Pulitzer winning Author of "Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide "). And although eventually Bill Clinton allowed it, Wes Clark, than Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, wasn't allowed to fight that war the way that he felt it should be fought. In fact, Bill Clinton allowed Wes to fight the war with one hand tied behind his back.

There was a big showdown in reference to the use of Apache Helicopters during that Kosovo war, and Wes Clark was rebuffed at every turn in reference to being allowed to use them (For low altitude bombing). The war ended up lasting longer than it should have, and possibly more civilian lives were lost due to this decision.

Shortly after the war was won, and General Wes Clark had been totally dogged by Pentagon Knives, he was summarily retired early. This is not something he wanted or had asked for; this was his prize for having won Clinton's Kosovo war while Bill Clinton was busy defending the Blue Dress via impeachment, and God knows where Hillary was.

Did Bill Clinton stand by Wes Clark and defend him on this stab in the back from Clinton's Defense Secretary and his pentagon minions? NO.


Did Bill Clinton have to courage to attempt to reverse an obvious wrong on Clark's behalf and make it right? NO.

And so, Gen. Wes Clark left the army that he has said time and time again he loved more than anything, after his family.

--------------

Wes Clark has always maintained that he was against the Iraq War and would have "probably" voted No, if he had a choice. This was one of the strength that he offered up during his Presidential candidacy. He had maintained that the Levin Amendment was the way to go on that vote. Of course, Hillary Clinton did quite the opposite. She Voted for the IWR and voted against the Levin Amendment. Did Wes Clark denounce her as not fit to be CIC based on this terrible vote at that time, or anytime since? NO.

Do I think the felt that her choices were the right ones? NO.

Hillary Clinton didn't bother to read the NIE prior to her Vote on the IWR, and so she hadn't done her "homework". Did Wes Clark criticize her for this lack of due diligence? NO.

In fact, oftentimes, during his talk of support for Hillary Clinton, he states that she does her "homework", which really wasn't the case, when it came to voting for the "Biggest Strategic Blunder in American Foreign Policy History", as Wes Clark likes to refer to the debacle that we are currently engaged in.

What is odd, is that the very Senators who listened to Gen. Wes Clark and quoted him in their floor speeches against going into war, and voted NAY on the IWR, have mostly endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. There's Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Durbin, and Sen. Feingold, Sen. Chaffee(R) among others.

Hillary Clinton said she believed that Saddam had WMDs when she made her IWR speech. Wes Clark had testified the exact opposite during his testimony to Congress in September of 2002. Has Wes Clark criticized her for it, then or since? NO.


More recently, Wes Clark had been devoting himself to a website called stopwariniran.com . He felt that the Bush administration were saber rattling and basically instigating war. He was one of the first voices to call for "Talking" to Iran, and was lauded for it.

Meanwhile, Hillary was giving speeches to AIPAC doing her own Saber Rattling. Then right around the time that Wes Clark was gathering signatures in reference to this "Stop War in Iran" action, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iran Resolution.

Did he criticize her at the time for clearly taking such action? NO.

------------
And so to conclude this long drawn out reason why I believe that Gen. Wes Clark is simply not making sense when making the statements that he has made against Sen. Barack Obama's experience or lack thereof, is that it is Senator Obama who was against this war from the start, and stated so in much clearer language than Gen. Wes Clark ever did; not Hillary Clinton.

It is Sen. Barack Obama who states that we should talk to Iran instead of saber rattling; not Hillary Clinton.

It is Sen. Barack Obama who worked and got something accomplished in terms of passing some Nuclear Non-Proliferation legislation; not Hillary Clinton.

It is Sen. Barack Obama who voted for the Ban on Cluster Bombs in civilian areas (and Wes Clark knows the dangers of the exact dangers of Cluster Bombs) and it was Wes Clark who said that we need to limit where we use them; not Hillary Clinton.

And so after all that I have said, my only point is that Gen. Wes Clark simply isn't making any sense with this opinion when comparing Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton. I don't know why he doesn't see the disconnect, but it is definitely there, clear as day.

I will always respect and admire Gen. Wes Clark for his own accomplishments and his own leadership on military matters; but I have to say, what Gen. Wes Clark showed me today, is that although he himself possesses the qualities required for a Commander-in-Chief, he is very wrong when he states that Sen. Obama doesn't have them, and Hillary does.

And so, here is my message to General Clark:

"General Clark, I respectfully disagree in total with your opinion on this issue. It takes wise judgment and strong leadership in doing what's right and not anything else to lead this nation, and unfortunately, the candidate that you are supporting has shown time and time again that she is the one not fit for that duty."

Yours Truly sorry about this,

FrenchieCat

[anigbrowl]

1. Excellent post - you said it all, fairly and honorably.

[FrenchieCat]

15. I want to be fair and honorable.......and honest.....

and all that I can see is the great wide disconnect in his lack of actual back up evidence that has allowed him to form the opinion that he voices in reference to both of our Senators running.


Sadly.

[HootieMcBoob]

137. I share your disappointment

I was a huge Wes Clark supporter for ages. I understand his support for Hillary but I don't understand his talking crap about Obama. Not good form at all. Does this destroy my hope for an Obama/Clark ticket? It looks as if it does. I thought Clark was bigger than this. Really sad.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. This is all so strange.

And wasn't Samantha Power one of Clark's advisers, or at least an endorser, during his 2004 campaign? Strange doings. I'm confused and disappointed.

[FrenchieCat]

20. She endorsed him very strongly.

And it is sad that in having to choose, I'm with Samantha on all of this, not Wes Clark.

[ingac70]

3. ....

http://www.factcheck.org/was_wesley_clark_a_republican.html

[FrenchieCat]

32. I have defended Wes Clark on this

dumbshit as well. Many of us have. You are very late on this.

[elixir]

146. Agreed, this issue is settled.

[tabatha]

4. I share your disappointment. I also supported him in 2004.

Possibly Hugh Shelton was right — "integrity and character issues".

Maybe he "owes" Bill Clinton for 2 stars.

I am surprised that he would support someone who did not bother to read the NIE.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Hugh Shelton has also endorsed Hillary Clinton......

and so, Wes Clark should know that what he is saying should have better remained unsaid (and the timing sucks, maybe before Iowa, but now?)....considering how Shelton weighted in on his opinion of Clark, when Clark was running for President.

[tabatha]

28. Yes, I knew that - and was surprised at the mix.

[elleng]

45. tabatha,

shelton wanted to slam Wes for shelton's own reasons. Edwards?

I'm shocked that you would suggest that Wes OWES bill clinton anything, especially after his many accomplishments and kudos.

[leftofcool]

5. Since Wes Clark

is a Rhodes Scholar, a brilliant military strategist, well versed in foreign affairs and policy, smarter than I am, and may know something I don't know, I will refrain from judging.

[FrenchieCat]

31. No one is infallible......not Obama, and

certaintly not Wes Clark....no matter how much I respect and admire the two of them.

Wes Clark was also counseled not to contest Iowa in 2004, and he listened.....which is why he is not President today.

In this case, I am calling Obama fit for duty. However Wes Clark wants to disagree with me, I would love to have that debate. And unfortunately for him, I believe that he would lose....because his reasoning doesn't add up as to why he is supporting Hillary Clinton beyond the fact that he prefers to see her as President. Everything else he is saying is political, and I, for one don't appreciate it or believe his words to be correct on this.

[Cha]

115. That's right..no one is

infallible.

[seabeyond]

6. it makes sense cause he is friends with both clintons... n.t

[FrenchieCat]

82. Wes is friends with a lot of people....

and at one time was friends with Samantha Power.....

Didn't seem to much matter in the case of the latter.

[lewis_in_fw]

7. Experience does not matter! Anyone CAN and SHOULD be able to become president *NT*

[No Blood for Hubris]

152. You're right! Look at the great job the feckless, reckless, inexperienced Bush

has done.

A mere 600K dead. A country bankrupt, morally and fiscally.

Yes, let's put another lightweight in the White House! And hope for the best! No, let's hope for change!

[kid a]

8. Message to Frenchie Cat: I agree totally with this post!

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I too was wondering about his support.

=)

[PurityOfEssence]

Reminiscent of the complex celestial mechanics used to "prove" that the earth was flat.

Bummer. The guy's an opportunist; face it.

That said, he's still got his good points, and there's plenty of taint to go around, too, but this is very consistent with his forthright inconsistencies of the past.

You, on the other hand, have remarkable consistency in your choice of leaders.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Why weigh in.......

as you are implying negatives about Clark, Obama and me.

So sad that you have nothing "real" to say, only dissing another DUer as part of your day. :(

[returnable]

9. As another former Clark supporter...

...I share your sentiments, which you have expressed so eloquently.

:kick:

[No Blood for Hubris]

155. I think you're all hypnotized.

McCain will demolish Obama.

[GMFORD]

168. Obama has already begun

demolishing McCain. McCain has started talking about 'change' and even used Obama's slogan 'fired up, ready to go'. Already started playing on Obama's field and the GE campaign hasn't even started. Don't worry about our man Obama, he's subtle but he's good.

[DJ13]

10. I voted for Clark in the primaries 2004

And I think he's much like Colin Powell, in that he's been the "good soldier" for so much of his life that he honestly believes that if a current or former President (Bill) wants him to support something (Iraq in Powell's case) or in someone (Hillary for Clark) that he will obiediently salute and move on to fulfill his marching orders.

It doesnt excuse the way Clark is now blindly following the Clintons and despairaging Obama, but he's just following orders and doesnt understand that Bill is no longer his CinC.

[Maddy McCall]

11. You yourself said the same thing. How quickly you forget.

Submitted by FrenchieCat on November 30, 2006 - 3:56am

Basically, without someone like Wes Clark in the mix, Hillary and Obama will stay away from the National security issues during that election; meaning Democrats will appear as weak as they tend to do.
His analysis is fascinating! --

AT THE PREMISE -
http://thepremise.com/archives/11/29/2006/736

Several weeks before that I wrote that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win the White House, because 2008 will primarily be about national security. I still think that’s true, too.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9904

*********************************************

So, le chat, now that Wesley is "in the mix" and on Hillary's side, it would appear by your logic that you should be supporting Hillary.

[zabet]

25. Wesley Clark

the latest recipient of
honorary tire tracks on
his back. He is officially
under the Obama bus now.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Is that what you got out of my post?

That's is officially sad.

[Skwmom]

12. Excellent post. I have been deeply saddened and puzzled by

Clark's support of Clinton (which seems to contradict so much that he stood for). I wish an interviewer would ask Clark the above questions.

Another major puzzlement - Clark is a smart man and anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that the Clintons are willing to destroy this party (and country) for their own benefit. Why try to hurt Obama's chances? Why is he traveling down this path? He obviously is blinded by something. I have a guess but I wouldn't post it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

108. It's a mistake to overlook the underlying assumptions of even the sharpest minds,

because they can be bigger idiots than the rest of us on that most fundamental of levels.

Clark's continual trimming and backtracking show him to be shifty and opportunistic. That is not smart, whatever his IQ and academic accreditations. The grounds given by his superiors for his early retirement related to 'character', and seemingly, not without reason.

[MaryCeleste]

13. Has he stated anywhere why Hillary would be better than Obama or McCain?

[bigtree]

17. nope. that's the telling thing about this new 'outrage'

That was the conclusion of the author of the article. I think his actual comments fall well short of that conclusion.

[MaryCeleste]

44. Good thing, since I can't see how hers would be much better

Have to wonder why he is making those kind of pronouncements

[No Blood for Hubris]

156. Yes, of course he has. You are apparently living in a Rovian fact-free universe,

or you don't deign to Google.

[andym]

14. Google search result: Samantha Power endorses Clark in 2004

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=503

Also acted as an advisor:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994021,00.html

[FrenchieCat]

16. Oh yes, I know........

It was through reading her book, that I came to support Wes Clark....which makes it that much more ironic and why I believe his opinion on this to be flat out wrong.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. WOW, what a post!!!

Well said.

[Purveyor]

19. Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment

--snip--

While media commentary on Clark's prospective candidacy has been almost entirely favorable--even adulatory--it's worth looking back at a forgotten chapter in his military biography that occurred when Clark was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander In Chief for the US European Command. Call it Clark's "High Noon" showdown. It's an incident that deserves scrutiny because Clark's claim to be an experienced leader in national security matters is tied, in significant part, to his record in the Balkans.

On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units--an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the three-star general and commander of K-FOR, the international force organized and commanded by NATO to enforce an agreement in Kosovo, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting world war three for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport. (Jackson was rightly worried that any precipitous NATO action could risk a confrontation with a nuclear- armed Russia and upset the NATO-led peacekeeping plan just getting underway with the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.)

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered Admiral James Ellis, the American in charge of NATO's southern command, to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply--replying that British General Jackson would oppose such a move. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO- negotiated compromise with the Russians--a positive element in the roller- coaster relationship between Moscow and Washington, which eventually incorporated Russian troops into peacekeeping operations--might well have been undermined.

In the end, Russian reinforcements were stopped when Washington persuaded Hungary, a new NATO member, to refuse to allow Russian aircraft to fly over its territory. Meanwhile, Jackson was appealing to senior British authorities, who persuaded Clinton Administration officials--some of whom had previously favored occupying the airport--to drop support for Clark's hotheaded plan. As a result, when Clark appealed to Washington, he was rebuffed at the highest levels. His virtually unprecedented showdown with a subordinate subsequently prompted hearings by the Armed Forces Services Committee, which raised sharp questions about NATO's chain of command.

As a Guardian article said at the time, "The episode triggers reminscences of the Korean War. Then, General Douglas MacArthur, commander of the UN force, wanted to invade, even nuke, China, until he was brought to heel by President Truman." Of course, the comparison is inexact. The stakes were not as high in the Balkans, but Clark's hip-shooting willingness to engage Russian troops in a risky military showdown at the end of the war is instructive nonetheless.

Indeed, it is believed in military circles that Clark's Pristina incident was the final straw that led the Pentagon to relieve him of his duties (actually retire him earlier). Clark had also angered the Pentagon brass--and Secretary of Defense William Cohen in particular--with his numerous media appearances and repeated public requests for more weapons and for more freedom to wage the Kosovo war the way he wanted (with ground troops). At one point, according to media reports, Defense Secretary Cohen, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, told Clark to "get your fucking face off of TV."

---eoe---

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=945

[FrenchieCat]

21. I have defended Wes Clark on this incident.....many times

and I still do.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/10/smear_debunked_clark_would_hav.html

I believe that he is a very capable and brilliant leader.......and I also believe that it is Barack Obama who has the qualities (just not military style) present to lead this country, not Hillary Clinton.

[andym]

36. deleted-- answered wrong post

[defendandprotect]

22. Isn't the disconnect that Hillary supports the war in Iraq and Obama doesn't . . . ????

Clarke is military --- !!!
And Hillary has been sucking up to him for a long time!!

[FrenchieCat]

26. There are many disconnects.....and certainly, her IWR vote

is one of them.

But even the way that Clark has described what should be done with Iraq, are some of the same steps that Barack Obama has clearly stated. Being as careful getting out as we were getting in, and all of that.

[defendandprotect]

50. They've both been funding the war --- Disgusting !! . . .

But, I was backing it up further . . .
Clinton has pursued Clark, has she not?
Isn't Clinton quite cosy with Clark?

IMO, Obama would like to distance himself from her pro-miliary positions --- ???

And, what about the contributions Clinton has taken from military/weapons manufacturer---???

As far as I'm concerned, someone who isn't talking about the "illegality/immoraity" of this attack
on Iraq ain't talkin' at all ----!!!

[karynnj]

129. Senator Kennedy funds the war that he was 100% against - it is not equivilent, even if HRC says so

[bigtree]

27. you mean by voting for each and every funding bill until beginning the 2007 run for the presidency?

. . . like Obama did? That disconnect?

[FrenchieCat]

38. Hillary did as well, so there is no difference there for Wes Clark to use as reason....

except for this......

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq.

Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal.

After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one…We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obama’s Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

“He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. “In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

“‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

“But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,’ he said.”
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp-iraq-statements/

[Carolina]

113. FC, I just love how you blow away the opposition with

FACTS!

[1776Forever]

166. Your information is so factual and thorough! I thank you so much for it as I am sure Obama does!

:hi:

[Skwmom]

24. One guess I'll make public - he's blinded by the promise of VP.

There's a quote which I can't recall at the moment but it's something along the lines of having the infinite capacity to reason/rationalize your decisions.

In the past, I've seen really good honest people rationalize what I'd loosely term as "less than honorable" decisions.

[Hawkeye-X]

29. Frenchie - I remember our fights back in '04

Woo - the Dean/Clark fights were something else, weren't they? :D

Glad we're on the same team this time!

Hawkeye-X

[Eurobabe]

51. Ooooh you were a Deaniac?

So GLAD we are all Obamaniacs this time around! :grouphug:

[Cha]

119. Well, not all of us..

I've seen a few who are for his opponent but now we're talkin' about more disconnects.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Yeah....we were pretty good at it, weren't we......?

but the difference was that it wasn't about dividing the party in the same hateful sense. In 2004, Kerry kinda of took it like a whirldwind right off the top, and left us all in the dust....while the current primary contest is splitting the party, and harming the November potential for success--

I find what is happening now to be more harmful to all of us. :(

[Cha]

118. Me too..Frenchie's a good

one to have in your corner.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. I've heard some stories about Wesley Clark

I recall that some European allies were shocked at his bellicosity during the Kosovo conflict and thought of him as a loose cannon. Either way it doesn't matter now. I firmly believe that he probably wanted the position of secretary of defense and now he probably can't have it because of Obama. I guess he wants to poison the well for Obama so he and the Clintons can go at it again in 2012.

[elleng]

39. Cali,

Wes in ineligible for SecDef.


Bellicosity? Quotes?

[MaryCeleste]

46. Why do you say that...he should be eligible for any political appointee position

There may well be a restriction in the law and I don't know about it.

[elleng]

70. There is a legal restriction;

must be out of military 10 years.

[MaryCeleste]

91. Thanks, I was unaware of that

[FrenchieCat]

71. There is a restriction for Sec of Defense......

10 years out of uniform minimum.

Clark will not be that till 2010.

[defendandprotect]

53. Sounds right to me ......

Meanwhile, I think that Clinton also has long seen advantages for herself in this relationship....

[FrenchieCat]

60. Go to my website......to see that all of what you are talking about

has been debunked. And of course, all good leaders will develop enemies, jealous souls, etc...

I just find him maybe loyal to a fault. and maybe that's the soldier in him. Or maybe he likes the Clintons, as they go back a long ways. But whatever it is, Hillary certainly didn't go out of her way for Wes when he ran.

And no, I don't believe that he's thinking about running for anything in 2012. He is way past that.

Could he be the Veep that Hillary wants? Possibly, although I don't trust her on that, but
this is why I find the Obama Veep talk from the Clinton camp curiously disingenuous.

[Carolina]

116. "Hillary certainly didn't go out of her way for Wes when he ran"

because she wanted GWB to win again, so she could rise up in 2008. If a Dem had won on 2004, she'd likely have had to wait until 2012.

[windbreeze]

186. I just have to ask this....

Does everyone at all times, agree with the other person? or their manner of dealing with a situation...does everyone always agree that this or that means the same thing?? does everyone always get the same message as everyone else?? NO!! Especially on a world stage with other countries and cultures involved!!!

Have you ever met the man, or are you making YOUR assumptions about him, based upon the words of others? I hate to tell you this, but in the real world, there are those who just look for ways to malign others...there are those who look on the wrong side of everything, or work to make a mountain out of a molehill...because it suits their own purposes...Clark is one of those people who does things because he perceives that it's the best thing to do in a given situation...not in order to benefit personally..

You said..."I firmly believe that he probably wanted the position of secretary of defense and now he can't have it because of Obama"...give me a break...would you?? In reply I say...I firmly believe nothing of the sort, and it's obvious YOU don't know what YOU are talking about...HE KNOWS he can't be Sec of Def...so why would he waste his time lusting after a position he knows full well, he can't fill for at least 2 more years???geeze...a person gets tired of the sos all the time, but then I guess if someone tells a lie often enough, eventually it does become the truth...wb

[Skip Intro]

33. It is NOT bringing down the country to question whether Obama is qualified for the job he seeks.

In fact, it is patriotic.

[FrenchieCat]

35. No, it is bringing down the PARTY!

Hello.

Hillary Clinton is not fit to lead, and if she is, why don't you illuminate us on that point, instead of telling me what what is.

[Skip Intro]

37. It is not bringing Anything down to seek of an applicant his or her qualifications, at any point.

Obama has no golden ticket. Questions about his qualifications are not only justified, they should be mandatory.

[FrenchieCat]

Do you want to give us Hillary's qualifications as you see them.

I'd appreciate that very much.

I have questions about her qualifications, and I agree that they should be mandatory.

In addition, I believe that I stated the reason quite clearly in my lengthy OP. You can find them if you read what I wrote.

[defendandprotect]

55. I agree with that --- however.... poor candidates, whether Obama or anyone else

will hurt you later ---

deal with it sooner ---

[FrenchieCat]

63. Now that's a matter of opinion, isn't it.....

meaning that I disagree with you on this.

And being vetted in the manner that Obama is being vetted is unfair and unwise. This is a primary, and so, this is not the time to use scorched earth politics against someone who, according to the math, you cannot beat except if you beat him down to a pulp.....someone that is bringing tons of Democrats willing to work into the party. That's just not wise.

Read here:

....there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.


What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.)

Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

[Carolina]

117. as if Shrillary is qualified or experienced... PATHETIC!!!!

[andym]

40. There is only one explanation for Clark's statement

Given the very interesting points you make, and the fact that Clark knows that the commander in chief is a position that requires common sense and good judgment above all others, I think there is only one explanation. Clark is very close to Hillary Clinton, knows her fairly well and believes she will make a great President. He has committed himself to her campaign. He likely knows Obama far less well. Although Clark is a fair man, he is also human and his loyalty to his friend probably prevents a completely unbiased assessment on the commander in chief issue. In the heat of battle, sometimes even the best people make errors of judgment. Nobody is perfect.

Perhaps someday Clark will be proved wrong in his assessment by the "facts on the ground", although I suspect he will have realized his mistake before then.

[FrenchieCat]

74. Certainly your post says a lot.....

but doesn't answer the fact that it is Hillary that Wes has most differed with in his own views than it is Obama.

And again, in many ways both Clark and Obama have these leadership qualities (in different styles) that makes them more alike than makes them different.

I have read both of their books; Clark's 3 and Obama's 2.

If Clark is saying that Hillary is best suited because Bill will be there, that is not of any great comfort to me....because Obama could have someone there too.....

Hillary does her homework, he says. That's just one of the problem with Clark's reasoning.

But yes, he has stated that everyone has that relative who really believe what they believe, and even though they are wrong as hell about that one thing, may be just fine with other subjects.

Wes Clark recounted a story about his folks not being tolerant of African-Americans back in the days of Little Rock civil rights unrest, and him feeling in his gut that they were 100% wrong about it without knowing much else....but that this didn't stop him from loving them, or feeling that they were right about a lot of other things.

That's how I feel about Wes Clark right now.

[andym]

80. I think you feel the same as I do

I admire Clark and think he would have made a great President. Like the passage you quote about the relative who is wrong about one thing, even the best people have blind spots.

I think he just personally likes and admires Hillary Clinton a lot and that probably takes precedence over specific political differences on the issues. Hillary is also only 3 years younger than Wes, so there is a possible generational connection too

[FrenchieCat]

85. Possibly......

[elleng]

41. (((Frenchie)))

;-(

[FrenchieCat]

42. Hey There!

Glad to see you!

Am I making sense and is Wes not?

I want your opinion.

[grantcart]

43. I've never understood the tremendous devotion that Clark was able

to get 4 years ago. Seemed like a good guy but kind of ambiguous. These last four years he has been ready to the call whenever Fox needed a liberal they could set up and then tear down after he left. I have a lot of Clarkie friends who still pine for him. I think that he actually has out done Richardson in the "pick me for something" race this year. Richardson atleast has gained some of his dignity back by espousing some independence.

Maybe he is just a very loyal guy.


I don't think he can be considered a top tier guy anymore. Maybe he thinks that if he can't be in Clinton's cabinet he has a better chance of being the token democrat in McCain's. He is just kind of a mystery to me.

[FrenchieCat]

47. I believe that he could have kicked Bush ass among other things....

not by playing dirty, and lying and cheating and by making shit up about Bush, but by leading and showing wisdom on the issue of war.

However, considering the grassroots movement that he worked with during his own candidacy, his support for Hillary Clinton and her lack of interest in a bottom up organization makes me that much more baffle about his support for her. It would seem that he would have understood better than most (apart from Dean) that Obama is the one with the organizational and leadership qualities that are more valuable than any "establishment" attitude that one may have.

He is about the only good thing that I believe Hillary possesses.

[grantcart]

68. well she sure does seem to own him

[FrenchieCat]

72. That's the part that kills me.....

this eager devotion very similar to his support for John Kerry...but of course, that was during the GE when he should have spoken out harshly.

The thing about Samantha Power was truly heartless though...considering their own relationship, hers and Wes'.

[grantcart]

78. well nothing serves you so well in Washington as being able to show that

you can take one for the team. I expect it will help her book sales and in January she will have a substantive job.

[Skwmom]

Maye it is Sec of Defense and Clark strongly believes that he

is the one who can rebuild the military (b/c it is devastated). I don't believe he's in it for just the power. A lot of people can be blinded by purely good intentions. It might be a combination of things. I'm sure he's convinced that he's doing the right thing, I just strongly disagree with him.

[Eurobabe]

49. Clark lost me when he endorsed Hillary, she is the antipathy

of just about everything he stands for.

I have unsubbed from WesPAC and sent him a message telling him I am deeply disappointed in his shilling for a war monger, while dissing Obama.

[Cha]

122. Thanks for letting him

know why.

[No Blood for Hubris]

157. You mean "antithesis." Antipathy is what you have, toward Hillary. I'd call it blind

prejudice plus mob mentality.

[Donna Zen]

52. A very sad day Frenchie on many levels

First on a purely personal one: Samantha Powers stood by Wes Clark and was there when he needed her in NH. That Wes would so blithely stab her in the back on a day that could not have been pleasant for her is truly a great disappointment for me. I really believed that the General could be trusted to stand by his friends.

On policy, his attack makes no sense at all. What both camps have said is that they will put together an exit strategy when they know where we are come 09. Wes has said many times that the occupation on the ground is a fluid situation. He knows very well that Samantha Powers was saying exactly that. Everything he said today was nothing more than spin which was meant to deceive. Ah...for the days of the truth teller who made it easy to support him. Gone. And for what? He continued the attack on Obama's credentials as part of TeamHillary, and weakened a Democrat.

Finally, Lee Feinstein was also on that conference call. That is the same Lee Feinstein that said that the only problem with bush's preemptive war policy is that it doesn't go far enough. That is who General Clark now considers his friend while Powers doesn't get a chance to answer the charges being leveled at her.

Bill Clinton ended Clark's career and protected a republican.

To remain whole about this, I refuse to regret giving my time and money to Wes, but I would never do it again.

For good measure read Gary Hart's Breaking The Final Rule

As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.

[still_one]

57. There is no doubt in my mind that hillary has promised something to Clark if she is elected /nt

[Donna Zen]

59. Heh?

Even if it is so, which I wouldn't bet the farm on, that does justify General Clark's lack of personal integrity regarding a loyal friend, Samantha Powers, and his lack of candor when discussing Iraq. Leadership is standing up when no one else is standing up. Ooops! That's what Powers said about Clark. I guess she can now retract those words.

Truth is very important to me even when considering politicians.

[still_one]

61. I didn't say it would justify what he is doing, I just said it is a possible reason

power corrupts

Clark made some controversial moves in Kosovo against the Russians, that concerned the British enough that they intervened

[elleng]

75. As to Clark - Kosovo-Russians-Brits,

check Frenchie's post, above; she has discussed that matter thoroughly.

[Skwmom]

58. I kind of wish I hadn't read this post.

[FrenchieCat]

66. I do have to agree with you.......

although I didn't want to....because it makes it doubly sad.

It is a very hard day for me.

Very hard indeed.

[elleng]

67. ((DZ))

Too sad.

[still_one]

54. Did Wes Clark bring in mccain's name when discussing his thoughts on Obama?

and yes your points are excellent

I have no doubt the hillary has promised something to Clark if she is elected. The truth is bill clinton had LESS experience than Obama

As far as hillary clinton's assertion that she and mccain have more experience, and thus implying that they are both more qualified than Obama to be president, consider this:

Is it better to have more experience, or better judgement?

I also reject her premise that she has more experience than obama for the reasons stated in your excellent rebuttal to General Clark

[johnnydrama]

62. great post

Myself and Bill Clinton circa 1992 agree with you 100%

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/29821-bill-clinton-1992-barack-obama-2008

[Beregond2]

64. Clark

I was also stunned and baffled by General Clark's words. He has contradicted everything he ever stood for. I can only think that Hillary promised to make him Secretary of Defense, but he had a very good shot at that with Obama too. He certainly won't have a role in his administration now. What good did he hope to accomplish? What could he have possibly been thinking? It is tragic to see one of the best military minds we have make himself useless and irrelevant in this way.

[nonconformist]

65. If he's someone you respected and admired, why don't you consider the fact that he's right?

Clark has considerable experience with foreign policy and national security, and I trust his judgment on this. I know he wants what is best for this country, bottom line, and would never point us in the wrong direction. I think Clark must have some serious misgivings about Obama to say something so damning, and that alone gives me pause. I trust General Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

69. You can Trust as you like, but please know that I am a thinking person, meaning .......

I come to my own conclusion, and do so with due diligence.

I thought about this, and I believe that I have clearly chartered in my OP exactly what I think, and why, and have provided ample evidence over time of my strong support for each of these men, and so I am not biased in my opinion whatsoever....because I respect both of them immensely.

So please know, that I have researched very closely both of these individuals, on both Wes Clark (for years)and on Barack Obama (for months), and they are more alike than many might suspect.

I am no fool.


Respect that please.

[nonconformist]

73. I'm not talking about blind faith

I know that Wes is phenomenally intelligent and an expert in these sorts of things, though. I also have complete trust that he would never lead us astray. But in doing research on things, one has to consider the opinion of experts on the matter. Just like I thought Joe Wilson had expertise that warranted listening to, I think Clark does too. I also think that Clark knows things we don't know.

[FrenchieCat]

76. I mentioned this upthread, because it struck me.......

In some of his speeches, and in his last book, Wes Clark recounts a story about his folks not being very tolerant of African-Americans back in the days of Little Rock school integration and civil rights unrest, and him feeling in his gut that his parents were pretty much 100% wrong about these beliefs that they had.....he felt, he said, without knowing much else on the issue....

but, he stated, this disconnect that they had on the issue, didn't stop him from loving them, or from feeling that they were right about a lot of other things.

That's how I feel about Wes Clark right now.

[nonconformist]

83. That maybe be how you feel, but it's a bad analogy

How someone feels about race is a poor comparison to an expert giving his opinion in the area of his expertise. One is an opinion based entirely on emotion, while another deals in facts.

Of course people who love each other can "agree to disagree" about emotional opinions... but this isn't Clark saying he prefers Hillary's personality to Obamas or something like that. He's saying that in his esteemed opinion, Obama isn't ready to be CIC. I really don't think he'd say something so direct just for political reasons. I think he has some serious reasons to think that is true, and likely a lot of things that he is privy to that we aren't.

[FrenchieCat]

86. The analogy was perfect,

and race was simply the example....not the point. It was a good analogy because it belongs to Wes Clark.

And no, I don't believe that Clark is basing his support for Hillary and what he says about her on facts. I outlined that in my op.....which you have yet to challenge; the point by point reasons that Wes doesn't really agree with Hillary on a whole host of things regarding foreign policy and, in particular her actions as well as Bill's in many cases.

And so again, I disagree with your opinion that Clark made a case based on facts. Indeed he has not, because there is no evidence that he presents that backs up why he so believes about Hillary according to his words.

Believe me, if I found any reason to support his contention that Hillary is suited "better" to be CIC, I'd be slightly better off. The only thing that I can think of is that she's married to Bill Clinton who was once, not long ago, President. If that's his case as to why Hillary is "better" suited, than that is a sorry case he's made.

As to being "privy"....I believe myself to be quite well informed, thank you.

Kind of like while I was marching against this war, and Wes was testifying that we should give no Blank check, and Hillary was voting for the Blank check. I wasn't "privy", but I was right.

That's the case I'm making.

[nonconformist]

95. And I was right too

I was against the war from the get-go, too. I also consider myself to be pretty well-informed. But that's not what I'm talking about. Obviously Wes had and has access to information that isn't in the public realm, and I think you knew what I meant.

Here is some of the transcript of the phone interview

Some transcript if you haven't listened to it yet. See downthread... or up...
_______________________________________________

WES(on the Samantha Power Iraq quote):
I found the comments quite disturbing - because to get out of Iraq is gonna be very difficult, and if you don't go into it with some fixed ideas in mind --and I think Senator Clinton's plan has it exactly right, You've got to do it with a responsible withdrawal- You've got to know when you're gonna begin, and you've gotta work it through -- if you simply show up and say "OK now what's this all about?" You're gonna own the war. (bad cell reception here)

Iraq ---there will be concerns of chaos and pandemonium, there'll be concerns about renewed civil war, neighbors in the region will be concerned--- It's gonna take a REAL STRENGTH OF CHARACTER to execute a pullback from Iraq and to preserve America's interests in the region at the same time. And that means KNOWING where you're headed before you start down the path. So, I think what you've got from senator Clinton is a real plan that indicates the strength of character necessary to lead the nation and be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

I'm quite concerned about what we've heard from the Obama camp today, because I'm not sure exactly where it leaves us, but I'm quite concerned that it will leave us... still at war.

Thank you General Clark - Next Jamie Rubin

JAMIE:
Yes, I think General Clark has spoken to the substantive importance of this and the words frankly speak to it directly and don't need much interpretation.

I think the point here is that on Monday this week Samantha Powers, described as probably the most influential of his advisers, with unlimitied access to the candidate, and given a very unique description as a unique Svengali guru-- wahtever you want to call it.... and frankly I feel very sorry for her. I know he... she's done great research on the subject of genocide... She's a very scholarly and intense person.

The problem here is at the TOP -- Senator Obama has created in his Foreign Policy team, an unworkable structure-- to have someone like this operating out on the side with unlimited access, and talking openly. And that's his fault- not her fault. She's a professor, she's a very enthusiastic person. I think her remarks were... awful about Senator clinton and about this, but I feel sorry for her that she's been put in a position where he can't seem to run a foreign policy team the way it's supposed to run.

Now Senator Obama has said in several of the debates that the way he's running his campaign is a good indicator of his ability to manage the incredibly challenging job of President. He said that in at least one debate. And on foreigh affairs, in particular....words matter. And frankly much of foreign affairs is making sure that the rest of the world understands what you say, what you mean, and that you mean what you say.

And to have two in a row...to have a private difference of view expressed on NAFTA by a top economic advisor, and then the next week to have- on the fundamental issue of this campaign - again the impression that one thing is said for political purposes perhaps, and another thing is what's actually gonna happen... um, is amateur hour on making foreign policy. I'm sorry to say that but that's what I think it is, having been involved a litte bit in the organization required and the discipline required to communicate in this area. The reason words matter in this case is because in many respects this election is going to be a referendum on Iraq.

WES REPLIES TO DAVID CORN of MOTHER JONES (a semi-hostile question like 'Aren't you all making much ado about nothing?')

WES:
--And Jamie, if I could just follow up on what you're saying ... The environment in which this is going to become operative -- were the Democrats to win, and were the Obama team to go in there -- Consider this: Both the General in charge, Dave Petraeus, and the Ambassador Brian Crocker, are scheduled to leave... So the strong leadership, the experienced hands on the ground... won't be there.

So the new team comes in-- there'll be all manner of predictions of catastrophe and calamity. That's the way these things are when you're trying to pull forces back. And if you don't have some strong principals to guide you - you'll end up owning the problem.

And what concerns me about the statement that Samantha made- and I know Samantha very well, she's a fine person-- But if this represents the position of the candidate....it suggests that what's going to happen is that there isn't strong guidance at the outset.. That, "Folks we're leaving. Now, let's get it going and then we'll talk about the details."

And we've got to have the strength of character to commence withdrawal and pull out of there. This is about strong leadership. Strong leadership is about operating from principals that can be looked at, and examined, and worked over, and defended. And that didn't come through. Maybe they're there, but we didn't see that. What we saw was basically, you know... everything's up for grabs.

ANDREA MITCHELL chimes in and tells them that they are not being FAIR to Obama -- and asks if they think this is a "fair attack"? (cough)... Then she tops it off with another question about Clinton having talked to Canada about NAFTA saying it's the same as Goolsbee did on behalf of Obama. She asks them again. They deny it again. She expresses doubt ... geez Andrea. Give it a rest...

WES (on Iraq pull out again)
I don't think you can say - as some of the Democratic candidates tried to say - long in advance of the circumstances -- Well this is it, they're all going to be gone, everything's going to be out of there, the last American soldier will have left - You can't say that. Because to say that is to say something that is probably not going to be _____ (done? inaudible word, cell going out)

I always thought, as an average American voter, that what people said in campaigns is what they intended to do.

And so I was very concerned when I heard candidates promising a hard end date... like... 16 months. That's it. They're outta there. I'm thinking, how can they possibly mean that? What does that say about their judgment? I think what you have to have is a hard beginning date. And that's what Hillary has. You have to have----

(and then, Wes's phone goes out-- and then he comes back!)

I'm on a highway in Oklahoma. It didn't come through, sorry.
What I was attempting to convey was the importance of a realistic position as a campaign pledge-- and what Hillary has is a realistic position. What we've heard from the others.... is not.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14953#comment-28937...

Obviously, one of the huge problems that Clark has is that Powers is directly contradicting what Obama has been saying on the campaign trail. I think this makes him question Obama's sincerity and drive about the entire situation.

[dbmk]

132. Clinton talking points

Clarke severely misrepresents Obamas take on the issue in that interview. And pumps up Hillarys. With no basis for either. None that I can find at least.

None of the nominees can make a fixed plan before they sit in the seat and have access to the full intelligence. And Obama has said so before and that was what Samantha Powers said too. Infering that Obamas plan is limited to going to work on the first day and go "So, whats up?" is disengineous at best.

Claiming that a hard beginning date is a significant difference is definately funny. If the matter wasn't so serious.

His entire comment and argument is based on that still elusive idea of Hillary being more prepared. Without delivering _any_ facts as to why that should be the case. Read it over again. Not a single thing to back up the argument.

"And we've got to have the strength of character to commence withdrawal and pull out of there. This is about strong leadership. Strong leadership is about operating from principals that can be looked at, and examined, and worked over, and defended. And that didn't come through. Maybe they're there, but we didn't see that. What we saw was basically, you know... everything's up for grabs."

I know where I _don't_ see those things (assuming we are talking about principles).

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

159. you mean - don't believe what you see and feel - and that is wrong

That is what Bill Clinton has been pushing - "don't listen to your feelings"

I listen to my feelings, they are right at least 99% of the time.

[nonconformist]

172. I believe that going with your feelings despite what experts have to say

is called "faith".

[FrenchieCat]

178. No it isn't.....

it's called knowing who you are and what you believe. When one reaches a certain age, one becomes too old to be a mere political groupie. Faith is totally different from that, as it involves trust without thought. That's not anything that I'm practicing when it comes to my politics. I would be of no use to myself, and therefore I would only be of use to others if that were the case.

[incapsulated]

77. There was no need for this

You *know* he is supporting Hillary.

We are in the middle of a tight race.

He was going to criticize the opposition, that is politics.

Thanks for using him to prop up Obama and bash Hillary.

If you were really upset about this you wouldn't be posting this shit on DU for partisan bullshit.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Actually, incapsulated.......

yes there was a need; my need to say what I felt, as this contest is very important to my future, and to the future of my children.

And Clark said it best, that dissent is patriotic. He has said this time and time again.

I am not being disagreeable, but I can well disagree.

And if you haven't noticed, I have not disrespected Wes in my op.

He chose to make his statements public, and that was his choice.

And I made mine.

he has a forum to speak to many more than will ever have.

But, I do have a forum to speak.

I think that I am allowed, because I don't think that even you can question my work on behalf of Wes Clark throughout the years.

I'm sorry that I have offended you, but I have and will always remain true to myself prior to remaining true to anyone else.

Again, I am sorry if you feel hurt about this one thread here at DU.

But realize that I don't have television cameras around me, so you can rest assure that my opinion, unlike Wes', will not be heard around the world.

[David Zephyr]

81. K&R.

Well said.

[Catherina]

84. Recommended

I'm sorry for your pain

[FrenchieCat]

87. Thank you!

I'm somewhat relieved that you noted that, because yes....this has been painful. :(

[Catherina]

89. I sent you a PM

Did you get it? Or do I have to be a donor? As soon as I can, I'll donate but not for a few weeks.

[Catherina]

90. You're welcome

Your integrity is very impressive. That makes me feel even worse for what you're going through :hug:

I was feeling a little blue earlier and a friend sent me this. I hope it makes you laugh as much as it made me. Hang in there, it will get better. YES WE CAN!

[Laelth]

88. His sin is that he's loyal to the Clintons.

What's sad is how his loyalty has been abused.

Awesome post, BTW.

-Laelth

[Lena inRI]

92. Excellent supported OP, Frenchie. . .

. . .I have been suffering disenchantment over General Clark's 180s on IWR/Kiel-Lieberman bill as well. But your thorough account shows even more Clark anomalies. . thanks for your clarity.

Have you read my earlier posts before yours here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4959434&mesg_id=4960554

What I would like to add is that, IMHO, General Clark is being used by the Clinton campaign to shore up Hillary's weak C-I-C image AND this exploitation started when Clark suddenly dropped out in 2004 even though he earned strong results in several primaries, not just Oklahoma. That's when candidate Clark morphed into Clark the Hillary hack. I'll give him that much. . .course, my cynical view is that the Clark role for Hillary could have started as far back as Sept 2003 when he was supposedly "drafted" as a '04 candidate.

I hope you reply to my post here as some former Clarkies have, but I noticed you have never done so to my past posts. . .like I'm persona non grata.

I'd appreciate any comment as I, too, cope with my Clark let-down.

Obama's truly the new direction we must follow. . .GOBAMA!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

96. I cannot put Wes and hack in the same sentence.......

because I don't see him as a hack.....

I just believe that he signed up with the Hillary camp when Hillary was a sure thing, and she needed his cover when the whole General betray Us vs. Move On.org controversy went down (Clark endorsed her a few days after). I don't believe that Wes Clark, apart from a whole lot of people in top spots of our Democratic party, thought that Barack Obama and his message would reasonate as it has.

I believe also that his Arkansas roots, his work in the Clinton administration, the generational divide, and the fact that Wes believes that there is a big mess to clean up is why he is supporting Hillary Clinton. I think in my hearts of heart, he supports Hillary because he knows that Bill Clinton would be right there in the White House. In other words, I think he supports Hillary not for her own qualifications, but because National Security is important to him, and he considers Bill Clinton has having done that, been there. What he fails to understand is that Hillary Clinton really isn't any more prepared to argue National Security in her own right and that she, herself, is not all that in National Security. That's the blind spot that he doesn't see; that Hillary on NS simply isn't all of that.

[Lena inRI]

105. I see. . .you believe Clark is not hacking for Hillary . . .

. .when he puts Obama down as an unprepared CinC, all the while blindly believing Hillary is prepared.

Have you seen this most current self-effacing, gracious interview of Samantha Power?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

When I compare Samantha's allegiance to Obama and even Hillary if need be, and then hear Clark's unequivocal put-down of Obama, AND his and the Hillary campaign's utter silence on Samantha's apology. . . I'm sorry to disagree, Frenchie. Clark is no longer the incorruptible gentleman to me. . .he's hacking away at Obama. . .for Hillary. . .and he doesn't FEEL the pain of conscience. . .only his "loving loyalty" to the Clintons. Some blind spot that is!

So I agree with you but to a greater degree of disillusionment.

How unfair it could be that Clark will be doing all the "national security-foreign policy HOMEWORK" while Hillary gets all the credit. . . his belittlement for being blindly loyal.

Thanks for your thoughts. . .peace. . . GOBAMA ALL THE WAY!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

[elleng]

109. Frenchie,

trying to address your earlier question, but you've said here something I've thought:

"I just believe that he signed up with the Hillary camp when Hillary was a sure thing, and she needed his cover when the whole General betray Us vs. Move On.org controversy went down (Clark endorsed her a few days after). I don't believe that Wes Clark, apart from a whole lot of people in top spots of our Democratic party, thought that Barack Obama and his message would reasonate as it has.

I believe also that his Arkansas roots, his work in the Clinton administration, the generational divide, and the fact that Wes believes that there is a big mess to clean up is why he is supporting Hillary Clinton.'

And it was around the time he knew he'd have to tell us all that he would not run; I think he was discovering that he couldn't get necessary $ BECAUSE OF their big sweeps of funds. He can't possibly bow out, even tho I suspect he's seen some things he's not happy about; wouldn't be decent/proper/ethical for him to do so. He's stuck, and he'll not do politics again.

Will be back; trying to move from apt. to townhouse, so 'unrelated' stress here.

[FrenchieCat]

144. Thanks......yes, you've summarized my thoughts well.......

Take care! :hi:

[Adelante]

93. Poor Frenchie; poor me

You have so much courage. I know how this hurts you to do. :cry:

[tokenlib]

94. So many Clarkies failed to follow into the Hillary camp...interesting...

Monitoring DU and so many other blogs..it is so amazing that so many of the die hard Clark supporters who waited and hoped for another run failed to take that last step with him.. When he went to the Clinton camp, it seems that so many of them--perhaps even a majority went to Obama. I wish a study or poll had been done on it. If it could be proven, I wonder what Wes would think about that.

Honestly, when Wes decided not to run I was really floored. And although I can understand his loyalty to his former Commander in Chief--some of his comments about Obama have really shaken my image of him--and not for the better.

[nonconformist]

97. I was really hoping that Clark would run

When he didn't, I didn't support anyone at first. I really REALLY wanted Clark. After awhile, I started supporting Edwards passionately, though.

After he dropped, and I found myself forced to choose between two candidates who were not my top choices, I had a lot of research to do. There are many reasons why I decided on Hillary over Obama... I prefer her positions on policy, particularly health care. She's a policy wonk, and it really can't be denied. She knows her shit. We have already seen how ideology-driven administrations end up - Reagan, Bush I and II. Obama even praised Reagan's ideology-driven presidency and contrasted it with Bill's policy-driven presidency (which he criticized). That's a huge, fundamental difference I have with Obama that can't be overlooked. One of the main problems Democrats had with Bill's administration was shitty policy that ended up passed in compromise with the right-wing. Ironically, that seems to be the main thing Obama wants to do. But overall, the Clinton presidency was a time for unprecedented peace and prosperity in the U.S. and it was clearly a better time for America than it was under these ideology-driven presidencies. Obama seems to be light on substance and high on style, and frankly, I've had enough of that crap.

I also don't trust Obama to follow through on what he is saying in speeches, because he has a bad track record in that regard. So I have a lot of reservations about all of his lofty rhetoric entrancing people so he can get into office. Also, for someone who is supposed to be a "uniter", he seems pretty damn divisive. Kind of like the last one.

Anyway, these are just a few of the reasons I chose Hillary over Obama. But remember, I really REALLY wanted Clark. It's quite obvious that Clark will have a significant role in Hillary's administration, and I think he'll be her running mate. She needs someone on the ticket like Clark, someone with a ton of national security and foreign policy experience that can go toe-to-toe with McCain. Clark has a broad appeal that will easily peel away some of McCain's support in the GE. I think a Clinton/Clark ticket is a WINNER, but more importantly, I think that they would do a fantastic job. Because it is about more than just getting into office.

[Avalux]

106. Do you know why?

Those of us who were die hard Clarkies liked the fact that he wasn't a Washington insider; wasn't part of the establishment. He spoke what he felt (I remember when he declared he was a liberal and proud of it) and I thought he was an honest man with the best interest of the people of this country at heart. He had a positive message.

AND - he spoke out against Iraq before we went in and warned it would be a catastrophe.

It's very, very disappointing he has decided to support Hillary at all costs and degrade Obama - a candidate who is very much like himself. I would have hoped he'd support him.

I'll never feel the same way about Clark.

[IndianaGreen]

98. An excellent post FrenchieCat.

I suggest to you that what Wes Clark did should not come as a surprise to those of us that see the corrupting influence the Clintons exert on anything or anyone around them. I would like to hear Clark explain the reasons he chose to speak the words he spoke. We might have to wait until after Denver to hear his side.

[dansolo]

99. This lends credence to the Clark as the anti-Dean in 2004

I remember during the 2004 primaries it was suggested that Clark entered the race as a Clinton "stalking horse" in order to derail Dean. At the time, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his genuine neutrality. With these statements, I'm not so sure anymore. It sure seems like his loyalty to the Clintons outweighs everything else. I wonder if she has promised him a position in her administration.

[Joe Chi Minh]

100. I warned you about Clark, Frenchie, and you thought I hated America!

(Well, I don't think you said that.)

Heck the man did his durndest to start WWIII, and getting rid of the military-industrial complex and its beneficence, only to replace it with sticks and stones, could well be the only solution I'd be ambivalent about.

[FrenchieCat]

102. You can throw the kitchen sink at him, as you always have......

but unfortunately for you, that is not what my post is about.

but, you knew that!

[Joe Chi Minh]

103. Now, now, Frenchie. No need to be huffy! It's not such a misfortune to me.

I admire people who can change their minds when pushed beyond a certain limit. But it's still fun to pull your leg.

I always took Clarkies for imperialists and, while I'm not sure Obama wants to go down that road, we know Hillary has no qualms about it. So, colour me agreeably surprised at your stance now.

Was it the uniform? No. Sorry. Couldn't resist it.

[krkaufman]

101. Great post, FrenchieCat. I also supported Clark in '04 ...

... and am perplexed by his support for Hillary now. (Though I know it's due to his support for the Clintons, rather than consistency between his past positions and Hillary's.)

I feel like reviewing whatever video footage is available from Wes' 2004 run, 'cause we're sure to find statements where he implies he's the more qualified candidate -- over Kerry and Edwards -- owing to his own outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, in contrast to Kerry's and Edwards' having voted for it.

[Bucky]

104. Thank you, Frenchie

I'm not quite as incensed as you, but I am in a holding pattern, waiting to see if Wesley comes around and stands by his values. Country first, party second, ambitions third.

[blm]

107. Now you can understand why it's hard to now dismiss the claims Wes was ALWAYS a stalking horse for

Hillary. a Number of DC insiders said so in 2003, but many of us, including me, didn't want to believe them.

Now, I am more inclined to believe that his work for Kerry was only to get the experience he needed on the campaign trail and to duplicate whatever associations Kerry developed during the course of that run and attaching himself to those groups so he could bring them to Hillary when the time came for her to announce.

[FrenchieCat]

110. There is no evidence to the claim, which is why it doesn't mean anything to me.....

since there is not evidence, I don't believe in the "stalking horse" theory, but thank you.

[blm]

111. It's an overall picture. It DID work out however, exactly as the pundits described,

whether you see the evidence of it or not. The result is exactly what they claimed it would be back then.

[Carolina]

112. K&R!

I, too, am a former Clarkie from the draft Clark movement until his efforts supporting HRC's POTUS bid. Thank you for the information in this post, I am bookmarking it.

[Cha]

114. Wow, FrenchieCat...thanks!

You've written so much and so well and it breaks my heart too that General Clark would say these really disingenous things at this point in time or anytime considering the wrongheadedness of the candidate he does support.

Thanks for your intensity on this.

I don't know if Michael Moore has endorsed anyone but I know he endorsed Clark in 2004 because Clark stood up for him after the Academy Awards Show..but somehow I don't think Michael is rootin' for hilary. My thought is that each year brings such changes for some in who we're now behind.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meow mix]

121. yup, i remember Frenchie in 2004 was a Die Hard CLARK supporter.

as was i.

I Approve of this Message!

[snort]

123. can you say 'cabinet position'?

only thing that figures

[donjoofWeThePeople]

124. Too bad

that before you launched your diatribe, you didn't bother to read General Clark's comments. He did not "diss" the Great One and to be honest, Obama doesn't have the experience necessary to be our Commander in Chief. And, frankly, I don't want this country have to find out the hard way.

[Bushwick Bill]

125. Clarkie and Joe Wilson behind Hillary...

I can write off a lot of people as bought-and-paid-for shills, lackeys, and sellouts, but not these two. It has made me question my faith in Barack. Tell me where Wes and Joe have it wrong.

[No Blood for Hubris]

154. They have it right. Hillary's ready for prime time, Obama is not.

Check out www.noquarterusa.net

[krkaufman]

126. If still perplexed by Clark's support of Hillary, consider this quote from 2004

Candidate Wesley Clark, Feb. 4, 2004:

"I don't understand how John Kerry and John Edwards can criticize the war in Iraq, when they voted to give George W. Bush a blank check to go to war." (link)

Apparently, Wes has gotten over the hypocrisy of candidates criticizing a war for which they wrote a "blank check."

[BootinUp]

127. At a time he was on the ropes

down to his last primary, I'm guessing he was urged on to attack with that kind of language. As I stated in the other thread it was not modus operande for most of his campaign.

[krkaufman]

130. So you're saying that Clark will say anything for the sake of politics.

Gotcha. So we need to understand that Clark's current statements in support of Sen. Clinton need to be taken with a grain of salt, since Sen. Clinton is on the ropes and Wes will say whatever is politically convenient in such a case.

p.s. You have not backed-up the statement that the above was contradictory to his overall campaign platform. You have provided only one quote reference, from November 2003. If you want to make the case for his campaign having a different message, especially after Dean had exited the race, you would need to provide more data.

[BootinUp]

131. I am not ignorant of how politics works, that only

leads to big letdowns when your heroes act like politicians. There is no question that Clark remained and remains anti-invasion of Iraq, but there is clear evidence as far back as Sep 03 that he understood the difficult position Democrats were in with regard to the IWR vote that was for the Democrats an effort to restart UN inspections with no resistance from Sadaam Hussein.

I think he should bear some criticism for his statements late in the race as there was some conflict with earlier statements. So he questioned their committment to stopping the invasion, and ending the war, its probably fair criticism in Edwards case, but I didn't think it was on target in Kerry's case.

If you really want to pursue this, lets talk about Obamas statement in 2004 "I don't know how I would have voted ".

[krkaufman]

134. How was it "fair criticism in Edwards' case" ... but not Kerry's?

And why wouldn't it be fair criticism of Clinton? NONE of them read the full, 92-page Iraq NIE, yet all voted for the AUMF.

You see, I consistently criticize them all for their failure in due diligence and failure to make the right vote, and I continue to desire a candidate that provides a stark contrast to the Republican preemptive force approach, rather than a Republican-lite candidate.

[BootinUp]

135. Unfortunately there is no candidate for you then. nt

[krkaufman]

141. Really? Have you heard about this Obama guy?

He rawks..!!! :headbang:

[BootinUp]

143. Yea the guy who said on MTP "I don't know how I would have voted..."

You are just another loser looking for someone that claims he would have voted no on a vote you don't even understand. lol.

[krkaufman]

167. Ah, and now we have come full circle again. You have been shown to be in error, repeatedly...

... and so you come back around to insults. Kudos..!

I have not said I'm supporting Obama for how he *might* have, hypothetically, voted were he actually in the Senate at the time of the AUMF/Iraq vote. How could we know how he would have voted, as that would be an entirely different reality? Perhaps it might have been a reality where a few more Senators, say Clinton and Kerry, bothered to read the full, 92-page Iraq NIE, which contradicted the NIE summary's claims of there being no dissension on the analysis.

I support Obama, now, in part, for the same reason I supported Wes Clark in 2004... because, with 70% of the population against them, they had the guts to publicly speak-out against the war, the only tool at each of their disposal at the time, just like Gore, and Howard Dean.

Your opinion differs. Ok. But denying reality and resorting to insults just makes you look silly. But then it *is* that season, eh?

[IsItJustMe]

128. I also respect Wes, but you know that we all make mistakes, and he has made one. I believe what we

have here is misplaced loyalty toward the Clintons. I could be wrong, but that at least makes sense to me.

[krkaufman]

136. Well, "loyalty" I can agree with. I'm not sure how to judge "misplaced." n/t

[Jillian]

133. Isn't there a DU rule about how many paragraphs you can post?

[Adelante]

140. This is her own writing

The rule of 4-5 paragraphs is for writing copyrighted by others.

[FrenchieCat]

142. Not if it is your own writing.

Why?

[mojowork_n]

138. In view of what Clark said of Samantha Power, recently,

she may also be re-appraising her estimation.

[donjoofWeThePeople]

139. Transcript of the conversation is not

what FC has made it out to be. There's no disrespect here; disagreement, of course, that's what people do, but disrepect, NO.

Some transcript if you haven't listened to it yet. See downthread... or up...
_______________________________________________

WES(on the Samantha Power Iraq quote):
I found the comments quite disturbing - because to get out of Iraq is gonna be very difficult, and if you don't go into it with some fixed ideas in mind --and I think Senator Clinton's plan has it exactly right, You've got to do it with a responsible withdrawal- You've got to know when you're gonna begin, and you've gotta work it through -- if you simply show up and say "OK now what's this all about?" You're gonna own the war. (bad cell reception here)

Iraq ---there will be concerns of chaos and pandemonium, there'll be concerns about renewed civil war, neighbors in the region will be concerned--- It's gonna take a REAL STRENGTH OF CHARACTER to execute a pullback from Iraq and to preserve America's interests in the region at the same time. And that means KNOWING where you're headed before you start down the path. So, I think what you've got from senator Clinton is a real plan that indicates the strength of character necessary to lead the nation and be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

I'm quite concerned about what we've heard from the Obama camp today, because I'm not sure exactly where it leaves us, but I'm quite concerned that it will leave us... still at war.

Thank you General Clark - Next Jamie Rubin

JAMIE:
Yes, I think General Clark has spoken to the substantive importance of this and the words frankly speak to it directly and don't need much interpretation.

I think the point here is that on Monday this week Samantha Powers, described as probably the most influential of his advisers, with unlimitied access to the candidate, and given a very unique description as a unique Svengali guru-- wahtever you want to call it.... and frankly I feel very sorry for her. I know he... she's done great research on the subject of genocide... She's a very scholarly and intense person.

The problem here is at the TOP -- Senator Obama has created in his Foreign Policy team, an unworkable structure-- to have someone like this operating out on the side with unlimited access, and talking openly. And that's his fault- not her fault. She's a professor, she's a very enthusiastic person. I think her remarks were... awful about Senator clinton and about this, but I feel sorry for her that she's been put in a position where he can't seem to run a foreign policy team the way it's supposed to run.

Now Senator Obama has said in several of the debates that the way he's running his campaign is a good indicator of his ability to manage the incredibly challenging job of President. He said that in at least one debate. And on foreigh affairs, in particular....words matter. And frankly much of foreign affairs is making sure that the rest of the world understands what you say, what you mean, and that you mean what you say.

And to have two in a row...to have a private difference of view expressed on NAFTA by a top economic advisor, and then the next week to have- on the fundamental issue of this campaign - again the impression that one thing is said for political purposes perhaps, and another thing is what's actually gonna happen... um, is amateur hour on making foreign policy. I'm sorry to say that but that's what I think it is, having been involved a litte bit in the organization required and the discipline required to communicate in this area. The reason words matter in this case is because in many respects this election is going to be a referendum on Iraq.

WES REPLIES TO DAVID CORN of MOTHER JONES (a semi-hostile question like 'Aren't you all making much ado about nothing?')

WES:
--And Jamie, if I could just follow up on what you're saying ... The environment in which this is going to become operative -- were the Democrats to win, and were the Obama team to go in there -- Consider this: Both the General in charge, Dave Petraeus, and the Ambassador Brian Crocker, are scheduled to leave... So the strong leadership, the experienced hands on the ground... won't be there.

So the new team comes in-- there'll be all manner of predictions of catastrophe and calamity. That's the way these things are when you're trying to pull forces back. And if you don't have some strong principals to guide you - you'll end up owning the problem.

And what concerns me about the statement that Samantha made- and I know Samantha very well, she's a fine person-- But if this represents the position of the candidate....it suggests that what's going to happen is that there isn't strong guidance at the outset.. That, "Folks we're leaving. Now, let's get it going and then we'll talk about the details."

And we've got to have the strength of character to commence withdrawal and pull out of there. This is about strong leadership. Strong leadership is about operating from principals that can be looked at, and examined, and worked over, and defended. And that didn't come through. Maybe they're there, but we didn't see that. What we saw was basically, you know... everything's up for grabs.

ANDREA MITCHELL chimes in and tells them that they are not being FAIR to Obama -- and asks if they think this is a "fair attack"? (cough)... Then she tops it off with another question about Clinton having talked to Canada about NAFTA saying it's the same as Goolsbee did on behalf of Obama. She asks them again. They deny it again. She expresses doubt ... geez Andrea. Give it a rest...

WES (on Iraq pull out again)

I don't think you can say - as some of the Democratic candidates tried to say - long in advance of the circumstances -- Well this is it, they're all going to be gone, everything's going to be out of there, the last American soldier will have left - You can't say that. Because to say that is to say something that is probably not going to be _____ (done? inaudible word, cell going out)

I always thought, as an average American voter, that what people said in campaigns is what they intended to do.

And so I was very concerned when I heard candidates promising a hard end date... like... 16 months. That's it. They're outta there. I'm thinking, how can they possibly mean that? What does that say about their judgment? I think what you have to have is a hard beginning date. And that's what Hillary has. You have to have----

(and then, Wes's phone goes out-- and then he comes back!)

I'm on a highway in Oklahoma. It didn't come through, sorry.
What I was attempting to convey was the importance of a realistic position as a campaign pledge-- and what Hillary has is a realistic position. What we've heard from the others.... is not.

[mattclearing]

145. It's apparent who he works for.

He's always been on Team Clinton, this should come as no surprise. It's not even really an attack, it's just a concern that Obama hasn't thought through his Iraq policy substantially enough, which is a fair criticism at this point.

Of course, Hillary didn't think through her IWR vote or the electoral primary map, so the question of judgment between the two Democratic contenders remaining isn't really at issue anymore. Obama clearly wins.

[elleng]

148. donjoof,

I agree; no discernable disrespect.

[BootinUp]

182. Can you post this in its own thread please? nt

[cloud75]

147. I'll take Wes' opnion over yours. no disrespect but national security and

military affairs are very complicated some of your assumptions about these issues have no facts to back up what you said.

[Time for change]

149. I see your point

I too was prepared to vote for Clark in 2004, had he not dropped out of the race. This is disappointing.

[No Blood for Hubris]

150. It's not about your broken heart. It's about competence, and it's about winning the election.

Your guy is not ready for prime time. Grow up.

[FrenchieCat]

179. Insulting me will only let you feel better about yourself for a very short while.....

Who may think what you like, but I believe that Barack Obama is who we need to lead this nation at this time. He embodies change to the entire world in a manner that few could imagine, and he, along with us, the good people of the United States, can make it happen. It is our voices that will get this done; our voices, our hopes, and our hard work.

If it's about competence, please let me know how Hillary is ready for the prime time that you speak of. What has she done exactly that makes her ready; married somebody?

I hope that you will provide details when answering my query as to what Hillary Clinton has truly done that deserves your apparent "faith".


Here is what I see in reference to the NS/FP accomplishements of our 2 candidates:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4972778

[davidinalameda]

151. thanks for posting this

as someone else who has supported General Clark, I find his actions troubling at best

[Medusa]

153. It makes perfect sense.

Clark wants to be her VP.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

158. you bring up many good points, which does make one wonder

why would he support Hillary, based on all that she has done, that is completely
counter to what he would recommend.

And what Obama would recommend.

[mirrera]

160. Wow, you put it perfectly! Clark has had me very confused about what he is thinking. n/t

[Sparkly]

161. Has Obama or his campaign commented on what Power said?

Because it didn't sound all that different to me from what Clinton has said -- that the plan would come from the Joint Chiefs, SOD, foreign policy adviser after she was in office. And she's said that she hoped to get the troops home in a certain time frame (16 months or something?) but wouldn't guarantee it. So I don't get the criticism of Obama unless I missed something that was said.

I'd also say in Clark's defense that he qualified his statements -- IF what Power said reflects the candidate's thinking, something like that. And he did not say Obama wasn't fit to be Commander in Chief.

[pleah]

162. So Obamatrons are trashing Wesley Clark now?

Shame on you people that call yourselves Democrats! I have never seen such venom towards other democrats in my entire life. Shame on you! Try to remember how much good the Clintons did for the people of this great nation, when they were in office. All the Obamatrons do is dish out shit and then tell others how much shit Mrs. Clinton is dishing out. You People are disgraceful!

[judasdisney]

164. "Trashing" hardly. Frenchie's tone is utterly respectful. You know it.

"Jesuswasn'tafascist" as your screen name implies that you aspire to be as respectful as Jesus.

"Obamatrons" isn't exactly respectful or thoughtful.

On the other hand, Frenchie's disagreement with Clark, who Frenchie has been extraordinarily supportive of, is very thoughtful.

[pleah]

165. Thank you for pointing out my dicrepantcy. I apologize.

[1776Forever]

163. Magnifique! I salute you!

I am so impressed with your history of the Clinton years!

Wes Clark may have been offered the VP slot and he is getting in line with the low-rent crap coming out of the HRC Camp. I am so disappointed in the way HRC is running her campaign. I feel it is going to break a lot of us from the Party for good if the people are not listened to!

:grouphug:

[jenmarie]

174. In case you're not aware

Many of us who don't support Obama feel the same way. A lot of us will be breaking from the party if he's the nominee.

As far as people being listened to: If you look at the popular vote count so far, if you include FL and MI -- because, yes, there are Democrats, real people there who would like their voices heard -- you will find that there are more people who have voted for Clinton than Obama. But we'll just stick to delegate count and ignore that fact, right?

[FrenchieCat]

180. That doesn't even make sense to include a state where one

of the candidates was on the ballot, and the other one was not.

Intellectually it would be dishonest to tout that stat as honest.

And then to bring in another state where no campaigning was allowed, but one of the candidate has 100% name recognition due to have been first lady and press for years and years....while the other candidate is someone you've heard a lot about, but don't know enough about.

Fact are a funny thing. When they are manipulated to see things as we want, they become dangerous.

The popular vote counts in the states where they both contested in a "fair" manner.
Obama, thus far, has won that popular vote.

Those are the facts, and better yet, they don't need to be massaged in a prejudicial or biased way simply because it would help make ones point.

[1776Forever]

181. Since you asked me....

I feel that the way the campaign has been conducted with Hillary not pulling her name off the MI ballot and only her and DK leaving their names on and then (since I live in FL) we were told that our vote would not count (and I was going to be a delegate here in FL) a lot of people did not vote in FL and then when it was all over HRC says to let the vote count. I think it stinks!

I think the voters should also know that there is a court case that will be coming up in Oct. '08 that will have Bill & Hillary involved in a 2 million dollar court case from a man who says that he gave them the money but they didn't report it on their filings.

Paul v. Clinton - video (on the bottom of the page)and info at:

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-detai... /

If this changes and you don't find the video just put in Paul v. Clinton in the search engine box at the top of the page. The article is entitled Could the Paul v Clinton Fraud Suit Upset the Clinton Democratic Party? This in no way says that Clinton is guilty BUT the trial is going to be coming up in Oct, 08!

Soooooo for that and all the other BS that has happened, no I think that we should support the person that will be ahead in delegates at the convention - and give half of the delegates from FL and MI to each. If it turns out to be HRC then so be it, but I do not think that after all this that I will ever be able to be involved with the Party ever again if that happens! There are so many things out there if you just want to look for them on a man named Gupta, and Chinese influence and money from the Saudis and Dubai that has gone into the Clinton's pocket also. I wish it wasn't like that but that is the reality! I am sure all this will come out if HRC goes against McCain. :eyes:

[AZBlue]

169. Excellent post, great research. I too have had to cut my ties with Wes Clark.

I've not done as much as you, but I finally had to even unsubscribe from his e-mails, which was my last remaining "contact" with his PAC. He used his e-mail list to drum up donations for Clinton, which I thought was highly inappropriate - and I told them so when I unsubscribed. I feel let down and disappointed by both Clinton and Clark. I guess that's politics.

[Blue State Bandit]

170. I was a WesBlogger for a while.

Worked on Fighting Dem campaigns. Murphy, Webb, Sestak. I was hoping that he'd run. I have to hear what he said, but I will still accept his endorsement of BO when this thing is wrapped up.

It does hurt a bit though.

[jenmarie]

171. I'm truly sorry

that you think that General Clark no longer believes in Country over Party. I'm sorry you believe his lifelong dedication to duty, honor, country has suddenly changed after all these years and everything he's seen and been through.

You must think that he changed so much in such a short time that he is putting -- what? That's where I'm stumped. What is he putting ahead of everything he loves and believes in?

Can you honestly not see that he is doing everything he can to prevent someone from becoming president who he knows is not up to the task at hand? Well, that's a rhetorical question, because I can tell by how you've poured your heart in to this piece that you don't see that -- don't believe that. But please, don't believe that General Clark has thrown away his entire lifetime for politics. I will never believe that and in my heart I know that's not true.

Peace.

[olkaz]

173. I just think his son is terrible on the radio

You ever hear that guy try to carry a show by himself?

"So, caller, got anything else you want to talk about? No? Oookay!"

[FrenchieCat]

175. My op was not meant to "trash" the General, although some

might interpret it that way.....and if they do, so be it.

And if because I dare not be so loyal that I won't dare speak my mind....and lose on line friends in the process, so be that.

Fortunately for me, my interest in politics and why I am interested trumps any loyalties that I have for any one public figure.

I didn't support Wes Clark in order to idolize him and follow him where ever he was going to go unquestionably, just like I don't now support Obama in order to be part of a cult.

Please know that this op certainly wasn't written in order to have posters trash Wes Clark Jr.....so if I were you, I would take back that extra silly season juvenile statement in reference to Wes Jr.

In fact, it's not like I've seen Wes JR. on the Hillary campaign trail....and in fact, I have my suspicions that Wes Jr. may not be on the Hillary wagon (he has publicly stated before his father endorsed Hillary that he was afraid of Hillary in '08)....as I have not heard from him in quite sometime. I interpret that as laying low, and not wanting to make things difficult for his father. He may be in the a similar pain as I am.....or maybe not.

[Major Hogwash]

176. You didn't trash the General, you criticized him severely. Clark would understand.

It's not like General Clark hasn't had people criticize him before.
Geezus, your piece was really well written, and I'm sure Clark knows he is letting some of his former supporters down by giving support to Hillary.

Nevertheless, Clark will support Obama after Obama wraps this up, and he will make just as strong of arguments for Obama then as he has made arguments for Hillary now.

Clark is a brilliant man and one hell of an orator himself, as you already know.

[FrenchieCat]

177. True dat!

True dat! :)

[WinkyDink]

183. Just add Clark to the growing list of know-nothings! Listen to Oprah!

[Truth4All]

184. N/T

[Truth4All]

185. Clark's Words

"I had to work in S.F. today, and so I was unaware of his newly stated public opinion about Barack Obama until I got back this evening"

Just curious Frenchie...are you talking about Clark's statement that Obama is 'unfit' to be CIC that was spread across the Internet and some press reports? Only problem is that he never said that (the quoted part).

For anyone interested, here is a transcript of the actual conference call (or at least the parts where Wes partipated). If interested, there is also an mp3 link of the entire call that can be listened too if you question the transcript (which I also see above):

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14964#comment-28953...

I won't be able to respond to any comments since DU doesn't like Hillary supporters on this site and has a habit on banning accounts for being 'disruptors' to their unstated mission goal of seeing Obama elected President, but thought you might be interested in some slim glimmer of truth before the curtains are closed.