Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed

[robcon]

Source: Washington Note

"General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.
Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the "theme" of Wednesday's Democratic convention agenda is "Securing America."

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



Read more: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/08/obama_to_genera/

---

Two thoughts about Obama/Dean keeping Clark from the convention:

A possible payback for Clark's strong endorsement of Clinton during the primaries.

Clark isn't all that. He has very little following in the rank-and-file Democratic Party, although a fairly strong following on DU and Kos.

[Kittycat]

1. Do you honestly believe that?

[Faygo Kid]

2. Crap.

Been posted earlier. No offense, but this is just the ravings of a lunatic columnist looking for attention.

[elleng]

15. faygo, You MAY be right,

but I don't think Steve Clemons is a 'lunatic columnist.'

I wish he were, and today's the full moon, after all.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. Agreed

If you look up the background of this guy Clemons, it's not readily apparent that he's even got an undergraduate degree. Worked for a Senator, and the rest of it is affiliations with spurious, meaningless organizations with fancy names.

He's a blogger, just putting his opinion out there. Not connected, it would seem, and just typing.

[KaryninMiami]

3. So much for a Clark VP. Ah well. NT

[saltpoint]

4. I don't think that report is accurate.

[MrsT]

5. I file this in the same place as the "Michelle Obama Whitey Video released tomorrow 9am" junk I read

Straight into the garbage can for me.

[MiniMe]

6. It wouldn't surprise me if Wes isn't chosen as the VP nominee

The RW smear machine took care of that when Wes said that being a POW wasn't a qualification for becoming President.

[elleng]

16. If that were the case,

and obama accepted the rw smear machine crap, it would say a bit much about ob, imo. I've been hoping that he has good judgment.

[MGKrebs]

21. That's exactly the kind of thing we WANT surrogates to say.

Loyal surrogates say the difficult things so that "The Candidate" doesn't have to.

[MiniMe]

23. Agree, but the dems already threw Wes under the bus on that one

[karynnj]

7. This is based on literally nothing

Theer are plenty of people not on the list - who may or not speak, including both Al Gore and John Kerry - two people even more deserving of speaking roles. I know Kerry is going and I assume Gore is - and it is highly unlikely that they won't get something. I also did not see Dick Durbin, the first Senator to endorse him.

Clark had a speech in 2004, but it is not likely that he will get a speech in every convention. As to him not being welcome - that seems very unlikely.

[alfredo]

8. A couple weeks ago Clark said he had prior engagements.

[cynatnite]

9. I'm not surprised by this at all...

He made news with his comments about McCain's service and Obama distanced himself from Clark over them.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. Steve Clemons?

A blogger.

Pffffffffft.

[cynatnite]

13. He's been around the beltway for years and is considered very reliable...

He also comments that this is a mistake by the Obama camp not to utilize General Clark. I don't see a reason to doubt him.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

18. There are a lot of us

who've been around the Beltway. This guy's credentials consist of working for Jeff Bingaman, and then working for a bunch of those fancy-named nothing outfits that do nothing but do sound impressive.

I'm not sure about General Clark. I always thought he should have done better than he actually did, but he lacks the campaign skills so necessary. And, while I appreciated his comment about McCain's being shot down not qualifying him for President, it angered a lot of people. I can understand why Obama would steer around him.

But, Clemons - strikes me as an amateur with no real experience.

[stillcool]

11. Obama/Dean keeping Clark from the convention?

on one bloggers say-so? No thanks.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. What nonsense!

You just make up a whole pile of alleged motives and invent lies out of thin air. I see a job offer coming your way in the near future. Maybe a book deal even.

[endthewar]

14. That article is spinning out of control

Bill Orally style too. :rofl:

The only real fact in it is that the Obama campaign did not give Clark a speaking role at the Convention. The article spins this little factoid as, "Your services are not needed." It further goes on to suggest that the Obama campaign is dancing on Clark's political grave.

Critical thinking people.

[cynatnite]

17. Umm...it's a blog and try reading it more thoroughly....

He also says this:

This is a mistake in my view. There are a lot of perspectives and competing agendas about how to direct America's next national security posture -- and General Wesley Clark should be one of the top tier names and personalities at the table.

Clark is loved by the netroots -- and I'm sure that they would hope that the Obama campaign will revisit this decision to exclude General Wesley Clark from the entire Democratic National Convention agenda.

[endthewar]

22. Reread the original message in this post

Titles carry meaning, you know. The title of the blog is named in a way to try to damage the Obama campaign's decision-making. Clark is one of my favorites for VP, but I can clearly see the biased slant of this blog starting with its title.

It then expounds upon WHY it started out with so much bias with the quotes you name. That doesn't excuse the initial bias though. Services not needed my ass.

[cynatnite]

24. Content mean more than titles...

He clearly feels that the Obama camp is making a mistake by not utilizing Clark. If I was to ONLY look at the title and nothing else of the blog I would take away that he is not happy with the Obama camp over this decision.

Of course, most normal people read the ENTIRE entry before jumping to conclusions. Oh, and it's a blog which is why it's filled with opinions. It's no different than most blogs. I'm not sure why you expected otherwise.

[endthewar]

25. What's in the TN water?

Seriously, I'd like to know.

[cynatnite]

26. The common sense didn't work for you? n/t

[endthewar]

27. The blog is a failed attempt at a hit piece on a decision by the Obama camp

which explains why you probably felt right at home lapping it up. :rofl:

[cynatnite]

28. He disagreed with the Obama campaign...

What's hilarious is you're assuming it's a hit piece because you didn't like the title...despite the content of the entry. A 'hit piece' is an entire article designed to tear down its subject. That is so not the case here.

[TexasObserver]

20. Obama likely doesn't want to re-ignite the Clark comments on McCain.

[MGKrebs]

29. Probably true, but there is not a potential nominee worth consideration

that won't bring up something we won't like.