Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed

-

wesleyclark.jpg
(General Wesley Clark speaking at Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago, 2007)
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.
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 ageda.
– Steve Clemons
Update: I have reconfirmed with General Wesley Clark’s office that he has not been asked to play a role at the Democratic National Convention. His staff have told me that while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked.

Comments

331 comments on “Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed

  1. Ian Alcock says:

    I suspect many people may miss the factor underpinning this decision. It doesn’t matter whether the employee )Wesley Clark) is good or bad, if you have a personality clash with the boss, you will not fare well.
    It seems Obama and Clark were never destined to get along, and here’s the result.

    Reply

  2. CARISOPRODOL says:

    Actually, I think it’s not entirely accurate to equate John McCain with Dick Cheney. After all, McCain has kept his word on campaign finance reform. Cheney was always against it and Obama was for it before he was against it. And McCain’s a little better than Cheney on stem cell research and global warming.

    Reply

  3. boski says:

    Wesley clark is a weasal that will suck up to anybody to get onto the game. Excellent decision by Obama.

    Reply

  4. R. D. Moore says:

    General Wesley Clark is the most brilliant military man on this planet. General Clark would make an outstanding Secretary of Defense (SOD). When Fox news announced that President elect Obama was keeping Robert Gates on as SOD, I lost faith in Obama. The failure of Obama, to recognize General Clark is most disturbing. Maybe President elect Obama should consider George Bush for SOD. I see no difference in Robert Gates and Bush Jr. When Robert Gates downgraded a Marine’s Medal of Honor and failed to restore full mail priveleges to miltiary retirees overseas, I saw Robert Gates as nothing more than another cut-throat politican feeding off the American taxpayer. What happened to the Obamna theme of CHANGE? I’m sure you’ll see REAL CHANGE in another 4 years.

    Reply

  5. Dick says:

    I believe there is bad blood between Obama and Clark because – if memory serves me – Clark announce his “early” support for Clinton in the summer of ’07. I don’t know whether Obama contacted Clark before the announcement.

    Reply

  6. Cristina Fabregas says:

    Are you people blind? Did you not see Gen. Wesley Clark in the Denver democratic convention?
    I think you people are posing as Democrats but truly you are Republicans…true blue LIARS!
    Cristina

    Reply

  7. Linda Gillan says:

    If only Wesley Clark was Pro-Life…he would be the next President. As a so called Catholic He should know that Life is precious and to abort a child is the worst form of slavery and death of a society.

    Reply

  8. jacob says:

    Uh…Gen Clark was definitely on stage at invesco field, alongside 20-odd other retired generals and admirals…check your facts.

    Reply

  9. Aldine Wallace says:

    We love you, General Wesley Clark, and think you said the truth. Being a prisoner of war is not a credential for being President of the United States. Please speak to us again anytime you can.

    Reply

  10. Jean Donnelly says:

    I have been a staunch Obama supporter and volunteer and have been hoping that General Wesley Clark would be the nominee for Vice President. After he told the truth about McCain not being qualified for President because he was a prisoner of war and Barack reprimended him, I was stunned. To use the name of Wesley Clark’s website and not include him in the convention is beyond bad manners. As much as I would have liked to see Barack become President, I am beginning to wonder about his judgment! I don’t know if I can honestly ask voters to vote for someone I’m beginning to lose faith in! Maybe there will be a surprise and Nader will get more votes than anticipated! Too bad, such poor manners, such poor judgment! I think Barack has begun to lose ground.

    Reply

  11. Tim McCane (not kiddin) says:

    I would vote for OBAMA/CLARK and enthusiastically support the ticket.
    I will stay home if Bill’s wife is on the ticket.
    How can he select McCain’s friend Hillary who said Barack was not qualified? It would be dumbfounding and a punch in the face of Obama supporters who were taken aback by the Clinton’s filthy campaign tricks, greed and sore loser acts.

    Reply

  12. JKIR says:

    Well, Obama may not need him there but America needs him to be at the convention. I would be really grateful if the General did not leave us to the mercy of this vengeful creep Obama. General Clark needs to come to the convention and cast a vote for Senator Clinton. I know he would be welcome in her administration.

    Reply

  13. Kathleen says:

    “Pulling a Darth Cheney”, a phrase I used up thread on 8/17, in reference to the possiblity that Caroline Kennedy could choose herself for Veep.. on Aug. 20th, Michael Moore wrote to Caroline asking her to “Pull a cheney’ and choose herself….Synchronicity???
    Peeekaboo, Arthurdecco

    Reply

  14. ix says:

    CLARK FOR VP WOOT!! REPUBS are scared @#$%less of him.

    Reply

  15. arthurdecco says:

    I am. ;-)

    Reply

  16. Kathleen says:

    CNN just reported (2-3 p.m.) something I said, upthread, on the Veepstakes…Namely, that Caroline Kennedy might pull a Dick Cheney and choose herself for Veep….I wonder who is reading this thread?

    Reply

  17. Damn, I Hope So! says:

    I hope your right roo roo.

    Reply

  18. roo roo says:

    It’s Clark. Obama is a very good poker player.
    How perfect.

    Reply

  19. thomas says:

    Wow what an enormous number of responses!
    The original article by Steve Clemons confirms my belief that Clark will be Obama’s VP.
    1. I doubt that “Barack Obama’s people” would inform Clark “there was no reason to come”. This suggests Clark was seeking a reason or permission to attend the DNC. It would also be a highly unprofessional and an almost offensive response from “Obama’s people”. I think there has been a distortion here.
    2. I doubt the accuracy of “I was told by General Clark’s personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending”. This is the biggest democratic event in four years! Even if he was not offered a role as the article suggests, I am sure Clark is big and tough enough not to be offended and would attend to network with and support his fellow democrats.
    3. I also doubt that “while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked”. How can he not be attending the convention…his schedule be tight…and he would rearrange his schedule to attend? Doesnt make sense.
    People are being kept in the dark. Steve, either the people you spoke to at Gen Clark’s office are regularly uninformed or there has been a information blackout surrounding the convention.
    I think he is VP.
    You may have serious egg on your face by the end of the week.

    Reply

  20. Pacific Jet says:

    We will all know soon enough.
    I find it so highly unusual that Wes Clark is not on the agenda at all for Denver yet Obama’s VP will deliver the keynote speech on a day themed “Securing America” … the same name as Clark’s Political Action Committee.
    Come on! It’s obvious to me that Wes Clark is the choice. Clark neutralizes McCain, unifies the Democratic party, and brings wisdom and balance to the ticket. Furthermore, Clark is a military man, he knows how to control his ego and act the role of a number 2. Obama should not worry about that.

    Reply

  21. Paul Norheim says:

    Let me present you to WIGWAGS LAW on Politics and Morality. It
    goes like this:
    If any of your political opponents at some stage of an election
    are harassed, insulted or intimidated by this or that
    irresponsible pundit or journalist jackass employed by the
    printed press, radio, TV or internet; or harassed, insulted or
    intimidated by some other politician through the same media as
    mentioned above, you are obliged to immediately rush forward
    and defend the political opponent that suffered the insults or
    harassment.
    If you don`t comply to that law, you are just as guilty as the
    jackass journalist, irresponsible pundit, or politician who
    harassed your opponent. Indeed, you may even be more guilty
    then the jackass who delivered the insult, since your silence
    may help you in the competition against your opponent.
    WigWag,
    You know that in something as huge and chaotic as US
    presidential elections, there are plenty of opportunities to cross
    a line, lie, swiftboat, make comments of a sexist or racist
    nature, or similar serious and unfair allegations. This kind of
    dirty stuff has been done in US elections for ages. Usually the
    critics, as well as the historians, post factum, blame the
    jackasses and insulters, and if they are aware of someone
    behind al this, they blame those manipulating and controlling
    them. But it is highly unusual to blame the political opponent of
    the victim, unless there is evidence to support that the
    opponent is somehow involved in the harassment or insults.
    If you imply WIGWAGS LAW to the political game, you could at
    any time morally arrest any political player, just because his or
    her opponent was attacked by some jackass among more than
    300 million American citizens, and the politician did not defend
    the opponent.
    Perhaps that would be a nice idea.
    Would it work?
    I have my doubts. Especially in such a huge and
    uncontrollable country as the USA. But it`s a brand new idea. It
    seems to be your idea. But you have to acknowledge that it is
    not yet a commonly accepted idea. Actually, no one else have
    heard about it yet.
    And it would not be fair to apply it on Barack Obama. According
    to commonly accepted principles, he is not a sexist.

    Reply

  22. questions says:

    WigWag, we really have to part ways on this one. I absolutely think that the Clintons used racist discourse (the MLK needed Johnson thing, the Jesse Jackson thing), I absolutely think the “not that I know of” line was a dig, I absolutely think that black voters for decades have voted for white candidates and aren’t racist for voting for a black candidate for a change, and no way is that the equivalent of the hardworking/white comment, and I don’t ever turn to SNL for trenchant political commentary.
    At this point, I think you’re stuck on a bad reading of the campaigns and you are so invested in Obama’s badness and Clinton’s goodness that you are missing a lot of issues. If you get the McCain administration that you seem to wish for, I hope that not too many more people are wiped off the face of the planet. I kind of feel like Bush has done enough of that.

    Reply

  23. s.l.d.cowen says:

    Great scoop. We can only interpret the information at this point, but it IS interesting.
    I found this in a Google search, because I was musing about how Clark as VP would be a great chess move.
    It is all a game show anyway.
    Cheers.

    Reply

  24. WigWag says:

    “Did her campaign at all use racist memes?”
    No
    “Did she imply that Obama was Muslim?”
    No
    “Did she imply that a Republican would be better qualified than her opponent?”
    Yes, and she told the truth. He would.
    “Did she say “working, hard working, white people?”
    Yes. If it isn’t racist for 90 percent of African Americans to vote for Obama (it’s not), it isn’t racist for Hillary Clinton to utter the words “hard working white people.”
    “They both benefited from media crap…”
    No, in the race for the nomination, he was the media’s preferred candidate. This is so widely acknowledged, that even Saturday Night Live did a spoof on it.

    Reply

  25. questions says:

    I honestly don’t have the answer for this question, but maybe you do — did HRC speak out against any and all racist/Islamophobic comments directed at Obama?
    Did she say clearly and cleanly that Wright was all right by her. (I seem to remember a sort of coy, well he wouldn’t be my pastor.)
    These I have answers for:
    Did her campaign at all use racist memes?
    Did she imply that Obama was Muslim?
    Did she imply that a Republican would be better qualified than her opponent?
    Did she say “working, hard working, white people?”
    Note, these aren’t even media events, these are CAMPAIGN and CLINTON quotes.
    Give me a break!!! It was a campaign. It’s agonistic. They all fight. No one is a gentle lady or a gentle man. For you to freak out at Obama’s not defending Clinton/denouncing the media when Clinton herself couldn’t refrain from obnoxious lines is overmuch, even for me I have to admit. I do my best to understand other people’s views, to respect everyone, to look for good arguments and to encourage the formation of arguments that are solid when previously there had been a jello mass. But I can’t see an argument in your position unless you denounce HRC in the same breath as you denounce Obama. You want to do that, I say fair enough. They both benefited from media crap and they both gave as they got. But to single out Obama and see none of Clinton’s crap is really to engage in blindered thinking.

    Reply

  26. WigWag says:

    questions Aug 19, 8:48PM “I honestly don’t see why Obama should have defended HRC’s honor”
    It’s not about her honor, it’s about the blatant media sexism. Senator Obama said nothing because he was happy to take advantage of it. It helped him win. Good campaign strategy? Perhaps. Admirable behavior? Nope. And it may not even prove to have been good campaign strategy in the long run. We will have to see how many women were offended. The sexist comments that I quoted were horrendous. Obama said nothing; his supporters said nothing; and some of his supporters even chimed in. Now they can’t figure out why anyone is making a big deal about it. It’s called Karma. What goes around, comes around!
    Paul Norheim Aug 19, 8:49PM “With all due respect: Using this (Bertold Brecht?) quote to explain why you want to stop Obama while McCain is standing right behind him, signifies a complete collapse of perspective and
    judgement.
    You asked a day or so ago, why I just don’t get over it. My question would be why more Obama supporters aren’t outraged that he suborned sexism. The quote was a metaphor to highlight what happens when good people refrain for speaking out against bigotry.

    Reply

  27. questions says:

    Traditionally low ratings week and the network news programs still get a whole lot more viewers than do newspapers get readers. See below:
    The newscast, anchored by Charles Gibson, averaged 6.89 million viewers for the week of June 30, ranking second to “NBC Nightly News,” which attracted 7.38 million. The third-place “CBS Evening News” averaged 5.57 million. The audience was ABC’s lowest since Nielsen introduced its people meter ratings system in 1987.
    The record is largely symbolic, as it occurred on a traditionally low-rated week leading up to the July 4 holiday. (That day was excluded from the averages of the three newscasts.) But it underscored the declines that evening newscasts are experiencing more broadly. Three times this year, the CBS newscast has set new low ratings among total viewers.

    Reply

  28. Paul Norheim says:

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
    because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists…” (WigWag)
    With all due respect: Using this (Bertold Brecht?) quote to explain
    why you want to stop Obama while McCain is standing right
    behind him, signifies a complete collapse of perspective and
    judgement.
    You seem to have lost your abilities to defend your position, not
    because you lack rhetorical means, but because your current
    position is absurd.

    Reply

  29. questions says:

    Hope your electricity comes back soon!
    I have to say, I don’t think Obama is “coming” for the women. If anyone is “coming for” anyone, it’s corporate America come for the lower class. I think the raceclassgender argument has been won by the class people.
    Fox was “less sexist” becase they were half supporting Clinton as a weaker candidate against McCain. They ran the Wright story 24/7. Racism anyone? Had Clinton won, they’d have nailed her on every Bill Clinton scandal and on every HRC scandal from the 90s. It would have been unending, and it would have helped the Republicans. So Fox’s decency is illusory.
    I still just cannot fathom your views. I honestly don’t see why Obama should have defended HRC’s honor, though he did frequently call her a worthy opponent, a friend, someone he had respect for, someone who would be an able president. If that’s sexism, explain it please.
    I don’t think the NY Times columnists are nearly all pro-Obama — Brooks? Kristol? Krugman? Rich is and Herbert is (but he critcizes Obama pretty frequently near as I can tell). MoDo laces into any and everyone, and has hated the Clintons for more than a decade. It’s not sexism, it’s BILLClinton derangement syndrome. But still, I don’t think that columnists have the reach you think they do. And all of the opinion stuff is printed within the framework of a conservative outlook that largely ignores poverty, that worries about the stock market, that thinks aluminum tubes were for real…. And didn’t the Times endorse HRC during the primaries? I don’t even remember, showing just how influential the Times’ endorsement is.
    The WaPo is also corporate in its news structure, and many of their columnists are pretty gross, too. The Trib is vilely right wing, and famously so. The LA Times is firing all the news people so that they can turn a profit.
    So I think you’re overexaggerating the constancy of sexist anti-Clintonism, the power of the print media, Obama’s “disgusting”ness, MSNBC’s reach, MoDo’s influence. And I think you underestimate racism, classism, the corporate Republican nature of all media, the reach of the broadcast networks, a.m. talk radio, and Fox.
    You have a screen through which you see everything, and that screen distorts more than it clarifies. You may well have preferred another candidate (if Kucinich hadn’t felt something amazing in the presence of a UFO, I’d still still be with him on the veggie front and on a few other issues), but struggling on the party front at this point is honestly just foolish.
    Obama isn’t going to force you to stay pregnant, he’s not going to take away working government programs, he’s not going to lock up women for being women, deny women entry into college, have math class only for boys, stop girl athletes from going to the Olympics, legalize rape, have forced shirt-ironing nights….
    McCain on the other hand will skew taxes more in directions that hurt women, will likely be happy to cut back government programs that make a difference in women’s lives, might very well hire cabinet people who think that math class really only is good for boys and that athletic programs really are only good for boys…. And all the while, he’ll call his wife a cun*. And he’ll give you 5 thousand dollars to use to buy a 13 thousand dollar insurance policy. THAT’S a pro-life position!
    I honestly don’t see how you or anyone else can conflate these two candidates or could even think to use the word “sexist” to describe Obama.

    Reply

  30. WigWag says:

    I cannot indulge my hypergraphia because I am operating on battery power (electricity has been out most of the day). I did want to respond very briefly to Questions.
    “The Washington Post readership is small.”
    Top 10 Newspapers in the United States by circulation:
    1. USA Today (Arlington, Va.) 2,528,437
    2. Wall Street Journal (New York, N.Y.) 2,058,342
    3. Times (New York, N.Y.) 1,683,855
    4. Times (Los Angeles) 1,231,318
    5. Post (Washington, DC) 960,684
    6. Tribune (Chicago) 957,212
    7. Daily News (New York, N.Y.) 795,153
    8. Inquirer (Philadelphia) 705,965
    9. Post/Rocky Mountain News (Denver) 704,806
    10. Chronicle (Houston) 692,557
    “Why leave Fox out of the mix, only parenthetically noted?”
    If you look at my post at 11:26 pm on 8/18/08 I said this:
    News Media (Fox News)
    “white women are a problem … we all live with that,” (Bill Kristol)
    But actually, the conservative network (FOX)was less sexist in covering the race between Obama and Clinton than the more progressive network (MSNBC). Kind of ironic isn’t it?
    “Please stop bringing up MoDo. She’s just awful and I don’t think anyone cares what she thinks.”
    Maureen Dowd is not only one of eleven weekly columnists for the most prominent newspaper in the United States, her column is syndicated by the Times to over 40 other newspapers world wide.
    “Your original point was anti-HRC/sexist coverage was unfair, and racism was nearly non-existent. Then you took up my “corporate Repub” line and shifted the whole argument so that it would seem that not only are the media actually profoundly Dem-leaning, but in their Dem-leaning, they are sexist anti-Clintonites and prObamas. But the main examples you cite are smaller-time media and Maureen Dowd. So in the end, I have to disagree with you on the basic points.”
    I sighted numerous sexist comments that Senator Obama made no effort to refute. These comments appeared in the second largest newspaper in America (Wall Stree Journal); the third largest newspaper in America (NY Times) and the fifth largest newspaper in America (Washington Post).
    I also sighted sexist comments that appeared in the largest cable news channel (FOX), the second largest (CNN) and the third place cable news network (MSNBC).
    Not only are the NY Times and Washington Post’s columnists nearly all pro-Obama and not only has the Washington Post’s ombudsman admitted that their coverage has been pro-Obama; but in the general election, which of the two candidates do you think these newspapers will endorse? The answer is, of course, Obama.
    “Please think again about the effects of a McCain presidency on women around the world. It looks pretty bad from where I’m sitting.”
    I agree, McCain is dreadful and an Obama presidency may very well be less bad. But Obama’s behavior has been deplorable and his hypocracy has been as bad or worse than most Democratic politicians. Don’t you think?
    And for those who think, what’s the big deal? Why not just get over it? I think of the comment variously attributed to Martin Niemöller, Bertol Brecht and Eugene Victor Debbs:
    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out.”
    Senator McCain is disgusting. Senator Obama may be less disgusting than Senator McCain but he was more disgusting than all of his Democratic opponents.

    Reply

  31. questions says:

    First, Jenny, I don’t think I understand your post. I’m not a PUMA or a Clinton supporter. I’ve been anti-Bill Clinton for years. Maybe you haven’t read earlier posts of mine….
    I’ve just spent 5 or 6 hours watching 2 versions of The Tempest and parallels come to mind — parallels that WigWag might appreciate. So here goes….
    Prospero, the Duke of Milan, has been seemingly wrongly deposed by his brother Antonio with some help from the Duke of Naples and that Duke’s brother. Prospero and his young daughter are set to sea on a junky boat and left to die. Mercifully, the Good Gonzalo has provisioned them with clothing, food and Prospero’s BOOKS (compendia of magical spells).
    They come to an island and the play’s action starts with the tempest of the title. Prospero has the opportunity to get big-time revenge on the usurpers. He controls the storm to force their ship to his island, he uses island spirits to separate them, torture them and to enjoy his raw power over those who wrongfully wronged him. He’s having fun!
    BUT, Ariel, one of the spirits, informs Prospero that there’s some collateral damage. In a beautiful speech, Ariel notes that the Good Gonzalo is crying tears because of the mental pain that the Duke of Naples is suffering. Prospero suddenly realizes that collateral damage is real, that he has harmed real people and that he must release them from his spells. He realizes also that revenge isn’t so great, that he needs to give up his magic and that he must forgive even his unnatural brother (who had earlier plotted to kill the Duke of Naples).
    So what are the parallels I’ll relate to HRC? Well first, Prospero wasn’t simply wronged with the usurpation. He was so busy with his BOOKS that he failed to govern properly. Second, revenge harms that which you ought to love. Third, forgiveness is a whole lot better than revenge. Fourth, your focus should be on your own mortality and the goodness of your soul, not on gaining worldly power and being angered at its loss. Fifth, if you feel wronged and you try to get revenge, you will commit the same crimes you’re accusing others of, and you’ll fail to take responsibility for your own failings. (Think about Caliban’s being usurped by Prospero.)
    So what should a PUMA do? First, realize that HRC had a hand in her own undoing. The campaign flaws are legion and I don’t need to list them. Second, get over the revenge thing because the collateral damage is huge. You will hurt others to salve your own feelings. Third, realize that in avenging the Clinton loss by McCaining, you will undermine the Dems even as you say Obama undermined HRC. You will use racist/elitist/unready/uppity analogies — the kinds of things you claim were used against HRC. So you’ll play the same role you claim the media did in HRC’s downfall. And finally, you’ll fail to forgive and you’ll stay on that island full of anger and bitterness over the treatment you feel was utterly unjust. You’ll tell yourself an incomplete story that omits the flaws of your candidate. Focus on living well not on gaining revenge.
    I won’t hold that the analogy holds completely, and I am leaving out some characters and themes, but the basic framework seems to me to be pretty apt.

    Reply

  32. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Being so rude to Gen Clark seems grievously short-sighted, and
    makes very little sense from the perspective of this non-Beltway
    onlooker.
    Rude. Foolish.
    What’s the point?
    Who else does Obama have with Gen Clark’s experience…?
    No one.
    Good grief…!

    Reply

  33. Jenny says:

    Questions,
    You need to consider how bad Hillary Clinton has been for women in the US and around the world. She has stood for rationalizing the status quo in other countries that will only preserve poverty and suffering, and in fact, Hillary has rationalized imposing that same status quo here, by allowing the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable to evade workers rights, workplace and envirnomental protections. She and her husband’s term in the WH actually achieved waht Reagan and Bush I hadn’t been able to, the setting in place the mechanism to destroy our economy. Her fellow dems in congress aren’t any better. Ever since Feingold sold out the democratic party via his work on CFR, dems in the congress have been in the pockets of the corporations.
    Also, I’m not voting on women’s issues, I’m voting on all the important issues. The women’s movement has become elitist and rather pathetic. It’s irrelevant to the majority of women.

    Reply

  34. shannon says:

    I am delighted by the way the truth is staring everyone in the face, but we can’t see it! Clark is for-sure the VP pick. Do you really think Obama, who was proven himself so genius a campaigner already, who has four offices open already in Alaska! but none in Arkansas (Clark’s home state), would be so impolitic as to borrow Clark’s PAC name for VP night, with a Veteran’s theme, then so rudely leave Clark hanging, without even an invitation for cocktails or something at the convention? Clark is one of the biggest party fundraising speakers after the Clintons and Obama himself. He brings aboard the Clintons, who are already positioned to speak at the convention and thus vouch for him. Because of his 04 run and the thoughts he might be a HRC VP, he’s been pretty much vetted, so his consideration wouldn’t send out alarms the way the more recent governors would.
    Challenging McCain’s strength as an *executive* rather than *rhetorical* military commander is a message that Dems *could* capitalize on, but it’s obviously tricky. Clark’s the only one with the goods to deliver such a message. He looks fantastic when compared against McCain’s military record.
    He was sent out a few months ago to test out how it played. Obviously it rankled many, but others, when less emotional, had to concede that he did have a point. The Obama camp was already planning their fall messages, and that’s one they needed more info on. Clark went out and did it, because he’s a trooper for the cause. Obama actually doesn’t throw people under the bus. When necessary, he suggests kindly it’s time to get off, and hands you off gently. All of this sounds too careless and short-sighted for the Obama campaign.
    Clark’s home office are probably telling the truth as they know it, but they don’t know the whole truth.
    Watch – Obama/Clark 08.

    Reply

  35. Jenny says:

    I’ve just had enough, and am facing the decision not to vote for Obama. I’m not a Hillary supporter, I never could stand her, but I’m fed up with what seems to be an increasingly disconnected or disinterested Obama campaign. It’s gotten to the point that I can’t take him seriously, because he he doesn’t take our issue seriously.
    Whether it’s Hillary, Obama as he’s showing himself to be, scum like Patti Solis Doyle who doesn’t believe Americans have the right to ask questions about policy from a campaign hq, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, if they are emblematic of today’s democratic party, then it’s plain that the democratic party has abandoned the core issues it has stood for all my life.. and certainly doesn’t deserve my vote, or that of my friends and family.

    Reply

  36. Paul Norheim says:

    “Or maybe Paul Norheim is right; maybe I should just let it go,
    again.” (WigWag)
    Resignation? Why? There`s another option as well…
    You could say: “No! I won`t let it go this time. I`ve had enough.
    I`m so pissed off that I`ll do what I can to stop McCain!”

    Reply

  37. Kathleen says:

    questions…amen…if there is a liberal media, I must be blind and deaf.. Crock…LUUUUVED the PUMA can-collecting idea to pay down Hillary’s debt… so environmentally correct too, even Al Gore would be pleased.

    Reply

  38. questions says:

    Quickly, I second Paul’s good wishes re Fay. I hope you have your storm shutters up!

    Reply

  39. questions says:

    A few distinctions worth making in WigWag’s latest posting.
    First, thanks to Paul Norheim for pointing out the blaming of campaigns for media coverage!! This point is a crucial distinction worth preserving.
    Primary coverge vs. general election coverage — what they think when they compare Obama and Clinton isn’t necessarily what they think when they compare McCain and Obama. It’s better not to elide the two campaigns (even if I may have above.)
    Media outlets that have wide viewership and those that don’t — how many people get their news from MSNBC vs. from the regular networks? Why leave Fox out of the mix, only parenthetically noted? Do more people watch MSNBC than watch Fox? I don’t have numbers, but I have suspicions. The Washington Post readership is small — they make half their money off of Stanley Kaplan test prep stuff at this point, and Kaplan is their growth market, not photos of Obama or McCain. (And note, photos can do double duty — reminding everyone that Obama is Black, for example.) Corporate, yes, influential, not so much. My understanding of the broadcast networks is that they slant Repub. I suppose Media Matters or Extra! the publication of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting would be worth checking out. In all my years of reading Extra!, I don’t remember any stories of pro-Dem. outlets. And there were ENDLESS stories counting the experts and their slants. It all slants Republican.
    Conservatives and liberals in each of the outlets should be separated. Remember, MSNBC has Pat Buchanan mouthing off, even as Olbermann and Maddow go for Obama. Compare airtime for the views and likely you’ll find that the Repubs win out for the most part. MSNBC is slowly discovering that there might be some money to be made by having some liberal viewpoints, but in general, it still runs conservative to the best of my knowledge.
    Please stop bringing up MoDo. She’s just awful and I don’t think anyone cares what she thinks. And for every MoDo piece there’s a piece of utter crap from Kristol, and a Why-Bill-Was-Great piece by Krugman. The Times, again, circulates less than the broadcast networks do (to the best of my knowledge.)
    (Note that the Times, in the run-up to the Iraq war, was gung ho and pushed the aluminum tube crap Judy Miller bought into — this is liberal news coverage?? Read some Cockburn on Judy Miller!! Overall, the Times and the Post run more to the right than we tend to think. Corporate norms ARE the starting point, admin. talking points come up frequently. They run BUSINESS sections, not granola sections! That’s corporate.)
    You cite the WaPo’s ombudsperson and her numbers – whenever I see numbers my first thought is WHAT DO THEY REALLY MEAN. (Please find a copy of the absolutely WONDERFUL book How to Lie with Statistics by Darryl Huff!!!) If there are twice as many stories about one candidate than about another, is it REALLY a sign of bias, or could one candidate have been traveling in (actual) Berlin, while the other went to Berlin, Pennsylvania, Berlin, Ohio, Berlin, West Virginia and the like…. Could one candidate have been more a subject of curiosity? Have raised more money? Have had more controversy? Raw numbers are meaningless — remember my thing about correlation and causation. Until we know what SIGNIFICANT numbers are, we have no way to evaluate any data. 2-1 might be grossly unfair, totally fair, ridiculous because it should have been 10-1. Who knows without more information. And were the stories positive or negative? 100 stories about Wright and 3 stories about Hagee?? This information needs to be presented for there to be a good evaluation of the coverage.
    Your original point was anti-HRC/sexist coverage was unfair, and racism was nearly non-existent. Then you took up my “corporate Repub” line and shifted the whole argument so that it would seem that not only are the media actually profoundly Dem-leaning, but in their Dem-leaning, they are sexist anti-Clintonites and prObamas. But the main examples you cite are smaller-time media and Maureen Dowd. So in the end, I have to disagree with you on the basic points.
    Please think again about the effects of a McCain presidency on women around the world. It looks pretty bad from where I’m sitting.

    Reply

  40. justin johnson says:

    perhaps, and this is kind of out there, Clark is Obama’s pick for VP candidate. perhaps this is all redirection; his name is hardly mentioned and everyone seems to be looking at the other “guys.”
    the only way to nip that idea in the bud would be to check if their itineraries had crossed at some point. perhaps they were in the same city, but had no public rally (like Obama did with the others) just to keep things low-key.
    as steve notes: clarks PAC is called “securing america.” perhaps it is the biggest media head-fake in political history…

    Reply

  41. Kathleen says:

    arthrudecco… I don’t think WigWag loathes you…disagrees strenously, and disadinfully perhaps, but not loathe…WigWag, I agree… there is sexism and racism still on the left, but it doesn”t feel as virulent as that on the right… and I think the left is willing to admit it when confronted with it’s reality…at least the Left knows its wrong, The Right doesn’t even get it. Did you happen to hear Rush Lamebone on John Edwards’ affair?.. He said perhaps John got tired of being with an intelligent woman and wanted someone who could do something else with her mouth…I could never support the candidate of his choice….as Galbraith said, the choice is between the disastrous and the unpalatable until we all revolt… if you can’t support O’Bambino, at least cast your vote for someone who actually does fight for our rights…Ralph Nader…hang tight in the storm…I’ve been through a few of those of myself, Hazel, Carol, Diane, Gloria, and Bob who knocked down our apple tree…it’s a humbling experience to watch Mother Nature do her thing.
    If your’e looking for a sexist on the Left, Teddy;s your man… I’ve been watching his machinations since Chicago….I’ve also been to Chappaquiddick and know his story doesn’t hold water..pardon the pun….my biggest objection to O’Bambino is that he’s Teddy’s choice….if he had to have a hole drilled in his head, now’s as good a time as any… his absence is Hillary’s only chance of being chosen as Veep….O’Bambino would be wise to buck that old buck from the git go….i will never get over what teddy did in chcicago in 1968…never.

    Reply

  42. WigWag says:

    “If you vote for McCain, you’re doing precisely what the corporate media want.”
    That’s just not true. Most of the largest media outlets and most of the pundits who work for them support Obama. Right wing talk radio doesn’t and Fox News doesn’t but virtually everyone else does.
    MSNBC which was the most guilty of virulent sexism during the Clinton/Obama race, is so completely in the tank for Obama that it has became the subject of a massive letter writing campaign sponsored by Emily’s List and NOW. They used sexism to smear Clinton, but they never used similar racisst remarks to smear Obama. And contrary to your comment, they didn’t use his middle name and they don’t claim that he was a Muslim, they refuted that he was a Muslim (just as all the media outlets except FOX have). Now that Clinton is out of the way, MSNBC is doing everythig they can to make Obama look good (not easy) and McCain look bad (easy).
    The medias bias in favor of Obama has gotten so pronounced that the Washington Post’s ombudsman had to actually admit it in yesterday’s column.
    She said:
    “Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party’s presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain — and therefore there’s more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn’t look good.
    In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages. Fifteen stories featured both candidates and were about polls or issues such as terrorism, Social Security and the candidates’ agreement on what should be done in Afghanistan.
    This dovetails with Obama’s dominance in photos, which I pointed out two weeks ago. At that time, it was 122 for Obama and 78 for McCain. Two weeks later, it’s 143 to 100, almost the same gap, because editors have run almost the same number of photos — 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain — since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos — 10 to 9.
    This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain.”
    The New York Times public editor admitted that the newspaper had been used as a vehicle to spread sexist lies about Clinton (primarily by Dowd).
    So here’s the problem, Questions. While Obama has been the subject of a few racially insensitive comments, the media, which is on his side, has done everything they can to refute those comments. When it came to Clinton, the media was the prime vehicle for actually spreading the smears.
    You may like the media selecting the candidate most likely to win. I don’t. They didn’t do a particularly good job when they pushed Bush over Gore or Bush over Kerry. Pushing Obama over Clinton is no different.
    Richard, if you have to question whether comparing Clinton to the Glen Close character in Fatal Attraction is sexist, you either haven’t seen the movie or are sexist yourself.

    Reply

  43. arthurdecco says:

    Re: questions Aug 18, 9:37PM
    That was a helluva post! In a good way.

    Reply

  44. Richard says:

    “Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She’s going to keep coming back and they’re not going to stop her” (Ken Rudin)
    –What exactly about that remark is even remotely sexist? She was likened to a character in a movie. Suddenly likening one female to any other is sexist?
    One could easily find fault with most of the others on that list as many aren’t sexist, and most could only be considered as such under extreme political correctness.

    Reply

  45. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    I´ll never understand why you continue to blame Obama for
    comments made by journalists and political opponents of HRC.
    Even defending Hillary C. against attacks from Maureen Dowd at
    that time would be a full time job.
    BTW, I hope the tropical storm will be mild when it reaches your
    area.

    Reply

  46. questions says:

    I don’t keep lists like this, but off the top of my head I’ll toss out the Obama as Curious George the Monkey t-shirt, all of McCain’s “he’s foreign” rhetoric, Bill Clinton’s evocation of Jesse Jackson, Biden’s “articulate/clean” comment, the number of people (isn’t it 20%) who openly say to pollsters they can’t vote for a Black man, HRC’s “working, hardworking, white Americans” and her “He’s not Muslim, not that I know of”… all the Obama/Osama crap, and the Barack HUSSEIN Obama crap, the Obama in some native dress that was suddenly Muslim, the number of news stories about how we just aren’t ready for Obama, the “presumptuous” meme, the whole “issue” of reparations for slavery that keeps popping up….
    So it’s not like he’s come out of the whole process intact either.
    The real point is that the media prefer the Republicans for the most part. They are corporations and corporations tend to do better with Republicans on taxes, regulations, the spoils of doing business. Corporations will use any tactic that works. Gendery remarks against HRC, racisty remarks against Obama, elitisty/Frenchy remarks against Kerrey, ineptitude remarks agains Dukakis, “malaise-y” remarks against Carter…. Meanwhile, McCain is a hero, Reagan is teflon, Bush II is beer buddy…. The treatment is pretty different. If Condi Rice ran, she’d not get hit with the gender crap and the race crap — because she’s a REPUBLICAN. It’s not the deep-felt sexism that’s at issue — it’s the party.
    Try to see past the attack machines of the media and see what they are trying to get you to think — you’d be better off with McCain than with Obama???? HUH??
    And though it would be a pretty amazing thing for a competitor to stop the presses and say, HEY, my opponent is a really great person, so vote for her, it would in fact have been foolish for Obama to do a whole lot of defending of HRC, and it might have looked chivalrous and therefore bad/sexist anyway. And it’s not like HRC did a lot of defending of Obama. In fact, in my reading, she got in plenty of digs — as in, McCain has passed the test, Obama hasn’t, “not as far as I know” and so on….
    Don’t ask opponents in the primary to engage in a love fest. Don’t expect the media to go for Dems in any real way. And don’t confuse a bunch of stupid remarks in the stupid media (Maureen Dowd especially) with the kind of structural systemic sexism that kills women.
    Re obstetric fistulas, International Planned Parenthood supports corrective surgery. When a woman gets a fistula, she stinks like shit LITERALLY, she’s exiled and left to die. Obstetric fistulas are caused by obstructed labors — you get a hole opened between your uterus and your rectum. The US currently doesn’t fund groups that perform abortions, including IPP. The Dems routinely fund and the Repubs routinely defund. We have become a vile nation, and McCain will add to the vileness if that’s even possible. And he calls himself prolife. ICK.
    And as to real sexism, you’d better believe I care. But obnoxious corporate tv-faces are not where I concentrate my efforts. Educational, medical, social policy matters; institutional support matters; ending militarism so that sons and daughters are not sent off to war matters; the basic dignity of women matters. Who cares about MoDo? Honestly. Her big issue is utter hatred of Bill Clinton and the need to make deadlines despite a limited imagination.
    And remember, it’s not the job of any of the other primary contenders to ride white horses into the press box and rescue HRC. In fact, if she’s a competitor, she’d be thrilled with allowing the press to go after her competitors. That’s what politics is.
    So again, I’d recommend you rethink your list, what it really means, and how it’s affecting your vote. If you vote for McCain, you’re doing precisely what the corporate media want. You’ve been manipulated into anger and response.
    If YOU care about women’s issues, vote for the Dems. They have a much better track record, even if still an imperfect one.

    Reply

  47. WigWag says:

    News Media (all)
    Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire because she cried (unlike Ed Muskie who lost in New Hampshire because he cried)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (all)
    Hillary Clinton decided to show a little cleavage what can this mean?
    Barack Obama =Silence
    News Media (all)
    Comments obsessively about Clinton’s dress on the campaign trail and in the debates while not mentioning Obama’s style of dress.
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (MSNBC)
    “Every time I see Hillary Clinton I feel like crossing my legs” (Tucker Carlson)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (MSNBC)
    “Hillary has never accomplished anything on her own. Everything she’s accomplished in life can be chalked up to one thing; her husband had an affair” (Chris Matthews)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (MSNBC)
    But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way? (David Shuster)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (NPR)
    “Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She’s going to keep coming back and they’re not going to stop her” (Ken Rudin)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (Atlantic Magazine)
    Hillary Clinton is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. In fact she’s worse…whoosh! She’s back at your throat….The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust…There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of her returning to power.” (Andrew Sullivan)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (Fox News)
    “white women are a problem … we all live with that,” (Bill Kristol)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (MSNBC)
    Referring to Clinton, “Someone needs to step in and stop this thing.” (Fineman) “Yeah somebody who can take her in a room and make sure that he’s the only one who comes out standing.” (Olbermann)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (MSNBC)
    “[W]hen she reacts the way she reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court, OK?” (Mike Barnicle)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (New York Times)
    “It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so completely dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line.” (Dowd)
    “She only won her Senate seat because she was embarrassed by a man” (Dowd)
    “For the last few days, it was Hillary who seemed in danger of being Cinderella. She became emotional because she feared that she had reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. . . At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph.” (Dowd)
    Terms used to by Dowd to describe Hillary Clinton during the campaign in various New York Times columns: “Hitlery,” ‘Billary” and “Terminator.”
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (Washington Post)
    Referring to the Clinton Campaign. “What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental? . . . I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. . . . Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim.” (Charlotte Allen)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (Wall Street Journal)
    “[Hillary Clinton] spent the campaign accusing America of being sexist, of treating her differently because she is a woman, and then, when she lacked the grace to congratulate the victor, she sent her stewards out to tell the press she just needs time, it’s so emotional. In other words, she needs space because she’s just a woman.” (Peggy Noonan)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (CNN)
    “[Hillary Clinton] is like the stereotypical — excuse the expression, but this is the way to — she’s the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? She’s that stereotypical nagging — [screeching]. You know what I mean?” (Glenn Beck)
    “This is what I meant. We were watching one of her interviews, or whatever she was doing, or a speech. And she had that tone of voice, where she just sounds like [covers his ears]. I can’t listen to it ’cause it sounds like — it sounds like my wife saying, ‘Take out the garbage.’” (Glenn Beck)
    Barack Obama=Silence
    News Media (New America Radio)
    While appearing at a public event on behalf of Air America, Rhodes called Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro “big f*cking whore[s]” and Ferraro “David Duke in drag.”
    Barack Obama=Silence
    Barack Obama
    “You’re likable enough Hillary”
    News Media=Silence
    Barack Obama
    To a Michigan Reporter while visiting an auto parts plant where he was trying to appear macho, “Hold on one second sweetie…”
    News Media=Silence
    Questions, none of this may matter to you. But it matters to me and I think it matters to millions of women. Senator Obama gives me no reason to assume that he will be anymore concerned about the women in Africa you alluded to in your comment then he appears to be about the sexism that helped him secure the nomination.
    But perhaps Dan Kervick is right, “it’s not a gender thing.” or maybe Carroll is right; sexism’s got nothing to do with it because, after all, she doesn’t know any women who have been beaten. Or maybe Paul Norheim is right; maybe I should just let it go, again.
    By the way, I am looking forward to your list of all the racist comments that the news media made which hurt Senator Obama’s chances to secure the nomination. I am curious to see whether your list will be longerr or shorter than mine.

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gads, I know I’m not supposed to to opine negatively in an ad hominem manner, but is it really ad hominem to call a jackass a jackass?
    Regardless, ad hominem or not, WigWag definitely qualifies.

    Reply

  49. questions says:

    Great moments in sexism:
    Oprah Winfrey, early in her career, was turned down by Sears for a credit card — lack of husband to co-sign.
    In the 1970′s, I believe, the last state rescinded its law deeming sex a husband’s marital right, the result being that a man could be said to have raped his wife.
    59 cents/69 cents, are we up to 73 cents a woman earns per man’s dollar?
    No, honey, you have to quit work now that we’re married.
    I WANT MY DINNER NOW. And when I come home from work the damn toys need to be put away. And iron my shirts.
    Women’s brains aren’t able to do math. Women’s brains are smaller than men’s, so women are dumber. Oh, Julia, you have such nice handwriting. And Jim, your math homework is all correct!
    Barbie Doll’s saying, “Math is too hard.”
    Anorexic models as a standard of beauty.
    Calling your wife a “cun*”. Offering to sell your wife to a motorcycle convention. Unless it’s part of a great sex life and mutually agreed upon, I guess.
    Forcing a girl or woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
    Putting your own sexual desire/felt need for a particular version of orgasm over the commitment you make to a marriage or over the basic humanity of your spouse. It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong (Socrates); it is better to sacrifice yourself and have a less than satifying life than it is to cause harm to another.
    Assuming that the chromosomal difference really matters in anything that really matters. (See Lawrence Summers on girls/women and math and science, and all the 19th century craniometry nuts.)
    So, WigWag, tell me, which of these things Obama seems to be guilty of? If you define “sexism” carefully as the judging of sexual difference’s mattering when it doesn’t, then you have a definition. Who, then, is guilty of this wrong?
    Do the media play on gender issues? Yup. Do they play on race issues? Yup. Class issues? Yup. Has all of this stuff been tossed around by everyone during the primaries? Yup. But if you really want to make the charge of sexism stick, you need to find policies that the candidate supports that are inimical to women, and clear actions the candidate has done that demonstrate a real lack of respect for the value of women. I don’t see that in Obama’s stands. I do see it in McCain’s postion on abortion, his treatment of wives 1 and 2, his courting of the right which still has a lot of unfortunate views.
    So if sexism is really the problem, then you need to look a little more carefully at the campaigns. And I have to say, if Obama has benefited from those who would “never vote for a woman”, he has been equally or more harmed by those who would “never vote for a Black guy.”
    Our whole country would be better off if we got over the whole awful identity politics thing anyway. We on the left have divided ourselves into so many small groups each of whom cannot ever let a member of another group speak for us because we’re so bloody certain of our own uniqueness that we end up with a bunch of Republicans deregulating the economy into ruin, selling off the environment til we all die of cancer, torturing numberless souls into numb death, leaving a path of Katrina-style destruction in their wake.
    So all the PUMA people who claim that “I’m too old to need an abortion and I don’t have any daughters, female relatives, fertile female friends, empathy for suffering others”; who hold that the international gag rule is a great idea, that uterine/obstetric fistulas that could be fixed by Planned Parenthood surgeons are just dandy because, after all, those women deserve the pain and stink of feces pouring out of their vaginas; who think that McCain’s wars don’t matter because what’s another million deaths and 3 million displaced; who think it’s great that the birth control pill could be labeled an abortifacient — those PUMA people really really can’t be human.
    Let go of your inner and likely not well-founded bitterness. There’s real sexism that leads to rape and murder, that has pregnant women especially vulnerable to being beaten by boyfriends and husbands, that denies calories to girls because there are boys. Know better what sexism is. Who cares if someone says to HRC “Iron my shirt.” She can cope. Think about a pregnant woman whose boyfriend burns her with an iron. That’s sexism.

    Reply

  50. arthurdecco says:

    WigWag, stop lying.
    What is it that compels you to deliberately lie about the positions taken by those of us who disagree with you? Especially if, as you speciously claim, we mean nothing to you?
    “your (sic) just some guy who comments on a blog I like to visit.”? Really? That’s rich.
    What makes you think you have to lie, villainize and propagandize to win your arguments? Don’t you think your arguments are strong enough to stand on their own merits?
    No, of course you don’t, or you wouldn’t feel the need to continue with your present ignominious strategy, would you?

    Reply

  51. WigWag says:

    “WigWag, It’s no secret I unreservedly loathe you. I’m even prepared to admit that the feeling is most certainly mutual.”
    Arthur, I don’t loathe you. Why would I? Your just some guy who comments on a blog I like to visit.

    Reply

  52. arthurdecco says:

    WigWag said: “You ask, “what case.” That would be the case of people who think they are progressives being as sexist or more sexist than people on the right. I don’t know if the three comentators that I mentioned in my post are sexist in their personal lives or in most of their opinions; but I do think that their commentary on this thread has been sexist.”
    WigWag, It’s no secret I unreservedly loathe you. I’m even prepared to admit that the feeling is most certainly mutual. But like I said to Sweetness on another thread – You don’t have to like me or even respect my opinions. JUST STOP LYING ABOUT ME!
    There was absolutely nothing sexist about my earlier comment, even in the abridged version of it that you edited thinking it supported your STUPID, STUPID argument. You lied. As usual. The sexism was and continues to be all in your dark, dank, poisoned mind.
    You’re oh so quick with the slurs…Let’s see, so far you’ve accused me of being a sexist AND an anti-Semite with no basis for either claim. What’s next? Am I to be accused of being a pedophile or a rapist?
    You simply don’t like what I have to say and so you argue like an emotionally damaged child. My gawd, your family must suffer so!
    Stand out in the figurative Florida rain and cleanse yourself of your hatred, your fear and your callous disregard for the truth if you can find the courage.
    But mostly just shut the f__k up, you troubled, smirky, snarky, vicious junkyard dog.
    Maybe someone close to you should book an appointment with Cesar Millan. Something certainly needs to be done about you because you ARE a misbehaving junk yard dog and I for one, am tired of having to judge how long your chain is when I pass you by.

    Reply

  53. Adam Z says:

    To all those who think Wesley Clark is not being invited because of the ‘Jewish lobby’ – don’t forget that, for what it’s worth, Clark is half-Jewish:
    Wesley Clark’s paternal great-grandfather was a Belarusian Jew who immigrated to the United States in response to the Pale of Settlement and anti-Semitic violence from Russian pogroms. Clark’s father, Benjamin J. Kanne, graduated from the Chicago-Kent College of Law and served in the U.S. Naval Reserve as an ensign during World War I, although he was never assigned to a combat mission. Kanne, living in Chicago, Illinois, became involved with ward politics in the 1920s as a prosecutor and served in local offices. He went on to serve as a delegate to the 1932 Democratic National Convention that nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt as the party’s presidential candidate[5] (though his name does not appear on the published roll of convention delegates[6]).
    Kanne came from the Kohen family line,[7] and Clark’s son has characterized his grandparents’ marriage, between Jewish Benjamin and Methodist Veneta Kanne,[8] as “about as multicultural as you could’ve gotten in 1944.”[9]

    Reply

  54. Robert says:

    Obama desperately needs a Pentagon credential and Clark is hands down the very best in the field. Clark will also bring necessary support in the south as a southern regional candidate and will heal some of the wounds with the Clinton camp. He is the best possible VP candidate for Obama.

    Reply

  55. WigWag says:

    Kathleen, I wish I could go to the beachh but we have a hurricane coming (or at least a tropical storm). Enjoy the beach; I’m headed to the Home Depot for extra batteries.
    You ask, “what case.” That would be the case of people who think they are progressives being as sexist or more sexist than people on the right.
    I don’t know if the three comentators that I mentioned in my post are sexist in their personal lives or in most of their opinions; but I do think that their commentary on this thread has been sexist.
    Their willingness to dismiss sexism and gender issues as largely irrelevant to the campaign is quite reflective of the candidate they are planning to vote for.
    And by the way, thanks for your insight into the Kennedys. I was unaware of the points that you made about them.

    Reply

  56. Linda says:

    Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their party and decide to vote and perhaps work for the better candidate. We don’t ever get our first choice for either President or VP–so it’s seldom the best man or woman.
    And Presidential nominee gets to pick VP. The opinions here are each person’s pre-judging about that, and pre-judging reflects only prejudices or personal preferences. Obviously people get passionate about such things. It’s Obama v. McCain.
    And at this point, I see things wrong with every one of the names mentioned for VP though I think the choice will be better than Dan Quayle. I remember that both Harry Truman and Jerry Ford were not considered great choices but did all right and are doing better in historical perspective than one might have predicted at the time.
    Garden’s fine,Kathleen. Gotta follow Bush’s advice and go shopping though for groceries. My Krogers had a great stimulus rebate deal and gave me a gift card for $330 for my rebate check–most risk-free way to earn an immediate tax-free 10% that I could find. And I’m enjoying the Olympics for one more “feel good” week before two weeks of conventions.
    I would love to know who Debbie Phelps is supporting for President. She is an older Caucasian woman who raised three children quite well as a single mother, and so I wonder if she feels that angry. Since she is a middle school principal, my guess is that she cares about sex education in the schools and that younger women keep the right to choose if they are careless/stupid/unlucky and or if they are raped and become pregnant.

    Reply

  57. Steve Roth says:

    It seems wildly odd that Clark would be ignored by the Obama team. He’s obviously a strong asset, and they’re damn good at marshalling their assets.
    Which says to me: incredibly well-executed head fake.
    But whaddo I know?

    Reply

  58. Kathleen says:

    WigWag…what case….. you can give something a rest, but I’m not sure it qualifies as a “case”..Is this the longest thread in TWN history? I’m going back to the beach…asap…

    Reply

  59. WigWag says:

    WigWag said (Aug 17, 8:54PM)
    “And as someone who has spent a good part of my life on the left… I can promise you that if anything, progressive(s)… are much more sexist than right wingers. One thing is for sure, they’re bigger hypocrites.”
    Dan Kervick said (Aug 18, 2:17AM )
    “It’s not a gender thing…”
    Carroll said (Aug 18, 4:15AM)
    “As a woman, a white one and southern one at that let me ask where are all these women who are aren’t voting for Obama and are so beside themselves over Hillary sexism and femine suffering and “getting beat up by men” as wig wag puts it? I cannot find one anywhere around me…”
    ArthurDecco said (Aug 18, 7:44AM)
    “WigWag said: “Trust me, Dan, women are used to getting beaten by men.” It’s this kind of comment, inappropriately made…”
    I rest my case!

    Reply

  60. Kathleen says:

    CNN is reproting that Al Gore doesn’t want to go to the Dem convention either…Raw Story featured this thread yesterday…
    WigWag…it was Kennedy vs Carter, in 1980, not the other way around and in 1968, it was Kennedy who got Geroge McGovern nominated, after Bobby was shot, and underhandedly gave the nomination to Humprhey…Why? Because he wasn’t really against the war so much as he was pro Kennedy control of the Dem party….he can’t run for Prez since Chappaquiddick, so the only way he can be the big wig of the Demz is if there are no Demz in a higher office than him… Bill Clinton was able to slide past him in 1992 because Teddy got caught with his pants down on Good Friday in the middle of the Willie Smith rape trial. If you think I’m exaggerating this, ask Gary Hart and Joe Biden what a Teddy staffer can do to your Presidential chances.
    Carroll… I’m with you on PUMA…a very close friend of Hillary’s had to ask me what PUMA is when I asked her if she was going to the PUMA convention….my money is on PUMA being a Rush Lamebone/Roverator crossover operation.to create ill will towards the Dem ticket whoever it turns out to be…a PUMA rep on Wolf Bltizer last week said they had $50,000…wow.. I think O’Bambino will choose Hillary for what it will do for his daughters’ future prospects.
    Linda…how’s your garden? My tan is back and all those positive ions from the sea lifted my spirits…
    Catharsis…when I need some, I just read POA…works every time….

    Reply

  61. Donna Z says:

    I’m Glad I Went Camping This Weekend.
    This entire Clemons’ discussion makes me very sad. WesPAC called the O-Team because he needed to set up his own schedule. The message from Obama’s office was simple and not necessarily horrible: there was no reason for General Clark to plan on being at the convention. Simple.
    There are making fools of themselves. Clark continues to support Obama in his appearances and is not whining at all. Everyone of the “accepted folks” either supported Clinton and/or have put their feet in the mouth. The idea that Clark needs to be shunned is stupid. Pushing him out of the party is even more stupid. And having a night devoted to security, troops, and vets without making room for Clark is insulting.
    The Democrats have one of the major foreign policy experts in the world, especially on all things Eastern European, and they have decided to ignore
    him. That’s their choice. I’ve always thought that the party functioned like a bunch of high-school cliques and they continue to prove me right. Kerry and Biden and that fool Bayh are all putting themselves forward as something that they are not: foreign policy gurus. (Oh please!)
    Steve is watching this closely and probably talking to people close to the source. My guess is that it will be Biden. As long as Obama doesn’t listen to Joe, that may be alright. Who knows. I’m sure that the credit card companies will be happy, future jailers of America will rejoice and it will hopefully be too late to partition Iraq.
    After reading this article:
    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/08/25/080825taco_talk_remnick
    I suggest we all take time think long and hard about what Remnick has to say, especially in his last paragraph:
    “But Putin is not Hitler or Stalin; he is not even Leonid Brezhnev. He is what he is, and that is bad enough. In the 2008 election, he made a joke of
    democratic procedure and, in effect, engineered for himself an anti-constitutional third term. The press, the parliament, the judiciary, the business élite are all in his pocket—and there is no opposition. But Putin also knows that Russia cannot bear the cost of reconstituting empire or the gulag. It depends on the West as a market. One lesson of the Soviet experience is that isolation ends in poverty. Putin’s is a new and subtler game: he is the autocrat who calls on the widow of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. To deal with him will require statecraft of a kind that has proved well beyond the capacities of our current practitioners.”
    Richardson, Bayh, Biden? I don’t see one of these people being able to bring anything to the table. I worry about this because my daughter will have to live with the decisions that are being made. I am depressed.

    Reply

  62. arthurdecco says:

    WigWag said: “Trust me, Dan, women are used to getting beaten by men.”
    It’s this kind of comment, inappropriately made on a thread about the reasons behind Gen. Clark’s potential no-show at the Democrat convention that cements my opinion of your debating techniques and your oh-so-flawed character, WigWag.
    It’s more evidence that you’re a bitter, dishonest, verbal abuser who thinks of nothing but winning your arguments at any cost, damn the consequences.
    Tell me – has anyone commenting on the Washington Note ever been able to convince you that your opinions might deserve to be re-examined? Has anyone here ever been able to change your opinion?
    I suppose not. You strike me as a person too insecure to ever accept the possibility that you could be wrong about anything. But then again, that could just be the limitations of this medium or your own writing style getting in the way of your True Self.
    So which is it? …Belligerent boob, failed communicator or not-so-savvy propagandist?

    Reply

  63. Carroll says:

    As a woman, a white one and southern one at that let me ask where are all these women who are aren’t voting for Obama and are so beside themselves over Hillary sexism and femine suffering and “getting beat up by men” as wig wag puts it?
    I cannot find one anywhere around me. I was on a conference call with 5 of my old college sisters earlier tonight planning our bi annual big chill weekend and asked them about the Hillary revolters that aren’t voting for the dems any more. None of them know any PUMAS, know any women who voting for McCain. They are scattered from LA to NY and places in between and no one knows a PUMA!
    Where are the PUMAS except on the net? I really have been asking around and will continue to. If I find one I will post that announcement. Here at home most I talk to are voting for or leaning toward Obama for domestic issues that are first on the agenda for most of them.
    What is so comical about wig wag’s perception of their relationship with Hillary and their investment of their own personal female resenments in Hillary is that I can guarentee them Hillary didn’t get where she is in politics by screaming about sexism.
    If Hillary has any part in the “feminist whine” of the PUMAS it is only a stragety that might serve some purpose for her, not her personal belief that everything that happens to her in politics is sexism.
    Hillary is an admirable woman in most ways and although I didn’t vote for her in the primaries, it was only her hawkish foreign policy that moved me to Obama. Hillary would be one to show sympathy for disenfranchised of color or sex, BUT she would also be the first one to privately tell a whining woman in particular to shut the hell up and move on to the next thing that needs to be done/won.
    There is some arguement that can be made about our screwy electoral rules and how they need to be changed regarding the dem primary. But there is no arguement one can make in defense of the shrill, really weird actually, nutbag women making the election all about their sex and not getting their hearts desire in the primary.
    Every election we seem to get another wing nut group and they become stranger and stranger.
    If I had my way I would dig up Eisenhower and put him back in the WH but then I don’t expect anyone to humor me on this so I’am not bothering to whine about it.

    Reply

  64. JR, Boston says:

    We cannot know all of the inside baseball stuff- only poorly run campaigns are that leaky.
    You just have to trust the guy or gal running the show and judge them, over time, on how they deliver on their promises.
    Whether it’s Obama and Biden (or Gore or Clinton or Kerry or Kaine or Sebelius), we are in good hands.
    President McCain would be like having Sonny Corleone fighting against Sollazzo. Sooner or later, Putin would set him up and take us down.
    Hotheads need not apply as POTUS.

    Reply

  65. Madge says:

    So, fwiw
    I wasn’t seriously calling Steve Clemons’ credibility into question. I
    was pointing to the irony of a man *with* Mr. Clemons’ credibility
    being mentioned in the same breath with the likes of SusanUnP @
    noquarter.
    Sad, that some of you can’t see the irony in that, still, loyalty is an
    admirable trait.

    Reply

  66. Stan Davis says:

    Ponderosa Rosa wrote that Gen. Clark much not be much of a leader because his supporters aren’t wanting to do what he wants them to do. That is only on the surface. Dig deeper, and I suspect that the fault lies not with the leader, but rather in the candidate he wants us to support. Said another way, NOT EVEN GEN. CLARK, magnificent leader that he is, can get lots of people to overlook what they see is a flawed candidate.

    Reply

  67. Madge says:

    Oh for Heaven’s sake!
    I seriously wasn’t calling Steve Clemons’ credibility into question. I
    was pointing to the irony of a man *with* Mr. Clemons’ credibility
    being mentioned in the same breath with the likes of SusanUnP @
    noquarter.
    Sorry if you can’t see the irony in that.

    Reply

  68. Dan Kervick says:

    WigWag,
    It’s not a gender thing. That kind of convention dramaturgy is part of American politics, although the exact nature of the show put on differs from convention to convention, and depends on what story you are trying to tell and what kind of sale you are trying to make.
    The biggest PUMA character I know is a 60-year old male college professor and ex-Marine. I had a long discussion/argument with him at a July 4th cookout. He sounds a lot like you. Despite all sorts of negative feelings about Obama, he really had no substantive policy differences with Obama; nor did he really think Obama would have no success in achieving his policy aims. He also was hung up on the supposed arrogance thing, but couldn’t really point to any specific statements or actions that a reasonable person would interpret as particularly arrogant, as opposed to simple confidence. My feeling was that the only arrogant thing Obama was doing was presuming to run for president, thus putting this 60 year old man in a position where he would have to endure a subordinate status to a national leader who is only a 47 year old young punk.
    Like many of us, this guy had developed a strong emotional bond with his favored candidate, and a form of personal loyalty and devotion that went beyond rational political considerations or policy preferences. Getting someone like that on your side really can’t be addressed by argument; it requires engineering some sort of emotional transference. (For example, I thought one of the most effective moments for Bill Clinton during the 1992 convention was not anything he said in his speech; it was when they showed a film bio which included an account of a teenage Clinton knocking in some door and making his step-father stop hitting his mom. That communicated to moms everywhere that Bill Clinton is a good son and a big strong boy who is brave and will protect you.
    So again, I’m sure the convention will include these sorts of theatrics. First there will be a big Clinton buildup, including an emotional celebration of the Bill Clinton administration with a climactic walk-on, standing ovation and speech by the Big Guy. Then Hillary will have her night, with a celebration of her historic campaign. many Democratic tears will be shed and many Democratic lumps will rise in Democratic gorges. Then there will be some symbolic passing of the torch and benediction of the new prince by the old king and queen. And then Obama will do his rhetorical thing, to raise goosebumbs and transport with ecstasies and send the Democratic army out into battle with their souls on fire.
    And after all that, I think even my Marine acquantance might get with the program.

    Reply

  69. Dinger says:

    I think it’s really quite simple. Obama is intimidated by Clark. Or
    maybe he considers Clark “overqualified,” if there is such a thing
    for being President.

    Reply

  70. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag, I didn`t see Obama. I just saw most of the McCain
    interview. And I got depressed. To me it all seemed surreal,
    considering the serious current situation you and we all are in,
    after 8 years with Cheney and Bush. An evangelical show…what
    can I say?
    And I know this stuff: my father was a director of the “Ethiopian
    Evangelical College” in the mid 70`s. My mother, who was the
    evangelical zealot in our family, got cancer in 2000. Just before
    she died, in the summer of 2003, she, an admirer of America,
    discovered (perhaps convinced by me and my brother) that Bush
    and his men simply wanted to attack Iraq, regardless of
    evidence and diplomacy.
    She was shocked.
    My father, also an admirer of America all his life, got several
    strokes at the time, and is currently at a hospital, weak, and
    rather confused. Sometimes, when he`s able to speak, he asks
    me to buy Time or Newsweek. I have the impression that he still
    understands some of the stuff he`s reading. He is often rather
    confused, but a couple of times he`ve mentioned that torture
    was not accepted when the Germans did it. Now, when the
    Americans are torturing prisoners, it seems like people accept
    it. That`s what he may say in his clear moments. His
    conclusion: the times have changed since he was young.

    Reply

  71. Pondering Rosa says:

    kaflinn-
    If your personal standards for a candidate are so high that no one is capable of reaching them, I would recommend sticking to the issues. “Unusually bright” people tend to be able to put aside their personal whims for the good of the country as a whole. That’s the example that General Clark appears to be trying to take, despite the tone of his supporters on his website. On the issues, Barack Obama is identical with General Clark and very close to Hillary Clinton. And if you haven’t noticed, McCain is worlds apart from General Clark on every issue — especially national security and foreign policy.
    You are living in a dream world if you don’t understand that what is written under Wes Clark’s name represents him and his ability to lead his followers to support the candidate who shares the same views on the issues as the General himself.
    You may feel proud of the ugliness of the discourse over there, but you are sadly delusional if you don’t understand that most everyone else feels that it has crossed the bounds of decency and class.
    And if the Obama campaign staff has ever read the ugly, demeaning and insulting descriptions of the nominee posted by you and your friends over there, you can hardly be surprised if the Senator has questions about General Clark. After all, it’s pretty clear all over the internet that Clarkies have absolutely no tolerance for “ugliness” written about the General. But they don’t seem to be either mature or gracious enough to afford any other Democrat the same respect….or is it just Barack Obama who deserves to be the brunt of such ugly debate?

    Reply

  72. WigWag says:

    yes I did and no I didn’t like it.
    I watched the show yesterday. I thought Obama was good. I thought McCain was terrible.
    The news media is reporting it as a big McCain win.
    I didn’t think it was.

    Reply

  73. Paul Norheim says:

    “And don’t tell me how great Obama is on women’s issues.
    Women are tired of being black mailed on abortion rights.”
    This, WigWag, does not make any sense, whatsoever.
    Did you hear what John McCain said on TV to the evangelicals
    regarding abortion yesterday?

    Reply

  74. kaflinn says:

    One other thing for Pondering Rosa…
    You mentioned in your initial post that, ” Seems to me that any real Democrat would have had those dates circled in red at least a year ago.” The implication being that General Clark must not be a “real Democrat”.
    So I have a question for you. Just what is it that makes one a ‘real Democrat’? Time and grade or shared beliefs? What exactly is a ‘real Democrat’? I’ve yet to hear a definition.
    In my opinion, General Clark has behaved more like a real Democrat, and a real patriot than most in the Dem party have in the last several years.

    Reply

  75. Mr.Murder says:

    Thanks for your comment on steve’s behalf, taters.
    In fact, Clemons is helping cover Obama to an extent, with the Biden/Daschle rumors.
    They are taking up talking time when his abysmal appearance alongside McCain should be the thread du jour.

    Reply

  76. kaflinn says:

    Dear Mr. Alvarez,
    Thank you. Glad you made it here – and sorry it was necessary.

    Reply

  77. kaflinn says:

    Pondering Rosa -
    Well, I’m sorry you seem to have such issues with Gen Clark’s leadership abilities, his blog, etc. We think he’s doing just fine.
    But,I must say that it is neither Gen Clark’s, nor Obama supporters’ job to convince me (or anyone else) to vote for him – it is Senator Obama’s job to do that. So far, he has not succeeded by a long shot, in convincing me he is the best qualified for the job. Neither has McCain. Hillary barely did.
    I’m curious though – if you can name any candidate or former candidate-now surrogate who is able to control what his or her supporters say, do or think. Who would that be?
    Also – none of us at CCN purport to represent Wes Clark in the manner you imply. The blogs on CCN represent those who write them. I don’t agree with everything they write – nor do they all agree with what I write. He generously gave his supporters a place to discuss the issues important to both us and him – and the freedom and encouragement to speak without fear of censorship. That debate isn’t always pretty. In fact, sometimes it’s downright ugly. But it is something sorely missing in too much of the country these days.

    Reply

  78. WigWag says:

    “Some of these loyalists just need closure; and they need Hillary to convey emotional permission to bond with Obama.”
    “They just can’t like the guy because he’s the guy who beat their hero.”
    “I assume Clinton’s team and Obama’s team are working hard to put together a very effective televised stage show in Denver that will generate the appropriate dramatic cycle of grief, catharsis, farewell, redemption and rebirth. After a week of tears, inspiration, charismatic healing and soaring spirits, this will all finally be behind us.”
    So Dan Kervick really is a condescending sexist jack ass, just like the candidate he supports.
    Don’t worry, Dan, millions of women get it. There are lots of reasons that they won’t vote for Obama. But most of all it’s because they recognize Obama for what he is; just like it’s pretty plain what you are.
    And about the guy who “beat” our hero. Trust me, Dan, women are used to getting beaten by men.
    You’re right about one thing though. Millions of women are in a quandry. Do they vote for the senile old man or the arrogant, obnoxious young man. I don’t know what they’ll decide. Hell, I don’t even know what I’ll decide.
    But I do know one thing. The more Obama supporters like you open their mouths, the better the old guy looks.

    Reply

  79. taters says:

    Steve Clemons is well known for being excellently sourced, a gracious host and plenty smart. Those that call him into question are actually calling themselves into question.

    Reply

  80. PisdsedOffAmerican says:

    Geez Lynn, what a crock of horseshit. The slime some of you wallow in never ceases to amaze me.

    Reply

  81. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “This phenomenon will begin to end rapidly right after the convention”
    Actually, Kervick, “this phenomenon” is a fabrication on WigWag’s part. There is no evidence that women are abandoning Obama in droves.

    Reply

  82. lynn says:

    food for thought
    From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008 ~
    Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:
    Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice.
    On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on
    July 4th, I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
    On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
    I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this
    year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late
    1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, so when a young leader came along, every Cuban
    was at least receptive.
    When the young leader spoke eloquently and
    passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said,
    ‘Praise the Lord.’ And when the young leader
    said, ‘I will be for change and I’ll bring you
    change,’ everyone yelled, ‘Viva Fidel!’
    But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the
    executioner’s guns went silent, the people’s guns
    had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had
    taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call
    those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the
    beginning of my story.
    Luckily, we in America would never fall for a young
    leader who promised change without asking, what change?
    How will you carry it out? What will it cost America ?
    Would we?
    Manuel Alvarez, Jr.
    g3vgcd

    Reply

  83. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “What might this do for your creds, Mr. Clemons?”
    As far as I can tell, Steve honestly presented what he was told.
    Personally, I find the attacks on Steve, such as yours, despicable. Your slimey sniping isn’t doing Obama any favors.
    If your hero is so laudable, why not implore his staff to explain why four rabbis are needed, but Wes Clark isn’t.

    Reply

  84. Dan Kervick says:

    There were supposed to be quotation marks around my first paragraph. It was a quote from one of WigWag’s posts.

    Reply

  85. Dan Kervick says:

    I understand that you don’t agree. But obviously lots of women do. After all, it appears to be women who are abandoning Obama in droves.
    This phenomenon will begin to end rapidly right after the convention. Some of these loyalists just need closure; and they need Hillary to convey emotional permission to bond with Obama. They heard her say it with her mouth when she conceded, but understandably her heart wasn’t in it at the time, and it showed.
    Right now what I hear from the die-hard Clinton loyalists is that their hearts and heads haven’t yet joined up. Politically, they know why Obama is worlds better than MCCain. And despite some of the obsessive kvetching about “arrogance” and what-not, they don’t *really* have any deep objections at the level of character and personality. They just can’t like the guy because he’s the guy who beat their hero.
    I assume Clinton’s team and Obama’s team are working hard to put together a very effective televised stage show in Denver that will generate the appropriate dramatic cycle of grief, catharsis, farewell, redemption and rebirth. After a week of tears, inspiration, charismatic healing and soaring spirits, this will all finally be behind us.
    For now, all I can do is marvel at our pathetic waste of human energy. Thousands and thousands of words that could have been devoted to defeating John McCain, devoted instead to keeping pain alive and re-playing the past.
    I feel sort of like I did when I couldn’t figure out how to get my poor, old Labrador Sammy to stop licking his lick sore.

    Reply

  86. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee, Wigwag, thats a weak explanation for a lie.
    Keep it up, there are a few here that could use a window into what WigWag is all about.
    Do you intend to substantiate your assertion that “it appears to be women who are abandoning Obama in droves” or not?
    Or are you going to just keep digging a deeper hole?

    Reply

  87. whocare says:

    A positive Obama diary at WesPac! Oh wait. It was positive until the regulars attacked as usual. Not even an original Hillary supporter is welcome over there.
    http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16330
    In the olden days of CCN somebody would step in and stop this stop the madness. Not anymore. Today Kat (blog warden) warns an Obama supporter to stop calling a PUMA a liar, even though he never said any such thing. Day after day people on that blog drag lies, fake emails and SusanPU to stir up things.
    Not only has it become PUMA Central it has become anti-Democratic Party.
    One has to assume General Clark is A-Okay with that. If he wasn’t, one word from the General and it would stop.
    Somebody over there said Kat hit the nail on the head. Yup. The final nail in the coffin. Good job.

    Reply

  88. Madge says:

    Can of worms.
    Curious, and thinking to check out the bloviating Nick Kelly’s
    great diary alluded to upthread, I linked to Wes Clark’s
    Community blog at securingamerica.com and found that within
    his 8 line “diary”, Mr. Kelly has embedded links not only to
    Clemons post here, but in the very next sentence, the link to a
    diary by SusanUnPC at No Quarter (Larry Johnson, proprietor.
    Larry Johnson of the non-existant “Whitey Tapes”. Larry Johnson
    anti-Obama propagandist.)
    As well as the “The Nick Kelly Challenge”:
    “Can anyone defend his decision on this? What does it say about
    his supposed “good judgment” and intention to unite us?”
    And Mr. Kelly wonders quite indignantly upthread, why Obama
    supporters will not answer his questions?
    I thought I owed it to Mr. Clemons to inform him what kind of
    company he’s linked up with over there/over here. TWN and
    noquarter, all in the same tiny little 8 line diary at Wesley Clark’s
    public forum. What might this do for your creds, Mr. Clemons?

    Reply

  89. WigWag says:

    “abandoning Obama in droves…”
    Sounds like a good summary to me of a candidate who was 9 points ahead in Ohio two months ago and is now tied primarily because middle aged white women are skeptical of his campaign.
    But if you don’t like my characterization; that’s fine. Choose your own.
    Either way, it’s bad news for Obama.

    Reply

  90. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I know you think women should just get over it”
    Actually, you dissembling jackass, you haven’t got a clue how I feel about this issue, because I have never commented about it.
    Back here on the planet earth, I am merely pointing out one of your many assertions that are pure unadulterated bullshit.
    Either back up your assertion that “it appears to be women who are abandoning Obama in droves”, or just accept the fact you have, once again, been caught peddling snake oil.

    Reply

  91. PissedOffAmerican says:

    So, Wigwag, your assertion that….
    “it appears to be women who are abandoning Obama in droves”….
    is somehow the same as…..
    “The Democrats neglecting to choose Obama are disproportionately white, female, and middle aged…”
    Frankly, you’re full of shit. Those are two completely different premises. But you knew that.

    Reply

  92. Pondering Rosa says:

    kaflinn-
    I know that the “supremely pissed off” remnant of Wes Clark supporters who have bullied their way into dominance on his blog are mightily proud of their so-called “free speech” zone over there. (And there are plenty of PUMAs over there who daily talk about how they hate Obama and will be voting for McCain.) But considering that all you are doing is representing General Clark on his own website as an ineffective leader who can’t even rally his own troops, I can’t agree that your actions are “unusually bright.”
    If Wes Clark can’t even lead his own supporters to rally behind Senator Obama — the “nominee” to everyone except you and a handful of unhappy, bitter Hillary supporters — then what use would he be to Obama, either as a running mate or an official surrogate?
    You all proclaim to be his most ardent supporters, and yet if he can’t even persuade you of the great need to elect a Democrat to the White House or convince you that Barack Obama “gets it right” — as Clark himself has said many times in the past — then how would he have the leadership to bring around voters to vote for Obama? Or are you actually implying that those of you on his blog are so much smarter than all of the rest of us and that’s why you’re entitled to complain about the nominee and not get onbooard to win this election? No wonder it’s such a mess over there!
    It’s abundantly clear to anyone who has read over at his blog in the past 9 months that it’s a toxic site full of vitriol. Maybe you don’t read very carefully, but plenty of people have read the Hitler references — especially the ones about Obama supporters being like Nazis at pro-Hitler rallies. You know they are there, along with even worse rants against Clark supporters who decided to back Barack Obama in the primaries — including one longtime supporter being called a “lying, scumsucking pig” and being told, “Wes Clark would spit on you.”
    There’s not much to defend over there, and if you really want to help General Clark, you will start believing him when he says that it’s a “critical mission to elect Barack Obama.” Because using his blog space to vent your “independent and strong-willed” wrath is only making him look like he doesn’t have much political leadership ability.
    Don’t keep imploring Obama supporters to convince you of why you should vote for him. Listen to the General who you claim to follow so ardently. If you won’t believe him, you’ll never believe anyone else.

    Reply

  93. Paul Norheim says:

    “And we’re particularly not going to take it from a fauxgressive
    who pretends to care about women’s causes and then gladly
    takes advantage of the most heinous sexism to get what he
    wants.”
    And you accept the consequences, a semi-senile old white male
    with disastrous views on foreign, as well as domestic politics,
    trying to win the Vietnam war once and for all.
    I don´t get it.

    Reply

  94. WigWag says:

    “How about a bit of substantiation for that claim, Wigwag?”
    Read the press release from the Ohio Poll that I posted (8:54PM). It’s all there. The pollsters are the one who say,
    “The Democrats neglecting to choose Obama are disproportionately white, female, and
    middle aged, an indication that it could be former supporters of Hillary Clinton who are
    holding out…”
    and it’s the Ohio pollsters who say
    “One factor causing Obama problems is that he’s not doing as good a job as McCain of getting folks in his party to vote for him. While McCain leads 89-7 among Republicans, Obama’s lead is a narrower 75-17 among Democrats..”
    Is any of it true? I don’t have a clue. Just like I don’t have a clue whether Rasmussen, Gallup or Zogby polls are right.
    There’s no question that Obama will beat McCain among women, Democrats always do. The question is whether the gender gap will be big enough for Obama to secure a victory. It wasn’t for Gore and it wasn’t for Kerry.
    I know you think women should just get over it. But to lots of women, the behavior of the Obama campaign and his media enablers hit too close to home.
    Seems there are alot of women who are getting tired of being told to just get over it.

    Reply

  95. Paul Norheim says:

    “Look, bottom line, I think BOTH campaigns threw some
    clinkers, but ran reasonably clean campaigns all things
    considered.” (Sweetness)
    Exactly – all things considered, isn`t that the bottom line? Think
    of this in some perspective. If you compare the competition
    between the black candidate and the female candidate with the
    options ten, twenty, forty years ago, I would say that this
    competition was a miracle.
    And regarding gender and race in America, I would think that
    things will only improve. After all, you currently have a female,
    black secretary of state, and no one are arguing against her on
    that level.
    And as I`ve said before here, those parts of the world where
    race and gender still is a huge issue, have witnessed the
    competition between a black candidate and a woman, and I
    would guess that this will have a positive influence in those
    countries.
    In this election you`re in a situation where a certain ideology
    and certain decisions have resulted in disasters abroad and at
    home. The risk of regional wars, even a World War III on a scale
    that make the former wars rather harmless in comparison, is
    actually higher now than during the cold war. To be impatient in
    the current situation – because the symbolic importance of a
    woman getting elected as president seem so important that it`s
    better to risk world peace then accepting a black candidate with
    less dangerous views then the competitor, don`t make any
    sense.

    Reply

  96. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “After all, it appears to be women who are abandoning Obama in droves”
    How about a bit of substantiation for that claim, Wigwag?

    Reply

  97. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Upon googling three of these four rabbis, I feel a tinge of optimism.
    Google them.
    Schneier and Schwartzman hardly seem to be the picture of zionist fanatacism, and seem to be pursuing solutions to a wide range of human travails. And Saperstein’s publically stated aversion to the Hagee horseshit is encouraging as well.
    While you’re at it, you might as well google Hagee and get an idea of exactly what WigWag represents as he seeks to undermine Obama’s chances while lubricating McCain’s entry into the Oval Office.

    Reply

  98. Anna says:

    Nick Kelly links to No Quarter and denies a PUMA slime pit. It’s to laugh.

    Reply

  99. WigWag says:

    This is very bad news for Senator Obama. Remember, if Obama loses Florida and Ohio he will almost certainly not be elected President. He has been leading in Ohio for months.
    “Press Release
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 17, 2008
    INTERVIEWS: DEAN DEBNAM 888-621-6988 / 919-880-4888 (serious media inquiries only please, other questions can be directed to Tom Jensen)
    QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POLL: TOM JENSEN 919-744-6312
    Obama, McCain tied in Ohio
    Raleigh, N.C. – John McCain has pulled even with Barack Obama in Ohio, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling. Obama had led in PPP’s June and July polls of the state. It’s 45-45 with 10% undecided.
    One factor causing Obama problems is that he’s not doing as good a job as McCain of getting folks in his party to vote for him. While McCain leads 89-7 among Republicans, Obama’s lead is a narrower 75-17 among Democrats. Obama has the 45-28 edge with independent voters.
    The Democrats neglecting to choose Obama are disproportionately white, female, and
    middle aged, an indication that it could be former supporters of Hillary Clinton who are
    holding out…”
    Paul Norheim asks, So what the heck? Why don’t you just say: what happened, and let’s
    close that chapter. Let’s look at the options, be responsible, realistic, and pragmatic…and hope for the best?
    And then Paul you say, “the majority of those who supported Hillary Clinton don’t share your current way of thinking… Move on, WigWag.”
    What you don’t get is that millions of women are tired of moving on. Women who have experienced sexism and the glass ceiling first hand are mad as hell and not going to take it any more. And we’re particularly not going to take it from a fauxgressive who pretends to care about women’s causes and then gladly takes advantage of the most heinous sexism to get what he wants. And as somewhat who has spent a good part of my life on the left, Paul, I can promise you that if anything, progressive men are much more sexist than right wingers. One thing is for sure, they’re bigger hypocrites.
    And don’t tell me how great Obama is on women’s issues. Women are tired of being black mailed on abortion rights.
    Here’s the deal, if we allow Obama and his media cronies to get away with their sexism, nothing will ever change.
    I understand that you don’t agree. But obviously lots of women do. After all, it appears to be women who are abandoning Obama in droves.

    Reply

  100. hopeful says:

    Sounds familiar. steal their policies and then show them no consideration. Didn’t he do this to Hillary?
    Another one under the bus, boy it’s getting really crowded under there!

    Reply

  101. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, no Clark…..but….
    Four rabbis oughta be able to drive the message home, eh? No wonder there is no room for Clark.
    ——————-
    4 rabbis among U.S. clerics to address Democratic Convention
    By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent
    Tags: U.S., democratic party
    Four U.S. rabbis will hold mass prayers and address next Sunday’s opening ceremony of the Democratic Convention in Denver.
    For the first time, the party has decided to open the upcoming convention with an interfaith service, which will include leaders from all religions in the U.S., including Catholics and Muslim.
    The decision is “in keeping with Barack Obama’s personal commitment and the commitment of the Democratic Party to put faith in action,” a party press release said.
    David Saperstein, a high-profile Reform rabbi from Washington, D.C., will address some 70,000 spectators at Denver’s stadium, just before Obama is scheduled to speak.
    Mark Schneier, a highly-regarded Orthodox rabbi from New York and founding director of the Jewish-Muslim Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, will also take part in the opening ceremony, alongside Amy Schwartzman, a Reform rabbi from Virginia.
    “The Democrats have always been, are, and will continue to be people of faith, and the convention will demonstrate that in an unprecedented way,” Convention CEO Leah Daughtry said.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012445.html

    Reply

  102. Deb Williams says:

    why the speculation of a betrayal? we shouldn’t be so quick to read into things that have not been directly clarified or addressed by the Obama campaign itself. until – it is what it is – no reason to read anything more into it.
    heck we still don’t know who the vp selection is for either candidate – and we all might be surprised in the end.

    Reply

  103. Sweetness says:

    Wig says: “Yes, Sweetness, and Clinton had to deal with
    pervasive sexism. And the sexism on the left of the Democratic
    Party is more pronounced and more virulent than the racism of
    the left in the Democratic Party.”
    S: How could we possibly measure this? I certainly saw some
    evidence of this in the iron my shirt comments and of course
    Schuster’s awful remark. But I also saw evidence of racism in
    some of Bill’s comments down in NC. But, bottom line, I don’t
    see how you can measure it. I think it’s still more acceptable to
    voice sexist views than to voice racist views–in part because
    the history of racism is far more shameful in many ways–but
    that doesn’t mean the former is more prevalent or virulent than
    the latter.
    In fact, when many black women are asked about this point, they
    see their blackness as a bigger obstacle to overcome than their
    femaleness. Just anecdotal–but what I’ve heard consistently
    over some years. One reason why black women aren’t often
    prominent in many feminist groups, which tend to be dominated
    by white women.
    Barack Obama used sexist language and acquiesced in rampant
    media sexism, Clinton didn’t race bait. I understand that you
    disagree.
    S: What about them hardworking WHITE folks in WV and
    Kentucky? What about hitting him on Muslimgate or Pastorgate
    or Terroristgate? She threw a number of knuckle balls that were
    designed to make Obama look scary to white folk.
    Look, bottom line, I think BOTH campaigns threw some clinkers,
    but ran reasonably clean campaigns all things considered.

    Reply

  104. Paul Norheim says:

    “Norheim….
    You really don’t get it, do you? Wigwag’s bullshit is a McCain
    endorsement built on subterfuge and fakery. Hillary is just
    WigWag’s mask.” (POA)
    Perhaps. But probably not. I`ve chosen to take WigWag at face
    value. The same goes for Sweetness and questions.
    “And though you didn’t ask, I’ll tell you who I won’t blame [If
    McCain wins, and continues to screw up at home and abroad,
    the way the Bush adm. did]. I won’t blame the majority of
    Democrats. After all, more of them (18 million) voted for Hillary
    Clinton that any candidate (Republican or Democrat) in history.”
    (WigWag)
    They did. And millions of Americans voted for Obama as well. If
    you add this up, you`ll get perhaps 35 million people (I would
    guess) voting respectively for Clinton and Obama. And then the
    millions who`ll wait until the final elections. Fine.
    Think about this: the overwhelming majority of those who`ll
    vote for Obama, would have voted for Hillary Clinton as well.
    And the overwhelming majority of those who preferred Clinton,
    will certainly vote for Obama.
    For the majority of Dem. voters, the issue is not so much
    Obama versus Clinton (though this has some important
    aspects), but TO DO WHAT THEY CAN TO AVOID A
    CONTINUATION OF THE DISASTROUS POLITICS OF THE LAST
    EIGHT YEARS. At least they hope that a vote for the Dem.
    candidate may represent a small change of direction.
    The majority of those who supported Hillary Clinton don`t share
    your current way of thinking. The majority of ex Clinton
    supporters are much more pragmatic, and seem, curiously
    enough, to be more frightened than you by the prospect of a
    half dement GOP president continuing the disastrous politics of
    the Cheney/Bush adm. They seem somehow to live in the real
    world. I would guess that for the majority of dem. voters, the
    differences between Clinton and Obama become trivial and
    completely irrelevant, compared to avoiding a continuation of
    the current tragical path.
    Move on, WigWag.
    Get real!

    Reply

  105. Sweetness says:

    Wow…this is the first thread I can remember in a long time where
    there are all these different posters. All I can say is that it sure
    took me a long time to make them all up and get through the
    captcha.

    Reply

  106. WigWag says:

    POA, your powers of perception are extraordinary!
    First you sleuth out that I have multiple personality disorder; that I am a veritable Sybil. Then you figure out the names of some of my other personalities (e.g. Sweetness, Questions, etc.).
    And then for your pièce de résistance you figure out that I have “endorsed” McCain despite the fact that I have called him senile and repugnant.
    Yes, POA, in my world senile and repugnant really mean incisive and likable. You’re the first one to really get me, POA! I just can’t put anything over on you can I?
    See if you can tell my real meaning of this one,
    “I think you’re swell!”

    Reply

  107. kaflinn says:

    then again…he might not read anything I write* ;-)
    * Anna – I am, in fact, his longest-standing blogger beginning with his very first forum in mid-2003, before he was a candidate.
    I guess he doesn’t agree with your assessment.

    Reply

  108. WigWag says:

    “I do think that Obama has had to deal with pervasive racism in this country.”
    Yes, Sweetness, and Clinton had to deal with pervasive sexism. And the sexism on the left of the Democratic Party is more pronounced and more virulent than the racism of the left in the Democratic Party.
    Barack Obama used sexist language and acquiesced in rampant media sexism, Clinton didn’t race bait. I understand that you disagree.
    “Look, the fact is, Clinton lost the primary all on her own. Obama and his supporters didn’t do her in. She ran a BAD CAMPAIGN.”
    Sweetness, I agree almost entirely. Clinton has no one to blame but herself for the serious mistakes that her campaign made. And before the campaign even started, she agreed to rules for caucuses that gave Obama a tremendous advantage over her. Who is to blame for that? She is.
    And as bad as the rules may have been, Obama played entirely by the rules. The argument each side made about the Florida and Michigan imbroglio would have been completed reversed had the results in those primaries been reversed. That’s just politics.
    But to me, this is completely irrelevant. I think Clinton would have been a good President, I think Obama is likely to be a poor President. I could have happily voted for any of the other candidates except Obama (and Gravel.) The real issue to me is not the inadequacies of the Clinton campaign; it’s the inadequacies of Obama as a general election candidate and as a putative leader of the United States.
    Take a look at the comments on this thread. Can you remember the last time the Democratic Party has been this divided? It’s much worse now than Carter versus Kennedy. The only thing comparable is 1968, which I remember very well. So much for the unity bull that the Democratic leadership is trying to sell us.
    By the way, I also watched the Pastor Rick show. I found it very distressing. I think Obama handled himself with integrity in a difficult spot. He did about as well as he could under the circumstances. McCain’s answers were repugnant. His comments about the Supreme Court, gay marriage, etc. made me want to throw up.
    I keep hoping that McCain will pull a Bloomberg or a Schwarzenegger so I could consider him as a viable option. After watching that show, I know it’s not going to happen. Do not mistake my disgust with “Obama love” with affection for McCain. McCain is very bad. The problem is, they are both very bad.
    Dan Kervick, if you are still lurking around; I read your comment at 4:46 pm very carefully. Then I went back to re-read the comments on this thread. There are a few dumb comments from Clinton supporters and a few dumb comments from Obama supporters. But the only reference to Senator Obama using these terms (“shiftless, Farrakhan-loving, uppity, bus-driving, America-hating, atheist anti-Christ”) is yours.
    Who would have guessed it?
    Paul Norheim (6:15 pm)the decision of whether to select a surgeon who has performed an operation a thousand times but who now has shaky hands and clouded judgment or a smart young medical student who has never actually performed surgery himself is quite a Hobson’s choice. Or rather, it is no choice at all.

    Reply

  109. PissedOIffAmerican says:

    Norheim….
    You really don’t get it, do you? Wigwag’s bullshit is a McCain endorsement built on subterfuge and fakery. Hillary is just WigWag’s mask.

    Reply

  110. Paul Norheim says:

    Sorry: not “his” but “her former posts”.

    Reply

  111. Paul Norheim says:

    HadleyTeebopExpress and roger:
    though I strongly and passionately disagree with WigWag on this
    issue, I have read many of his former posts, and know for sure
    that your accusations are off the mark. So please take the time to
    read him (and other commentators you may accuse) before
    delivering this kind of crap.

    Reply

  112. Nick Kelly says:

    Anna – You’ll find it very difficult to recruit people to support Obama by unfairly accusing them of posting in a “slime pit”.
    Exactly what have I posted that you consider “disgraceful” and “damaging” to “General Clark’s honor”?
    Here is what I asked in my most recent diary:
    “Steve Clemons reports that Gemeral “Clark was informed by Barack Obama’s people that there was no reason to come” to the Democratic National Convention.
    My friend, Sacha Millstone, emailed me the link to this diary by SusanUnPC at NoQuarter.
    Imo, it’s not very hope-inspiring for Senator Obama to fail to involve General Clark in his “Securing America” show. Can anyone defend his decision on this? What does it say about his supposed “good judgment” and intention to unite us?”
    So, Anna, how does that translate into a “slime pit” that you will not consider posting in?
    It seems to me that you are merely attempting to avoid the questions by unfairly and viciously smearing the venue in which the questions were asked.

    Reply

  113. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Oh goody, another Sweetness/Wigwag/Questions circle jerk.

    Reply

  114. roger says:

    No, I’ll say it for Wig-Wag: “Death to America”
    That saves his typing finger even more.

    Reply

  115. kaflinn says:

    Anna – I am, in fact, his longest-standing blogger beginning with his very first forum in mid-2003, before he was a candidate.
    I guess he doesn’t agree with your assessment.

    Reply

  116. HadleyTeebopExpress says:

    I’ll say it for Wig-Wag:
    “Obama is a Negro, and I don’t like Negroes.”
    Save your typing finger Wiggy, the above is all you ever have to write.

    Reply

  117. Paul Norheim says:

    “John McCain is awful. He’s too old; his lucid moments and his
    moments of confusion seem about equal in length…”
    WigWag, while I wrote my polemical “surgeon” reply, I lost my
    internet connection on the desktop mac, and had to post it on
    the laptop. In the meanwhile, you had responded. Thanks. And
    your characterization of McCain, that I have quoted above, is
    priceless. I couldn`t have said it better.
    And this is what puzzles me, and I would guess is puzzling you
    as well: You know for sure that McCain is a horrible choice. And
    as I`ve come to know and appreciate you, you actually care
    about politics (“as we know it”) and issues. You really seem to
    understand what is at stake.
    So what the heck?
    Why don`t you just say: what happened happened, and let`s
    close that chapter. Let`s look at the options, be responsible,
    realistic, and pragmatic…and hope for the best?
    I mean, instead of helping a demented person (whose “foreign
    policy is terrible and [whose] domestic policies are worse”) to
    become the leader of the most powerful nation on earth?

    Reply

  118. kaflinn says:

    To Pondering Rosa:
    Quote:
    If General Clark is so committed to the Democratic Party why did he make a commitment to be out of the country during the convention in the first place?
    Seems to me that any real Democrat would have had those dates circled in red at least a year ago. When did he make this prior commitment — before or after Hillary conceded? It’s very strange that he feels that he has such an important place within the party and yet doesn’t find it important enough to support the Demorats by showing up at their own convention. It shows that General Clark was only committed to the Democratic party if his candidate had won the nomination or if he got to be a major player. It really should be the other way around.
    Answer:
    Wow! That’s an incredible leap to make, not to mention an incredibly inaccurate one. While I don’t speak for General Clark in any way…
    General Clark isn’t a sitting politician. He actually has to earn a living by working. His business committments are global and can’t be cancelled and rescheduled willy-nilly. Many are made a year in advance. He has, however, made it quite clear, publically, in more than one recent tv appearance, that though his schedule is tight he is willing to flex it if there is a constructive reason for him to be there and he is asked to be there. Somehow, I don’t think hanging out for the hell of it and glad-handing qualify.
    Quote:
    And if anyone is curious about why the Obama camp could be a bit suspicious of General Clark — well, just go take peek at his community blog. It is full of PUMAs — many of them also responsible for the hysterics here on this thread. If you think one of General Clark’s self-avowed PUMAs calling Obama a “moron” over here on this thread is bad, just take a gander over there, where you will see Obama and his supporters compared to Hitler and the Nazis. And that’s been going on for 9 months now.
    Answer:
    Um…do you really want to go down the ‘blame the boss for his/her supporters’ road? If you do – no one will come out looking too pretty, will they.
    Also – his blog is far from ‘full of PUMAs’ In fact, most of those who regularly blog there have no affiliation with PUMA whatsoever, some even think many of the PUMA organizations are nuts. Other’s don’t. And tha would be the point; multiple positions by a vast variety of thinking supporters. No lock-step. Not even with General Clark.
    And, byw, I just sifted through seven pages of comments from a search of Obama being compared to Hitler. Funny. No member there made any such comparisson. Feel free to do a search of the words: Obama + Hitler there.
    As for the dissenting opions about Obama – absolutely they are there, as are ones far nastier that were made about Hillary Clinton, shortly after Gen Clark endorsed her. The point is that Gen. Clark’s community blog reflects his belief in free speech and dissenting views, ugly as they can sometimes be. Posts are not censored, members are not banned. It is a community-policed blog that uses a karma system. Sometimes Karma’s a bitch.
    Quote:
    How General Clark thinks he can keep such a hate-filled blog going on under the radar that daily and regularly slams the Democratic nominee — and yet expect to be treated with kid gloves is simply laughable.
    Answer:
    One has nothing to do with the other. Bear in mind – while it may be hate-filled to you because you disagree with some of the posts, it isn’t hate-filled to those who agree with those same posts, is it. It’s a matter of opinion.
    And, not to put too fine a point on it…Senator Obama is not yet the “nominee”. He is the “presumptive nominee.” There is no nominee until all the votes are cast at the convention…you know…that thing that’s sole purpose is specifically to vote to choose the nominee that they’ve been having for more than a hundred years now. So please don’t get ahead of yourself.
    However – all that aside – since when is it verbotten for anyone to criticize any candidate?? That is what the vetting process is about – critique. Yes – I would prefer it were far longer on ability/policy and far shorter on personality/hype, but that horse has left the barn long ago.
    So – please don’t put words into Gen Clark’s mouth or imagine you know what he thinks. None of us, frankly, know what General Clark thinks about this. We do, however, know that his supporters are suprememly pissed off that he has been thus slighted. This is not a case of treating someone with ‘kid gloves’ as you stated – but of demonstrating some respect for him, his abilities and background, and the work he has done on behalf of the Democratic party for at least the last five years – tirelessly, freely, and without asking for anything in return.
    Quote:
    Clark claims that he subscribes to Eisenhower’s view of leadership — “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”
    Wesley Clark says he wants his followers to support Obama — and yet he seems to have zero leadership ability to get them to “want to do it.” So either General Clark is lacking in political leadership ability or he secretly wants his followers to divide the party and trash our nominee.
    Answer:
    A) You have no clue how truly successfully he is in making us want to do things we don’t want to do!
    B) Having said that – he’s isn’t 100% successful at it, but you can’t, in fairness, blame him. He has unusually bright, independant and strong-willed supporters. Trying to get all of us to agree on something so fundamentally important to our country as who should be president (other than him, of course) makes herding cats look easy.
    Just to reiterate – it is us, Gen Clark’s supporters who are so extremely pissed off about this. We would be equally pissed off no matter who the presumptive nominee is. Contrary to popular opinion, the overwhelming majority of his supporters who don’t support Senator Obama, don’t support him because we think him wholly unqualified for the job. Many of us didn’t like Clinton either, but we at least know she’s qualified. That a great many of those same voters are repulsed by how they saw the Dem party and the media treat both Obama and Clinton, only added fuel to the fire.

    Reply

  119. Paul Norheim says:

    “Don`t worry, if the surgeon doesn`t have any experience; Dan
    doesn`t care about experience. He supports Senator Obama.”#
    Obviously, you`re fond of that surgeon metaphor, WigWag -
    I`ve seen it several times before here.
    So, let`s elaborate a bit on that one. If a patient has got a fever
    - let`s say from pneumonia – you can be sure that experienced
    “surgeons” like Dick Cheney, Bush, McCain and a long list of
    good old neocons sharing the same views, formed by decades
    of “experience”, will amputate a leg and an arm, and if the
    patient dies during the operation, they will triumphantly tell us
    that -yes, he died, but he doesn`t have fever anymore!
    You prefer an “experienced surgeon”. Fine. But remember that
    you`ll have no one to blame if you get sick and are sent to the
    GOP hospital. Good luck!

    Reply

  120. Anna says:

    Nick Kelly, I wouldn’t step foot again in that PUMA slime pit. If it weren’t for the esteem in which I hold General Clark, I would demand a return of my donation to WesPac of last week. People like you are not only hurting Obama; you are damaging General Clark’s honor. Disgraceful.

    Reply

  121. WigWag says:

    “Now, let’s hypothetically take an old white man, not John McCain, but someone else with plenty of experience, around the same age as him, and basically in agreement with his views on foreign and domestic issues: Dick Cheney.
    If you had the choice between the young and “inexperienced” Obama and the old, highly experienced Dick Cheney, you would still not vote for Obama because of his lack of experience, his “flip flopping”, and the fact that he “stole” the election from your female candidate, right?”
    Actually, I think it’s not entirely accurate to equate John McCain with Dick Cheney. After all, McCain has kept his word on campaign finance reform. Cheney was always against it and Obama was for it before he was against it. And McCain’s a little better than Cheney on stem cell research and global warming.
    But, I take your point.
    Your mind experiment was very interesting and thought provoking. So let me suggest one of my own.
    If you saw these quotes from a politician, but didn’t know who they were from, would you guess they were from a conservative republican (like Dick Cheney or George W. Bush) or a liberal democrat (like Barack Obama)?
    1)”A nation healed, a world repaired…”
    2)”I have become a symbol of America returning to its best traditions…”
    3)”A light will shine down from somewhere, it will alight upon you, and you will experience an epiphany…”
    4)”This is the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal…”
    Yes the choice this year is truly bleak. John McCain is awful. He’s too old; his lucid moments and his moments of confusion seem about equal in length; his foreign policy is terrible and his domestic policies are worse.
    And then we have Barack, the inexperienced huckster who has hardly ever held a full time job but never stops looking for a promotion.
    But, Paul, you did ask one really easy question in your comment.
    “And if McCain wins – which is actually getting more and more likely – and continues to make bad choices on the same catastrophic levels as the current administration, who are you going to blame?”
    I’ll blame the same people you should blame; the people who voted in the primaries and caucuses for the worst Democratic nominee in at least 100 years. And I will also blame the super delegates who are anointing Senator Obama. After all, without them, he wouldn’t get the nomination.
    And though you didn’t ask, I’ll tell you who I won’t blame. I won’t blame the majority of Democrats. After all, more of them (18 million) voted for Hillary Clinton that any candidate (Republican or Democrat) in history.

    Reply

  122. Nick Kelly says:

    Thanks, Steve. I wrote a very short diary concerning this at Wes Clark’s website. It’s presently at the top of the recommended list there.
    Anna – if it’s true that the vast majority of Clark supporters are Obama supporters, why haven’t any of them posted any answers to the simple questions I asked in that highly recommended diary?
    This is very disturbing news; and the lack of answers from Obama supporters at Clark’s website does not bode well for Obama’s candidacy if he is nominated.
    http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16327

    Reply

  123. Anna says:

    kaflinn, if you are one of the people posting to that blog, some of which I saw today, you are a disgrace to General Wesley Clark. And so is WesPac for allowing it.

    Reply

  124. Madge says:

    questions: “McCain isn’t a war hero, he’s a war victim…” True. Also
    not a prerequisite for the Oval Office.
    Speaking of victims, why did it come to pass that Wesley Clark has
    become the victim of the wagging tongues of his very own
    pumalunatic staff? Oh yes, this truly does have the PUMA label
    stamped all over it.
    PUMA. Such a penchant for victims, victimization and victimhood
    that they have in fact, victimized General Clark without qualms. I
    do hope that his own dignity (which he has in spades) suffices him
    well after this petty little manipulation. Pathetic.

    Reply

  125. Sweetness says:

    Wig, I tend to agree with you that some Obama supporters–
    okay, many, if you like–have a hard time finding anything
    wrong with their candidate and attribute his shortcomings to
    others. Just for the record, the candidate never does that
    himself–but, okay, maybe his supporters and some of his
    surrogates do. I haven’t been counting much.
    [I do think that Obama has had to deal with pervasive racism in
    this country. Though it's hard to measure, it's equally hard to
    discount the notion that millions of white folks are going to vote
    against Obama simply because he's black. This, of course,
    leaves one open to the idea that ANY opposition to Obama is
    race-based, which is obviously not true. But still, one can't get
    around the huge fact of Obama's race and the historic nature,
    both in the good and troubling sense, of his candidacy. Bottom
    line, a lot of folks just don't trust a brother.]
    All that said, I find this quote from you odd and oddly self-
    referential:
    “And Dan, it seems that like the Senator himself, his supporters
    like you, can’t take responsibility for anything either.
    S: Yes, and it feels oddly reminiscent of what Will Bower and his
    minions are saying. Look, the fact is, Clinton lost the primary all
    on her own. Obama and his supporters didn’t do her in. She ran
    a BAD CAMPAIGN and made many bad decisions. Here is my
    analysis in a nutshell: 1) She expected to win and didn’t think
    she had to earn the win, at least initially. 2) She overspent and
    didn’t prepare for a long campaign. 3) She didn’t think through
    her message and had to keep changing it as nothing she said
    got any traction. 4) She misread the Democratic electorate’s
    mood and thought that experience would trump change. It may
    yet if we’re plunged back into a cold war with Russia–but this
    wasn’t the case during the primary. 5) She ceded the caucuses
    to Obama because she didn’t think they were necessary to her
    win. 6) She had no Plan B when she wasn’t able to shut Obama
    down on Super Tuesday. 6) She voted for the AUMF because she
    thought it was the politically expedient thing to do. Okay,
    maybe she thought it was the right thing to do–but still it
    turned out to be a miscalculation. Whether she should have
    apologized for the vote–a meaningless act in any event–is
    something I can’t say. 7) She faced an unexpected challenge
    from an extremely gifted politician who was in tune with the
    mood of the electorate. Bottom line, Clinton supporters who feel
    that Obama “stole” the election are simply wrong and blaming
    him for their failures.
    “It’s not the Clinton supporters who are responsible for Senator
    Obama’s failure to “surge ahead” in the polls; it’s the Obama
    supporters who insisted on voting for him even though they
    were warned that he was an unacceptable candidate to millions
    of Democrats.
    S: This is an odd statement, indeed. If, in fact, Clinton
    supporters do not vote for Obama in the fall, then THEY will
    most definitely share in a Democratic defeat. No way around
    this point. If an otherwise Democratic voter stays home, votes
    for a third party with no chance of winning, or votes for McCain,
    then they have helped McCain win. Period. This is simple math.
    Your point about having been “warned” is strange. Clinton was
    also unacceptable to millions of voters who also “warned,” if you
    want to use that oddly threatening term, Clinton voters that they
    were voting for an unacceptable candidate. In fact, in the early
    days, it was Obama supporters who threatened to sit out the
    election if Clinton was nominated–an equally obnoxious threat.
    “This was made plain in primary after primary.
    S: Um, in the Chesapeake primaries, Clinton lost 10 in a row.
    How does that fit with your theory?
    But in their arrogance, Obama supporters refused to see it. Now
    that the same people who wouldn’t vote for Obama in the
    primaries are making it plain that they won’t vote for Obama in
    the general election, Obama supporters just can’t figure out who
    to blame.
    S: And what if the situation were reversed and millions of
    Obama supporters–including the entire black population of the
    United States minus a few–were saying that they were going to
    sit out the election or vote for McCain? What would you be
    saying then? Sour grapes? Do you really want McCain as
    president? Or do you simply assume they–having gotten “the
    message” from the Clinton–would have fallen into line?
    No, the plain fact here is this: If you’re a Democrat, you should
    vote the Democratic ticket if you believe the candidate has the
    better position on the issues. You bind up your wounds and
    disappointments and move on. If the situation were reversed,
    I’d be voting for Hillary in a heartbeat and advising everyone else
    to do the same. Until there’s a GENUINE alternative, you make
    the right binary choice as a Democrat.
    “So naturally they fall back on the same tired old canard that you
    did in your post about Bayh and here again on this thread. It has
    to be the fault of the Clintons.
    S: I agree with you about Dan’s hysteria over Bayh. He would
    not be my choice for all the reasons mentioned. But it’s silly and
    hysterical to think the Clinton’s have blackmailed Obama into
    considering Bayh. Obama clearly likes to pursue a middle path
    and take something from both columns. He’s Clemonsonian in
    that regard. The Clintons are blamed for a lot of things they
    don’t deserve, IMO, and have given a lot to party and country.
    But, to be fair, they also tend to lash out and blame others for
    their failings. There is a vast right wing “conspiracy,” but it had
    nothing to do with Monica’s blue dress.
    As to Clark–I have NO idea what the firestorm here is about.
    Steve made his statement abundantly clear. He thinks Clarke
    should have a place at the table–as do I–and hopes the
    Obama camp will rethink their decision, if, in fact, they have
    made a decision, to exclude him. So, Steve is using his bully
    pulpit to nudge the Obama camp in the right direction. How
    hard is that?
    BTW, after watching the Pastor Rick show last night, I was deeply
    depressed and had a whole rant for you Wig which, captcha,
    mercifully, prevented me from sending.
    Interesting post from Kathleen.

    Reply

  126. kaflinn says:

    To Anna -
    You know – I’m sorry you and Dan (not Dan Kervick, but the other Dan) seem to have some personal issue with WesPAC, but that doesn’t make General Clark not being invited to have a role at the convention their fault. They would no more do anything to harm General Clark’s reputation than they would willing stand in front of a speeding bus (no pun intended), and your intimation that they would is not only wrong but, at the very least, insulting.
    The decisions of who to invite to speak are up to the Obama campaign. Period. Lay the blame where it belongs – not on the messengers.

    Reply

  127. questions says:

    Another kos “cross in the sand” thing — this time tracking it to Solzhenitsen
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/17/165435/219/1015/559354
    (Sorry, used wrong sign in on the previous kos link. Oh well. Too much beach volley ball or something!)

    Reply

  128. rdi861 says:

    And on that “cross in the sand” story:
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/17/15300/5629/128/569386
    Perhaps it’s made up as he goes along — two Christians crossing in the night, or whatever. Oh my. It did seem a little, I don’t know, convenient? But I don’t know enough about this one to be sure.

    Reply

  129. questions says:

    Watched the Warrenstravaganza last night. The thing that stood out the most to me (aside from the fact that I would NEVER EVER want that guy to be part of my life, especially if I had a tough moral decision to make) is the following:
    McCain isn’t a war hero, he’s a war victim whose main argument is that he behaved with dignity under duress. Dignity isn’t really heroism; it’s what we credit cancer survivors with and trapped miners and the like. (NVM that I’ve read plenty of reports that McCain was treated better once they realized his father was famous, and that he may well have divulged info under torture — I won’t judge him on this stuff mostly because I’d break way faster….)
    Anyway, if Obama picks a general, he’s not countering the military issue properly, because it’s not “general-ness” that’s at issue. Sheesh, McCain was shot down. He’s a failure at that level. So really the subtle discourse, in my thinking, is victimhood borne well. Is there a dem out there who has suffered properly? THAT is what the dem VP needs — in my opinion at any rate.
    And just a dig at McCain on the pro-life crap — so he’d rather a woman on a teratogenic drug or pregnant with a severely defective fetus carry to term and let the baby die 5 or 6 minutes after birth? This is life? Do these “pro-lifers” have no ability to think??

    Reply

  130. Anna says:

    Dan Kervick, I feel I should point out that the vast majority of Clark supporters are Obama supporters. I am one myself.

    Reply

  131. Paul Norheim says:

    I must admit that there is much that I don`t understand in US
    politics. The more I read, the more I watch American television,
    the less I understand. I`m not thinking about the details here,
    but he general picture, seen from outside. The circus character,
    the show aspect of the elections, the influence of evangelical
    Christians with apocalyptic expectations, the influence of
    lobbies, the influence of big money, the attention devoted to
    trivia, teen age stuff, human weaknesses on a small scale…
    The most recent example, and to me the strangest of them all,
    is the occurrence of the disappointed, bitter, and furious former
    Hillary supporters, and their mind set: the complete absence of
    pragmatism, the lack of perspectives and proportions, the
    zealous, one eyed ways of attacking Obama, seemingly careless
    of any consequences.
    As if the reasons why they wanted Hillary in the Oval Office in
    the first place was her gender and her “experience”,
    disconnected from any issues. AS IF THE ISSUES SHE
    REPRESENTED MEANT NOTHING, NADA as such. As if this had
    nothing to do with politics as we know it.
    Seemingly careless of any consequences… Now, let`s
    hypothetically take an old white man, not John McCain, but
    someone else with plenty of experience, around the same age
    as him, and basically in agreement with his views on foreign
    and domestic issues: Dick Cheney.
    If you had the choice between the young and “unexperienced”
    Obama and the old, highly experienced Dick Cheney, you would
    still not vote for Obama because of his lack of experience, his
    “flip flopping”, and the fact that he “stole” the election from
    your female candidate, right?
    You would choose – or do nothing to avoid that a man whose
    views, formed through decades of experience, have proven to
    be highly dangerous and damaging both domestically and for
    the world – just because someone else “stole” your preferred
    female candidate?
    If you get it your way, by encouraging people not to vote for
    Obama, you know what you`ll get: basically a continuation of
    the catastrophic Bush & Cheney line of neocon politics, in the
    shape of McCain & and Lieberman (or whoever), for another
    four or eight years.
    And if McCain wins – which is actually getting more and more
    likely – and continues to make bad choices on the same
    catastrophic levels as the current administration, who are you
    going to blame?
    That young guy, Barack Obama, because he stole the election
    from a woman, and lacked experience?
    Trends first occurring in America, they say, will soon show up in
    Europe and the rest of the world as well. I can confirm this, as a
    Scandinavian. However, we got a female prime minister, Gro
    Harlem Brundtland, in 1986. Thus, I`m at least happy to say
    that I have no reason to fear that a opaque and irresponsible
    phenomenon like PUMA will get any influence in Norwegian
    politics in the years to come. But the consequences of what
    those ex-Hillary supporters are currently doing, may be huge
    and catastrophic far beyond the US borders.

    Reply

  132. PeterG says:

    Obama supporters seem to be paranoid regarding this discussion of General Wesley Clark. I am an Obama supporter but the fact that General Clark supported Hilary Clinton in the primaries should not weigh against his qualifications for addressing the Democratic Convention. Clark is much bigger than that.
    He was Valedictorian of his class at West Point. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University with a degree in philosophy, politics and economics. He had a distinguished career in the U.S. Army, became the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and was highly decorated for his achievements. After retirement from the army, when Bush took the country astray in Iraq, early on Clark was one of the strongest critics of Bush policies…and his military credentials lent great credibility to his views. He was a Democratic candidate for President in 2004 and, after he withdrew from the race, supported many Democratic candidates through his PAC. The fact that he is a military man, is a Democrat, has tried extensively over the last five years to take this country in a new direction, and has a large number of Democratic supporters gives him an impressive pedigree. His status as sort of an Independent whose views became aligned with Democratic principles makes him even more valuable.
    These are some of the reasons why I respect General Clark as a person and as a Democrat and was so disappointed to hear that he is not considered to be an important component of the Democratic Convention.

    Reply

  133. Michael Ryan says:

    am a fan of Wesley Clark, and strongly supported him in his
    presidential bid of 2004. Obviously I am disappointed by this
    development, and can’t help but think it is a mistake. I have heard
    elsewhere that there is some friction between Clark and some of
    Obama’s military advisors, and I wonder if this could be the reason.
    One of the comments indicated that contact between the Obama
    and Clark campaign stopped after Clark made the comment about
    McCain’s POW experience. From what I am reading it seems like
    Clark’s people feel this might be the reason that Clark is being
    excluded. Or, am I just reading too much into the comment?

    Reply

  134. Dan Kervick says:

    Or maybe Dan, they’re telling the truth and to you it just sounds like trouble!
    Telling the truth about what WigWag? That Obama is the evil, black, Muslim, phony, race-baiting, shiftless, Farrakhan-loving, uppity, bus-driving, America-hating, atheist anti-Christ of PUMA imagination and resentments? Or that they are intentionally stirring up dissension and weakening Obama to serve their pathetic convention coup fantasies?
    If its true that Clark has allowed his movement to be captured by these loons, and his supporters are now part of the PUMA movement, as appears to be the case from some of the comments on this blog, then no wonder there is no room for Clark on the program. They’ve already given the Clintons two nights in Denver, and they need to save room for the vast majority of Democrats who are squarely behind Obama. The program can’t be stuffed with tiny minorities of dissenting rabble-rousers whose aim is to subvert the convention with anti-Obama floor demonstrations. If General Clark can’t control his people, then he’s the one responsible for scuttling his opportunity to speak.
    This isn’t an Obama-Clinton thing. Most of Clinton’s supporters have gotten on the team. The problem is a small, loud band of petty, miserable trouble makers who want to destroy Obama and elect McCain to satisfy either their urge for revenge or their deep-seated bigotry.
    It’s really a shame Steve has allowed his blog to be manipulated into becoming part of this craziness. I doubt he understood what he was letting himself in for when he simply passed on the statement of an upset Clark staffer.

    Reply

  135. roadtripper says:

    As a McCain supporter, I think this is good news. Obama would benefit by a connection to Clark.
    Clark has been getting a lot of face time of Fox News Channel, and he sounds more like McCain than Obama. That could be a reason for the brush-off.
    Glad that it happened, though. Big mistake on the part of the Obama camp.

    Reply

  136. Anna says:

    Rosa says it all. End of story.

    Reply

  137. Curious observer says:

    Good riddance. Another liberal internationalist Russophobe who, let’s not forget, damn near started full-scale war with the Russians over Pristina in 1999. (Britain’s Gen. Mike Jackson: “I’m not going to start World War III for you.)
    Of course if the running mate ends up being Bayh it makes no difference anyway.

    Reply

  138. InDistressed says:

    Please, for God’s sake and all that is good,
    Vote Ron Paul as a write-in vote for President.
    We are all on the precipice and only Ron Paul can possibly save the USA.
    I hate everyone except Ron Paul the only true American in all of America.
    Pleeeease for God’s Sake! and my saniteeeee! and my Hatreddddd.

    Reply

  139. Anna says:

    Something has become clearer through this thread. I couldn’t understand why Obama wouldn’t see General Clark as his best choice for VP, even more than I couldn’t see his staff’s not scheduling Clark at the convention. But if the PUMA-like sentiment of Clark’s supporters here, and the loose lips of WesPac staff, both so cavalierly putting Clark’s reputation in danger, is any guide, it could be that Senator Obama has come to believe Clark himself cannot be trusted. If this is the case, because Wes Clark would be the truest, most loyal friend to President Barack Obama, it’s tragic.

    Reply

  140. jg82567 says:

    I’ll just say “mission accomplished” Mr. Clemons. One creatively worded blog post designed to stir up antagonism against Obama among Democrats, which, reading through some of your posts going back to the primaries, seems to be a specialty of yours. Another clever Obama smear from a supposed Obama ‘supporter’.
    I’ll ask again, how much of this convention does Obama have to turn over to the Clinton’s and their supporters before we can unite behind the nominee and focus on beating McCain? I feel sure if the candidate Wes Clark supported in the primary wanted him to speak, he would be given a spot since Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate her and her husband in every way, except, of course, giving her the nomination. Of course, it’s not the first time a Clinton used Gen. Clark to do their dirty work, then let him twist in the wind.
    BTW, if this is some attempt to coerce Obama into capitulating to you and other Clark supporters’ desire to see him given a platform at the convention, then I hope that he does not give you and others the opportunity to claim he’s ‘weak’ because he gave in, which is exactly what will happen.

    Reply

  141. Pondering Rosa says:

    If General Clark is so committed to the Democratic Party why did he make a commitment to be out of the country during the convention in the first place?
    Seems to me that any real Democrat would have had those dates circled in red at least a year ago. When did he make this prior commitment — before or after Hillary conceded? It’s very strange that he feels that he has such an important place within the party and yet doesn’t find it important enough to support the Demorats by showing up at their own convention. It shows that General Clark was only committed to the Democratic party if his candidate had won the nomination or if he got to be a major player. It really should be the other way around.
    And if anyone is curious about why the Obama camp could be a bit suspicious of General Clark — well, just go take peek at his community blog. It is full of PUMAs — many of them also responsible for the hysterics here on this thread. If you think one of General Clark’s self-avowed PUMAs calling Obama a “moron” over here on this thread is bad, just take a gander over there, where you will see Obama and his supporters compared to Hitler and the Nazis. And that’s been going on for 9 months now.
    How General Clark thinks he can keep such a hate-filled blog going on under the radar that daily and regularly slams the Democratic nominee — and yet expect to be treated with kid gloves is simply laughable.
    Clark claims that he subscribes to Eisenhower’s view of leadership — “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”
    Wesley Clark says he wants his followers to support Obama — and yet he seems to have zero leadership ability to get them to “want to do it.” So either General Clark is lacking in political leadership ability or he secretly wants his followers to divide the party and trash our nominee.
    This election is too important for anybody to be distracted by manufactured hurt feelings…and that includes 4 star Generals.

    Reply

  142. WigWag says:

    “I’ll be very, very glad when the convention is over. At that point, Barack Obama will be the official nominee and leader of the Democratic Party, the Clinton Era will be finally and definitively over, the Our Lady of Hillary rapture miracle will undeniably not have happened in Denver…”
    Code Blue!
    Dan Kervick’s spleen is acting up again! He definitely needs a splenectomy. We need to operate right away. Don’t worry, if the surgeon doesn’t have any experience; Dan doesn’t care about experience. He supports Senator Obama.
    For Dan’s surgery, any resident will do. Just make sure he looks good in surgical garb. Dan would even be happy with a medical student.
    Get someone to the OR, fast!
    Code Blue!

    Reply

  143. Carol L., Salem, MA says:

    Eloquent, on-target, outstanding post! I have the same sense that we are poised on the “edge” of the precipice, completely oblivious and in total denial, unwilling or unable to see that we are fast approaching the point of no return.
    Our political “leaders” (Democratic and Republican alike) are focused on accumulating wealth, power and influence and imposing their skewed, corrupt agenda-driven view on the country and the world.
    We need to take to the streets demanding impeachment and a voting sweep of the House and Senate to remove those who have sold us and our country out.

    Reply

  144. DavidT says:

    I still don’t see one scintilla of evidence that the Obama campaign did anything disrespectful to much less “throw him under a bus” (and where is a response / perspective from the convention organizers?)
    It may be that the convention folks used unfortunate language in replying to Clark’s inquiry about a speaking role. It may also be that Clark’s people are suggesting a more negative slant than a simple, “we don’t have any more speaking slots available, sorry.” But if that’s the case then everyone else who isn’t getting a speaking slot is also being “thrown under a bus”. Is John Lewis speaking? If not, he’s “been thrown under a bus.” Is Sam Nunn speaking? If not, he’s “been thrown under a bus.” Is Lee Hamilton speaking? If not, he’s “been thrown under a bus.” What about Dennis Kucinich? And so on.
    I confess to being an Obama enthusiast. However I can’t imagine reacting in the same manner as those who are not if Senator Clinton or Edwards or Dodd or Biden had been nominated instead of Obama. Isn’t it more the domain of the current Administration to vilify those who don’t share all of its views? If you prefer Obama to operate differently, it would help to explain what you would like him to do that is positive — rather than snipe at what you don’t like — while a natural response to frustration — an action that can easily be targeted at anyone. What public figure is without faults? Is there really a figure out there that you agree with on completely?

    Reply

  145. shelleybear says:

    FISA, off-shore drilling and now this.
    The ONLY reason I’m voting for you now ,is I have to keep saying to myself.
    He’s not McCain. He’s not McCain. He’s not McCain.

    Reply

  146. BillyJoeBob says:

    Yeah Germaine, your a Negro.

    Reply

  147. Crock says:

    Why don’t the millions of you pay off Hillary’s debt? Collect some cans along the road, why don’t you? Look under your trailer skirt.

    Reply

  148. Germaine says:

    Ok, I am gonna tell you all the real truth, the whole truth ……. Ok …….. youse ready …. OK
    Obama is a Negro!
    Can’t git any plainer than that.
    Got it off all yer chests for ya; now you can all calm down.
    Somebody hadda say it to release all the pent up grrrrrrrr on this thread.
    Y’all feel better now?

    Reply

  149. BaracksACrock says:

    Dan Kervick,
    You need to put down your iPod and read something. A history book or something. You didn’t know WesPac existed? Did you even know WesClark ran for President in 2004? And that he won Oklahoma?
    Oh, and PUMAs are real. They are not Republicans. And there are millions of us.

    Reply

  150. WigWag says:

    “I’ve never the names of the half the commenters on this thread, so I’m thinking its mostly a bunch of Republican agitators or PUMA holdouts who have come here to sow dissension and stir up trouble.”
    Or maybe Dan, they’re telling the truth and to you it just sounds like trouble!

    Reply

  151. NotYoursweetie says:

    I am not really surprised. After all, the day Obama threw Clark under the bus he was also stealing his speech “the New American Patriotism”. And the dismissing was because the press jumped on Clark who was campaigning for Obama.
    A morality play with a lot of insight in the characters involved.

    Reply

  152. Spunkmeyer says:

    This entire issue seems, frankly, much ado about nothing. Why
    would anyone think that the DLC/DFA segments of the party
    wouldn’t be squabbling or having proxy wars in the run-up to the
    convention. Everyone is desperately trying to grasp bits of power
    or leverage right now.

    Reply

  153. Dan Kervick says:

    I’ll be very, very glad when the convention is over. At that point, Barack Obama will be the official nominee and leader of the Democratic Party, the Clinton Era will be finally and definitively over, the Our Lady of Hillary rapture miracle will undeniably not have happened in Denver, and the whole sour grapes gang can then make their long-retarded adjustment to the real world, and make their final decision about whether they prefer a John McCain presidency to a Barack Obama presidency, or not.
    As for Wes Clark, I have no strong feelings for him or against him, and I had no idea that the organization WesPac even existed until last night. My last real consciousness of him was when his book came out and he made appearances on the radio and television circuit. I listened to him for about an hour on Diane Rehm’s show. He was mostly sensible, but I thought he unfortunately lent a hand to right-wing propaganda by overhyping the threat of Iranian “hegemony” in the Middle East. But Clark isn’t an elected or appointed official, and wasn’t even a candidate for president this time around, so I had no idea he had such a substantial following.
    I’ve never the names of the half the commenters on this thread, so I’m thinking its mostly a bunch of Republican agitators or PUMA holdouts who have come here to sow dissension and stir up trouble.

    Reply

  154. Carroll says:

    Posted by Jim Aug 17, 2:56AM – Link
    WigWag, Great Posts!
    Carroll, regarding PUMA’s – I think I can show by the same criteria – i.e. donations to the DNC, that democrats don’t exist.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Dear Jim, if you’ve got it show it.
    But don’t mistake me for one who gives a damn about either party. Like most realistic voters I just have to choose who would do the least damage.
    However this election I am not choosing someone whose every other speech is about how Americans must sacrifice themselves for overseas non- essential wars because it is “noble.”
    All to satisy his mental warpness over his POW experience and lost Vietnam war. Just because it happened to him is no reason to subject the nation to the same misery just so we can feel and share his angst and set some kind of “standard” for war being the nation’s and mankind’s highest calling.

    Reply

  155. Guy says:

    I think Obama has his man ZBig already…
    Zbigniew Brzezinski:
    How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
    Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p.76*
    Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair.Is that correct?
    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action.But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
    Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth.You don’t regret anything today?
    Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
    Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
    Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
    Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
    * There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.
    The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”

    Reply

  156. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “…. with impeachment off the table, I just can’t swallow that the Dem platform is anything more than another piece of paper…..”
    Astounding, isn’t it? Both party’s leadership, and candidates, act as though nothing ontoward has occurred, that we out here in Peonsville have completely missed noticing the criminal acts of this administration.
    Never before has our nation’s very foundation been so threatened and abused from within, and we are supposed to content ourselves with tsk-tsking where John Edwards got his rocks off, and nattering about this pathetic sham of a presidential race.
    When impeachment was “taken off the table”, so was the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances the founders so presciently insisted on installing.
    When Pelosi took impeachment off the table she became a co-conspirator, and an accessory to treason. That one action exposed the nurtured divisiveness of partisan politics for the charade it truly is, designed to keep us squabbling and powerless while our leaders on both sides of the aisle pursue nefarious goals of self-enrichment and increased global power.
    My gut tells me that we, (humankind), are closer to self-destruction than we were during the Cold War. It seems we have a “perfect storm” of deranged megalomaniacal world leaders at the helm at this time, many driven by the archaic and dangerous zeal of religious fanaticism and ethnic bigotry. Factor in the historically consistent personal greeds and territorial disputes, and you have a global powder-keg armed to the teeth with apocalyptic weaponry. These factors, combined with the spinelessness, ignorance, self absorption, naivete, and disengagement of the general populace of our nation, (the so-called and inaccurately named “last remaining super-power”), all add up to an unprecedented level of global threat.
    I never thought I would see the kinds of blatant criminal acts this Administration has committed go un-acknowledged, un-indicted, and un-punished. I think we are in deeper shit than any of us care to imagine.

    Reply

  157. kaflinn says:

    Anna,
    WesPAC staff didn’t do anything but answer the questions Mr. Clemons asked – more than once. Gen. Clark’s welfare, political and otherwise, is their utmost concern.
    I’m sorry you, and so many here, seem to have such difficulty believing Obama/his campaign would treat Gen. Clark with such disdain – but he did, and he has.
    Hopefully Mr. Clemons post will have the desired effect and change the Obama campaign’s apparent belief that Gen. Clark doesn’t have a worthy role to play at the convention, and in a possible O admin, should he become president.
    Don’t blame those at WesPAC for bad news – they didn’t create this – the Obama campaign did.

    Reply

  158. chris bell says:

    why is this surprising? Obama ain’t worth a damn

    Reply

  159. Carroll says:

    Posted by arthurdecco Aug 17, 9:44AM – Link
    IMO, it is that deliberately manufactured fatigue ”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOL, yes you’re right!.
    Posted by Kathleen Aug 17, 11:19AM
    “Gore Vidal: It makes no difference who you vote for (his grammar)…the two parties are really one party representing 4% of the people…
    John Kenneth Galbraith: Politics is not the art of the possible. it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable….”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    LOL…Amen

    Reply

  160. Brian says:

    Isn’t it amazing, how the Obama campaign is being destroyed from the inside by same Centrists, that destroyed the Democratic Party during the Clinton years, and the same Centrists that vote with Republicans, and the same Centrists who ensured that Kerry wouldn’t be elected. Stunning to watch the Democrats becoming the Republican party, but I guess now, that’s the only way to win elections. And I usually am entertained by stark irony.

    Reply

  161. prowl says:

    Madge: It appears they have become more concerned with Hillary Clinton.
    Securingamerica = PUMA Palace

    Reply

  162. Madge says:

    Anna raises the ultimate question:
    “What are they trying to do, destroy his political prospects forever?
    Or have they simply become more concerned with Hillary Clinton
    than with Wesley Clark?”
    Why?

    Reply

  163. Linda says:

    Kathleen,
    Loved your post and would choose the Galbraith quote. But perhaps you are right, if one is into speculation, and Obama is going to name Caroline Kennedy as VP. I’d throw out another name with more foreign policy experience, Susan Eisenhower.
    Actually it doesn’t matter that much what anyone speculates here, I hope Obama campaign is busy trying to get the endorsement of Debbie and Michael Phelps. I’m going to go pull weeds in the yard!

    Reply

  164. Anne says:

    Way to go Obama!
    I’m not really gonna get that unity pony i was promised, am i.

    Reply

  165. Anna says:

    I struggle with why, why would WesPac staff have exposed the General’s good name to the low type of discussion going on in this thread? What are they trying to do, destroy his political prospects forever? Or have they simply become more concerned with Hillary Clinton than with Wesley Clark? Good grief. They should all be fired.

    Reply

  166. furious says:

    Wes Clark is not the sharpest knife in the Demo’s drawer. He blundered repeatedly during his Kosovo NATO command (mugging with a Servian War Criminal and nearly starting World War Three by ordering an attack on Russian peacekeepers.
    His Cover Boy pose for the Advocate would make him a laughingstock durign the general campaign.

    Reply

  167. redwhiteblue says:

    I have given this a lot of thought. Obama usually wants all the help he can get. What would cause him to do that? Wesley Clark was strongly for Hillary. I am wondering if he is planning some kind of revolt at the convention. Did Obama get wind of some Clinton movement?
    It has already been said that the pro Hillary bunch will cause trouble there. Just a thought.

    Reply

  168. Kathleen says:

    Defoliate Bush…luuuuuv that name…Linda, I’m with you… thank god the sun came back out in my neck of the woods.. a long string of not good beach days and my tan was fading and my spirits sagging…it is extremely naive to think that Obama is calling the shots at the convention, or Howard Dean, for that matter…. Teddy is Obama’s puppetmaster, pulling all kinds of strings….
    Nobody knows better than Teddy that when your frontrunner did not win a majroity of the delegates in the primary/caucuses, going into the convention, anything can happen. He knows from doing it himself, that any delegate can nominate any candidate from the floor. to keep someone from securing the nomination….therefore, any person with a potential to be nominated to break a tie, is gonna be persona non grata… Terddy can’t keep Hillary away or for that matter the former President, although he did a good job of backseating Jimmy Carter…..is Al Gore speaking…John Kerry? They could be counted on to refuse the nomination, but Wes Clark…I’m not so sure.
    I know Teddy isn’t attending for health reason, but he can still pull strings…especially with Caroline vetting Obama’s VEEP choice… don’t be surprised if she pulls a Darth Cheney and chooses herself in the end… that would make a Kennedy the first woman potentially elected as VEEP. Did any of you happen to see Maria Shriver on The Colbert Report last Spring when she was pumping her book? The subject of political dynasties arose. With unmistakbale body language, when Colbert mentioned a Clinton dynasty, she looked right into the camera and emphatically said’, “There can be only one dynasty”….if you go back to the footage of Teddy endorsing Obama, his mokcing, in your face tone, was unmmistakable as he said that Obama was ready from Day One, pointing his finger at the audience/camera to punctuate his words. Teddy doesn’t back Obama so much as he opposes the Clintons” hold on the party leadership…he knew the best way to derail Hillary was to split the black vote.
    In short, my hometown paper’s Opinion section recerntly ran a piece titled Politics Defined with three photos and three quotes.
    Gore Vidal: It makes no difference who you vote for (his grammar)…the two parties are really one party representing 4% of the people…
    Gene McCarthy: Being in politics is like being a football coach; you have to be smart enough to play the game, and dumb enough to think it’s important..
    John Kenneth Galbraith: Politics is not the art of the possible. it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable….
    I thought I was depressed before I read those quotes…having a hard time working up any enthusiasm for this race… a bit of feeble fun betting on the veepstakes, but stilll, with impeachment off the table, I just can’t swallow that the Dem platform is anything more than another piece of paper…another shared hallucination….

    Reply

  169. Jai JP says:

    I’m so tired of liars on the right and left telling us how much General Clark was disliked by his subordinates. Nothing could be further from the truth. I spent 20 years in the Army and have never met anyone who ever served directly under his command who didn’t have the utmost respect and often genuine affection for him and his wife. No commander ever worked harder for the benefit of the troops.

    Reply

  170. Jim in Texas says:

    Doesn’t anyone have spell check? And a copy of Strunk and White wouldn’t hurt either.

    Reply

  171. jimbo92107 says:

    Is this because Clark is too liberal? Jesus…

    Reply

  172. Bartolo says:

    This reminds me of the tea leaf reading done based on who was on the grand podium with Stalin.

    Reply

  173. samuel burke says:

    Wesley Clark has the anti-semitic cooties. why dont you guys
    face the reality that the only reason that he isnt going to be
    invited is just that.
    when there is a cancer on the body of american politics it is best
    to deal with it go to the doctor and take the medicine that he
    prescribes.
    shhh dont be afraid to face the facts cause they aint going away
    unless you face them.
    The community that decides much of what happens in the
    background has decided and it shall be so.
    new york money has been pushing for a war with iran and
    wesley clark like president Jimmy Carter are both personas non
    grata. it has been decreed.

    Reply

  174. rick olliver says:

    If you saw the Saddleback interviews last night, you should have noticed that it was the MAN against the BOY, it is now obvious who the next president of our country should be. He needs to ask his grandmother about a National security issue? GIVE ME A BREAK !

    Reply

  175. oooHNooo says:

    No, no, Reality man.
    We are not going to change under Obama/Clark. America will remain the beacon of hopey as it always has been. We will only change, and change forever, if The Evil Ones continue on under McCain.
    Vote for Obama/Clark for US not to change irrevocably unto the darkly side forevermore.
    Same good ole America must be continued.

    Reply

  176. arthurdecco says:

    Carroll said: “The public is tired of having to “guess” which shell the pea is under.” (referring to Senator Obama’s tidal shifts in stated policy)
    Astute, as usual, Carroll.
    IMO, it is that deliberately manufactured fatigue with the shocking policy shifts of those chosen to lead America – policy shifts that I suspect have been designed and pushed by the dark minds behind your political process – that will lead to the engineered defeat of any progressive movement, no matter how modest in America
    Senator Obama is looking more and more to me like a side show charlatan who will fold his tent and disappear into the ether of corporate board rooms and think tanks once his ignominious role in the defeat of democracy has been successful.

    Reply

  177. Reality Check says:

    Wes Clark is military, and does not represent hopey changefulness. That’s why he won’t be at the Convention.
    Hopey changefulness is about change, and change is about hope. Obama supports hopey changefulness – something everyone is for. So why even have an election? Who, among us, opposes change? Change is good! Change is fresh, new, and hopey.
    I wonder what Obama will change. I hope he will change the things I want him to change but he hasn’t really said. Oh well. I support change! Not SAME! SAME is BAD! Changefulness is good. and hopey.

    Reply

  178. oooHNooo says:

    I got it !! I’ve figured it out!!
    One doesn’t invite the running mate of the candidate for President to speak at the Convention! simply because he is necessarily speaking in the Vice-President’s slot on his “Securing America” day.
    Clark will be named Obama’s running mate!
    And no one tells Clark’s office people any of this if you want to keep it a secret. They bees left in the dark and are not a good source for anything but knowing that Clark is not invited to speak, and I told you above why!
    Oh Happy Day, Oh Happy Day!
    Obama/Clark
    [Stars and Stripes Forever playing on the background.]

    Reply

  179. Bishop says:

    What a joke. Sources told you this crap? yeah learn the difference between sources and reliable sources. Westley Clark not participating makes as much sense as The Olsen Twins signing up for Jenny Craig. Will Westley Clark Talk? I don’t know but I guarantee you he will be there front and center. I don’t know if you’re a right wing tool or a puma but you & the rest of you jackasses need to get over your petty fears & stop hating on the only hope this country has. Barack Obama is the only one that could turn around what Curious George Bush would have screwed up for the past 8 years & there’s no need to tell you that’s everything! Gas, the economy, this war that obviously you’re not participating in, the housing marking, the dollar, trade defficit, health insurance, etc, etc. And if you want the same vote for insane in the brain McCain. Look Chicken Little get your facts right or don’t blog at all. By the way when Westley Clark shows up and take the stage @ the DNC convention, will you write a retraction? I’ll bet a thousand dollars you wont. A tool, fool & uncool. OUT

    Reply

  180. BuddyPC says:

    “Jesus Fucking Christ, the Republicans are running an unhinged
    maniac who evidently thinks George Bush has been too *soft*
    during his presidency, and all you guys can think of doing is to
    complain about the imperfections of the demonstrably more
    sane guy.
    So go ahead, stew in your envy and resentment of Barack
    Obama. When John McCain gets your children nuked, at least
    you’ll be able to say you weren’t snowed by that uppity young
    punk from Chicago.”
    Hey mike, who wants to charge the light brigades full speed into
    Pakistan?
    —————–
    Good for Obama.
    Obama realizes what most who get how shit gets done already
    knew; Clark’s a balloonhead.
    Now if only O’s minions (read:most of you) can wake up and stop
    stroking it so hard just cuz finally 4 stars somewhere carried a
    “D” next to his name for a little while.
    The only thing OSame has left to do is start mangling his diction
    and he’ll have completely become…………George W Bush.
    Change indeed.
    But everyone knows it wasn’t all about personality.

    Reply

  181. Geoff Puterbaugh says:

    I think that not inviting that foul attack weasel was a stroke of genius, frankly. Of course, it’s Obama throwing somebody else under the bus, hardly news any more, but this creep deserved it. This is the guy who praised Kerry’s war record to the skies in 2004, and then in 2008 turned around and pretended that McCain’s war record was completely irrelevant.
    Failed generals just don’t come any nastier.

    Reply

  182. Meir Javedanfar says:

    I think this is a mistake. When it comes to dealing with foreign policy issues, Obama needs the backing of people with senior security background. Especially when it comes to the question of negotiating with Iran, and the question of Iraq. This is necessary for practical purposes. Its a also a good way to deflect criticisms from conservatives.

    Reply

  183. jim says:

    clark was fired by clinton and forced to retire from the army. now it would seem obama has fired him. when will he ever learn? he fucked up, he trusted a democrat.

    Reply

  184. buddhistMonkey says:

    This sounds like a head fake. The tipoff is Clark’s staff saying that they could rearrange his tight schedule if Clark were asked to appear at the convention. That kind of keeps the door open for the Obama camp to put Clark on the roster… say, for a Wednesday night slot, right after Bill Clinton’s speech.

    Reply

  185. David T says:

    Just to share another view…
    What General Clark’s office’s line on why he’s not going to the convention isn’t very revealing information, at least to me. I suspect that others who were not invited to speak and contacted the Obama campaign about it might have a similar line. I don’t have Clark’s bona fides, but I wasn’t invited to speak either and if I contact the Obama campaign and ask them about a speaking role on August 25th, 26th, or 27th and they turn me down I probably won’t characterize this decision as one of well-reasoned, thoughtful, understandable limits on time in which not everyone can speak.
    While I admire Steve for his valiant efforts to weigh in on this discussion at great length I agree with Dan Kervick that this post does not match up with so many other thoughtful, informative, and valuable insights from this blog. As another poster points out, Charlie Rangel isn’t getting a speaking engagement and I don’t see how one could argue that Clark is more entitled to a speaking engagement than the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
    I am also mystified why Steve would say that there’s “plenty of time” to speak. Maybe I’m wrong but its hard for me to believe that if there so much time to speak that Rangel, Clark, and all other worthies wouldn’t be welcome.
    I also don’t understand why in fairness to the Convention folks Steve isn’t clear about what role Clark might have other than speaking that he would consider worthy of his time. If there isn’t another role, why not suggest in a more direct way (that doesn’t sound so peevish — with the utmost respect to you Steve) that Clark should have a speaking role at this convention because of the important insights he has and that person X, Y, and Z are speaking on foreign policy but they would be valuably buttressed by Clark’s speech.

    Reply

  186. mike says:

    puma held a national rally. 40 people showed. they went home out of embarrassment. nuff said.
    puma=repubs

    Reply

  187. Mitch Dworkin says:

    This only helps to reinforce my decision to vote for a third party Presidential candidate in protest:
    http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16269#comment-320517
    Re: Who is Puma, The FACTS / My thoughts about this:
    Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 11, 2008 – 1:23pm.
    “Because of this, my own intentions are that unless either Gen. Clark or Hillary are on the ticket, then I definitely plan to vote for a third party candidate as an intentional protest vote in order to punish the media for their unprofessional anti-Hillary bias and in order to punish Obama for throwing Gen. Clark under the bus when he should have backed him up:
    http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15996
    VIDEO: Linda Douglass of the Obama campaign threw Gen. Clark under the bus!
    Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 3, 2008 – 12:02pm.
    http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15941
    CNN is now reporting that Obama “rejects yesterday’s statement by Gen. Clark”
    Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 30, 2008 – 1:36pm.”

    Reply

  188. Thomas Lee Elifritz says:

    Guess what, Barack Obama just lost the support of the entire newspace community with Ms. Garver’s absolutely shitty status quo space policy as well.
    Are they just intentionally pissing everybody off?

    Reply

  189. kcbill13 says:

    Steve,
    Thanks for the post.
    Thanks for all the thoughtful comments, love you guys…
    To some questionable commenters, how many of you are going to the website to show your posts here and claim your points? Repug scum.

    Reply

  190. Mr.Murder says:

    President Clinton got Gen.Clark’s fourth star awarded after Cohen forced his departure, didn’t he?
    Oh, Cohen was siding with Russian interests in getting Clark removed as well.
    They wanted an airport there to control much of the tactical and strategic traffic to the region.
    See also Georgia.
    The Russians wanted former turf to remain unstable if they could not have puppets there in place to run it, so they could likely develop ties to leadership there in less secure settings.
    Strangely enough, Tom DeLay also sided with Russian interests at the time, taking trips to Europe to meet them on coprorate junket jets. What about the Logan act you say?
    Dissect what Steve said above.
    Obama’s people asked Clark to say that about McCain and then tried to act otherwise. Chances are you’ll soon find out.
    Wouldn’t that look bad for him to have cultured an attack on McCain and then have tried to act differently?
    “Essentially, the Obama team have not asked Wesley Clark to play any role at the convention. There has been very little contact between the Clark office and the Obama campaign since Clark’s comments about McCain’s lack of command experience on a TV show that the Obama campaign asked Clark to appear in at the last minutes.”
    Obama’s people asked him to appear on the show.
    Steve, have you asked Morning Joe about any background as to who presented him questions to ask Clark? Has he denied talking to David Axelrod on that program’s content prior to its airing? Does Axelrod schedule people to appear at places without predetermining what will be the topic?
    Look at this google page on the Clark/McCain comments. Full of wingnut blogs, the kind of places that were ready to claim hidden WMD went to Syria! That mobile labs could kill us all! Armed drones!
    Newsmax, Condo, Slate.
    You Obama capos are in good company.
    It’s almost good as the Kerry ’04 blog. No matter how bad you guys F up to the point dummy has to take his second vacation this year(how many Americans can do that?) you are busy throwing invective at a four star(Ret.) who was an allied commander for NATO.
    So how many meetings of the European Subcommittee did Barack chair so far? You know, the coalition helping us in Afghanistan, where he says he has a plan to win, except for you know, like talking with allies to see what would best help that plan. How has that gone?
    BTW, the Balkans were all fubar until Gen.Clark started acting to right things. He used technological superiority to establish a DMZ so the peace could be secured. We didn’t lose a soldier in the fighting stage because the rules of engagement and the parameters they would be applied to were clearly defined.
    If you want to call that being a war criminal; when he was the one seeing how some people took ‘neutrality’ took to mean failure to enforce common humanitarian and legal standards; to protect civilians and refugees… …you lack the legitmacy to have your views even considered worth discussion.

    Reply

  191. Jim says:

    WigWag, Great Posts!
    Carroll, regarding PUMA’s – I think I can show by the same criteria – i.e. donations to the DNC, that democrats don’t exist.
    Dan, you knew nothing about Wes Clark supporters before today? I’m not surprised. You have your head so far up your own ass that you forgot what fresh air was. I know both Catherine and Kaflinn and they are the kind of hardworking serious people I’ve come to expect to see associated with Wes Clark. You, on the other hand are the kind of vacuous whiny prick I’ve come to expect of Obama supporters.
    I’m sure there are some nice, sincere, thoughtful Obama people out there. I hope to meet one some day.

    Reply

  192. mike says:

    obama’s not all of the above. he’s not none of the above. he’s simply a moderate.
    re: race, blacks supported kerry 88%, obama ~90%. nothing special there. however, up to 20% of whites have stated they ould not support any black pres. factor that into the polls, and you have what you’re looking for.
    notice how when obama gives a feel good speech, he’s ‘presumptuous’, but when mccain freely violates the logan act, superceding even the president, for political expedience during a crisis he contributed to creating, he’s showing ‘leadership’?
    fyi, i’m not black.

    Reply

  193. kaflinn says:

    Quote: They work their asses off
    Where is the evidence?
    Answer: 2006, for starters. How many campaigns did you work, Dan? We worked over 80…at the same time. 2008 Races. Still working. How ’bout you?
    Quote: they don’t panic under pressure
    Today is an example of that?
    Answer: since when is stating the facts they stated to Mr. Clemons ‘panic’?
    Quote: they don’t lie.
    Wrong. They do.
    Answer: Really? When?

    Reply

  194. WigWag says:

    “I haven’t counted up the volume of your anti-Obama spleen”
    If you want to take a good look at spleen, Dan, why don’t you head over to Steve’s August 14th post entitled “Evan Bayh Served on Board with McCain, Kristol, Lieberman, Woolsey, and Scheunemann”
    Scroll on down to 10:16 am and you will find a comment by someone named Dan Kervick. This is what the frustrated and confused Mr. Kervick had to say.
    “The choice is of Bayh, if it is really going to go down, would be so bad in so many ways, such a colossal disappointment to the core Obama supporters who are most responsible for putting him where he is, and so certain to spark a totally unnecessary firestorm of protest from progressive Democrats, that I have to wonder if there is something else afoot here. Is Obama being blackmailed by Team Clinton? Is the selection of this noted Clinton backer, high-ranking DLC leadership team colleague of Clinton, and Iraq War supporter and general Middle East hawk the price for avoiding some threatened Clinton shenanigans at the upcoming convention?”
    Of course, you don’t have any facts to back up your contention. But suffering from a severe case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome that you must have caught from Richard Mellon Scaife, you are simply too narcissistic to consider the possibility that you were wrong about Obama. The idea that it might actually be Obama who was considering Bayh in the same way that it was Obama who voted for FISA never seems to have occurred to you.
    Be careful, Dan, your spleen is showing.
    You say that the Republicans are running “an unhinged maniac.” That wouldn’t be your spleen showing again, would it, Dan? Actually, it sounds like you’re the one who has come unhinged.
    I tend to agree with you that Senator McCain will not make a good president, but why is it you forgot to mention that Senator Obama is an unqualified phony. While African Americans are supporting him out of racial solidarity and latte lovers are supporting him out of cultural solidarity, it seems that millions of Americans actually believe he is unqualified or he is a phony or both.
    And Dan, I appreciate this comment
    “WigWag, the reason Obama is not further ahead is that you and the other bitter Clinton dead-enders spend all your time attacking him.”
    Actually, I am not so presumptuous to assume that I am influential enough to account for Senator Obama’s problems. I have the feeling that the Senator is the one responsible for the political fix he finds himself in. After all, he’s the one who commits a new flip flop on an almost daily basis. He’s the one who thinks its okay to insult millions of Americans by calling them bitter, merely because of where they live or the economic class they happen to occupy. He’s the one who never takes responsibility for anything but is happy to blame everyone else in site from his spiritual advisor, to his grandmother and now (apparently) to General Clark.
    And Dan, it’s Senator Obama who doesn’t know if he’s a liberal (supreme court), moderate (health care reform without mandates) or conservative (second amendment, death penalty, faith based initiative). Of course, you think it’s all of the above. But I think all of the above equals none of the above; it equals nothing.
    And Dan, it seems that like the Senator himself, his supporters like you, can’t take responsibility for anything either. It’s not the Clinton supporters who are responsible for Senator Obama’s failure to “surge ahead” in the polls; it’s the Obama supporters who insisted on voting for him even though they were warned that he was an unacceptable candidate to millions of Democrats. This was made plain in primary after primary. But in their arrogance, Obama supporters refused to see it. Now that the same people who wouldn’t vote for Obama in the primaries are making it plain that they won’t vote for Obama in the general election, Obama supporters just can’t figure out who to blame. So naturally they fall back on the same tired old canard that you did in your post about Bayh and here again on this thread. It has to be the fault of the Clintons.
    The election is three months away. The Republican attack machine is about to get revved up, and with their new found financial strength the attacks will be vigorous. The Democrats are about to nominate a candidate who is remarkably ill prepared to deal with it, or if he’s elected, to deal with governing.
    That’s not the fault of the Clintons, and it’s not the fault of their supporters. The responsibility rests squarely with you and people who voted like you.
    When John McCain gets your children nuked, at least you will have the pleasure of knowing that it’s not your fault. After all, rather than support the best candidate, you supported the candidate of transformation.
    By the way, I especially like how you concluded your tirade. You called me and other Clinton supporters “morons.”
    Cover up, Dan, that’s your speen showing again.

    Reply

  195. mike says:

    Jesus Fucking Christ, the Republicans are running an unhinged maniac who evidently thinks George Bush has been too *soft* during his presidency, and all you guys can think of doing is to complain about the imperfections of the demonstrably more sane guy.
    So go ahead, stew in your envy and resentment of Barack Obama. When John McCain gets your children nuked, at least you’ll be able to say you weren’t snowed by that uppity young punk from Chicago.
    Morons.
    ^^ yup. just also recognize there are actually only 40-300 pumas nationwide. insignificant number, really, and dwindling fast. most ‘puma’ crap you hear is just republican in origin.
    mccain = ww3. simple and plain. i doubt any of us would live to beyond his term. europe’s already becoming better friends with russia than with us. tide is turning…

    Reply

  196. Gabe says:

    THAT DOES IT!!!!!!!!!!! As a Hillary supporter, I had finally talked myself into supporting Obama. His rejection of General Clark on any level is outrageous to me and I will vote for every office in November, except for President!

    Reply

  197. JamesL says:

    Dan: “Jesus Fucking Christ, the Republicans are running an unhinged maniac who evidently thinks George Bush has been too *soft* during his presidency, and all you guys can think of doing is to complain about the imperfections of the demonstrably more sane guy.”
    Dan, nothing more relevant has been posted any time, anywhere, by anyone, in this entire compaign. POA, WW, and herds of others have been trying, but you take the cake.
    Everyone: You want a theme? You don’t have to go any farther than this.

    Reply

  198. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Kervick…….
    Don’t kid yourself about WigWag. He’s not a Hillary supporter, he’s a schill for McCain. Insincere, falsely represented, and remarkably slimey.
    And BTW, I hope you’re right about Obama. But personally, I find very little to be hopeful about. There is simply too much about Obama that doesn’t add up.

    Reply

  199. clo says:

    Once again the Democrats will lose!!! Such a fragmented team. Lieberman is a republican in sheeps clothing, Edwards is a liar and scumbag for not taking responsibility for his child, and now Clark? What is going on with this party? I thought it was the party of unity? Hmmm still not decided, but the Dems are turning me off..wish Hillary was here now.

    Reply

  200. Dan Kervick says:

    WigWag, the reason Obama is not further ahead is that you and the other bitter Clinton dead-enders spend all your time attacking him, and encouraging your frustrated partners in sour grapes to withhold their support, and hold out for some kind of amazing, improbable convention miracle. It’s selfish, vain and stupid. And it’s dishonest, because you know very well that is what is going on.
    You want Obama to surge ahead? Tell your spoiled Clinton camp buddies to give up the ghost, get with the program, get off Obama’s back and get hard on McCain’s back instead. I haven’t counted up the volume of your anti-Obama spleen to your anti-McCain criticisms on TWN. But I’ll bet the Obama stuff runs about 15 to 1. You’re like an envious Cain or Edmund who has cut off his own brother’s feet and now smugly sneers about why he is only winning his footrace by a body length. Why isn’t Obama doing better? Look in the mirror you back-stabbing ass!
    When this is all over, you and Bill and Hillary can go have a good cry somewhere, and bitch about how you were screwed out of your entitlement by the Obama generation. But for now … just … stop.
    I thought we only had to worry about the Clinton babies; but now it turns out there is this big disgruntled Wes Clark fan club too, a little gang of weepy losers which I knew nothing about until today, that is also more interested in indulging their hurt feelings than in defeating the neocon bastards – represented by their new hero John McCain – who have spent the last seven years killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and destroying the security and reputation of the United States.
    Jesus Fucking Christ, the Republicans are running an unhinged maniac who evidently thinks George Bush has been too *soft* during his presidency, and all you guys can think of doing is to complain about the imperfections of the demonstrably more sane guy.
    So go ahead, stew in your envy and resentment of Barack Obama. When John McCain gets your children nuked, at least you’ll be able to say you weren’t snowed by that uppity young punk from Chicago.
    Morons.

    Reply

  201. mike says:

    carroll,
    thanks for the laugh. agreed. these puma types are looking more and more pathetic daily. plus i’m sure at least half are republican trolls.
    obama/clark 08 (i think/hope)

    Reply

  202. Bob says:

    Fuck you Don Jo, you douche bag prick fuck. Obama is 10 times
    the man corrupt John McSame will ever be and 20 times the leader
    corrupt and paid for Hillary Clinton would ever be. If fucking a
    President is the only criteria, then lets elect Monica Lewinsky.

    Reply

  203. Carroll says:

    Lets lay the PUMA hype to rest.
    The head PUMA, Bowers, claims to have at least 2.5 million members.
    Hillary has 25 million in outstanding campaign debt. That’s only a $10 donation per PUMA. So why did Obama make the big plea for contributions to pay off her debt? Why would she need that if she has the PUMAs?
    So why haven’t these millions of PUMA Hillary supporters retired her debt?
    At the recently held “PUMA National Convention” for ’08 only 60 people signed up and attended. (see link)
    PUMA did a mail blitz on dem delegates that generated only 400 form e mails to each delegate.(see link)
    So if they have 2 million die hard PUMAS, few of them bothered to mail their most firmly held convictions to the delegates and only .00003% of them went to their PUMA Hillary convention.
    The Hillary PUMAs look more like mice that roar than fierce mountain lions.
    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/how_big_is_puma_now.php
    http://beltwayblips.com/story/diane_tucker_puma_hillary_supporters_hold_closed_door/

    Reply

  204. Dan says:

    Quote: They work their asses off
    Where is the evidence?
    Quote: they don’t panic under pressure
    Today is an example of that?
    Quote: they don’t lie.
    Wrong. They do.

    Reply

  205. Chris says:

    Well, Clark repeated Bob Schieffer’s phrasing about John McCain, and Republicans attacked him, so of *course* the Democrats decided to throw him overboard instead of finding a way to push back.
    Now, that’ll keep Obama for being attacked for anything — whether it’s vacationing in Hawaii, disagreeing with McCain about Georgia, or daring to run against a Republican.
    God, anything but finding a way to push back.
    Good luck with that in the election.
    And assuming it doesn’t backfire the way appeasing Republicans seems to do every time, good luck governing.
    You’ll wish you had it when you’re getting your ass handed to you every day, on every issue you care about, by people who actually understand the value of self-defense in politics.

    Reply

  206. PeterG says:

    If Obama truly is ‘snubbing’ General Clark, then it is a great travesty for the supposedly ‘inclusive’ Democratic Party. What is going on here? It almost sounds like the Al Gore candidacy, where after Clinton’s presidency, the Democratic Party had everything going for it to ride the good times of Clinton’s policies to victory, but Gore stumbled in his campaign. Same thing is happening here, it appears…

    Reply

  207. kaflinn says:

    Dear Mr. Clemons,
    Thank you for trying to use your reputation, and blog, to point out and try to reverse so short-sighted a decision as not inviting Gen Clark to speak in Denver. Whatever the Obama campaign’s reasons – they are no justifaction for such disrespect to someone who has spent the last several years doing everything he can to help get Dems in office.
    I don’t care what the O campaign’s reasoning is. They are wrong. They’re behaving with extreme foolishness. Period. I wish I could truthfully say I expected more from them.
    Oh – and to the “Dan” upthread who slammed WesPAC’s staff, and specifically Catherine? Those are all people I consider friends, Dan. They work their asses off, they don’t panic under pressure and they don’t lie. So – Dan? Bite me, you assinine, moronic little pissant twit.

    Reply

  208. Thersites says:

    I think Axelrod screwed over Clark on purpose on that comment about McCain, the position he took was just untenable and it shows a marked lack of character that he went along and did it. He is now neutralized, he can’t even say “just following orders” because, well, Obama distanced himself from those comments, didn’t he?!! Oops!

    Reply

  209. Goof says:

    WigWag,
    African Americans will perceive any reversal in an Obama nomination as a slap in the face. No Democrat can win the general election without the black vote, so the die is already cast – either the Democrats win with Obama or they lose.
    It may be time to think about breaking up Super Tuesday a bit so there’s a little more time to get to know the candidates before the race is over.

    Reply

  210. rick stafford says:

    In just a few months we will talking about how Obama blew it. Had it on a silver platter and just blew it…wow!

    Reply

  211. WigWag aka PUMA speaks says:

    PUMA people are laughable in their attempt to split the party disguised as Democrats. Come out, come out, wherever you are, Rove.
    On the prowl, are you? What a ridiculous group. Pounce. Oh! You scared me. Not.

    Reply

  212. WigWag aka PUMA speaks says:

    PUMA people are laughable in their attempt to split the party disguised as Democrats. Come out, come out, wherever you are, Rove.
    On the prowl, are you? What a ridiculous group. Pounce. Oh! You scared me. Not.

    Reply

  213. WigWag aka PUMA speaks says:

    PUMA people are laughable in their attempt to split the party disguised as Democrats. Come out, come out, wherever you are, Rove.
    On the prowl, are you? What a ridiculous group. Pounce. Oh! You scared me. Not.

    Reply

  214. kaflinn says:

    Dear Walter,
    Yes – the only negative “issues of integrity and character” belonged to Gen. Shelton – for making such an assinine, underhanded, ambiguous and purposefully nasty comment such as that, then being too cowardly to back them up with explanations when asked.
    What led to Clark’s firing were the brusied egos of two people who should have spent more time backing up Gen. Clark & NATO’s efforts to stop Milosevic, and less time playing politics. I’m speaking of Gen. Shelton and Sec. Cohen, of course. These two paragons of virtue and courage, lied to a sitting president in telling Clinton why Clark was being ‘rotated early’ so he’d sign off on it, then didn’t even have the balls to fire Wes to his face. Instead, they leaked it to the press first.

    Reply

  215. seydlitz89 says:

    Steve-
    Thanks for this thread and your great work on Washington Note.
    POA-
    I share your sentiments. As a Clark supporter I was really hoping that Clark might be the VP, but seemingly little chance of that now.
    “String masters” is right. Imo in America today the real choice is between “Empire” and “Republic” but unfortunately all the candidates favoring “Republic” have been eliminated. Which means the changes implemented since 2000 will not be rolled back. The Republic is dead, long live the Empire.

    Reply

  216. PisseOffAmerican says:

    “Looks like another circular firing squad!”
    Hey, no problem, WigWag. I’m sure you’ll succeed in turning it into a circle jerk instead.

    Reply

  217. Don Jo says:

    I’ve seen seme pretty ignorant comments on the internet, but the ones villifying a true American hero and patriot are the scummiest of the scum. What it amounts to is they don’t know squat about Wes Clark, but are just mouthing the bull shit put out (and debunked time and time again) by their neo-con puppet masters.

    Reply

  218. Banjo says:

    Now is the time for this buffoonish character to turn his skills to making moonshine or sone other hillbilly pursuit.

    Reply

  219. linda says:

    How could Obama team not invited Clark at the convention? That day is intended for veterans and Wesley Clark represents the veterans, the men and women who dedicated their service for the country. If I were a democrat, I would not vote for Obama. This is a sign that he disregards the service of Clark being a veteran and an active democratic surrogate.

    Reply

  220. B Dubya says:

    People who don’t know their own history may be doomed to repeat it.
    Slick Willie FIRED the then General Wesley Clark during the 2nd half of his 2nd term. To read the content of some of the more interesting (read ravening howls of outrage I tell you, outrage) entries, one might think that Clark and the Clintons form some sort of cabal within the current cabal that is the People’s Democratic Party. Not even close.
    Clark is a military adventurer in the mold of Swift Boat John Kerry. Not actual military adventure, mind you, but political opportunism, cynically trading in the compromized good of his military “career” for a shot at the Big Brass Ring.
    It is always amusing to watch the moonbats attack each other in the interest of “solidarity”. This, of course, will not happen one the Annointed One becomes the all powerful, last elected President; he will ensure that you all work either together in harmony or you will bedome resident in his new Denver holding pen/gulag model society.
    Fevered dreams.

    Reply

  221. WigWag says:

    Can’t you just feel the unity?
    Looks like another circular firing squad!

    Reply

  222. Steve Martinez says:

    Now I’m sure it is Obama/Clark 2008. The Good General shores
    up the coalition on 3 fronts, Clintonites, military and older voters.
    You read it here first…

    Reply

  223. Paul Norheim says:

    POA,
    I had it in my mind, but forgot the obvious sixth (or first!) option:
    Not choosing Clark is another part of his “move towards the
    center”. If so, it may suit powerful interests of different kinds, but
    it will probably result in Obama loosing the election.
    If he for example says that he was strongly against the Iraq
    invasion, “but don`t worry, my VP candidate voted for the
    invasion, and may even support an invasion of Iran”, Americans
    will probably see it as the joke it is. There are limits to how much
    you can talk about “change” and surround yourself with status
    quo people. We`ll see…
    BTW, I assume you know the old Chinese curse: May you live in
    interesting times.

    Reply

  224. Robert Morrow says:

    Wesley Clark has the stench of Clinton pond scum all over him. Clark is “in bed” with the Clintons – yuck. That is probably on BIG reason the Obama people want nothing to do with him.
    In 2004, Bill Clinton pressured Kerry to put Hillary or Wesley Clark on the ticket.
    It is not going to happen in 2008 either.

    Reply

  225. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, if anyone besides myself has waded through the hundred some odd comments on this thread, I’m curious if anyone else reached the heartsinking realization that 85% of the general populace are blithering dolts.
    Steve made himself quite clear, on numerous occassions explained how he arrived at this “information”, and went the extra mile to verify that he was not misrepresenting what he was told, and what he passed on to us.
    WTF do you people want, an affidavit? A sworn statement from the three parties?
    And why would it suprise you for Obama to cast aside a broker of the truth? Anyone with half a brain should be scared shitless at the prospect of EITHER of these candidates managing to slither their way into the Oval Office. These are dangerous times, and these are dangerous men. People like Clark, Paul, Wexler, etc. do not fit into the plans of McCain’s and Obama’s string masters.
    Meanwhile, the machine manufactures a new Cold War.
    Maybe we really are going to fry this planet.
    What an amazing time we are able to witness. Gads, would you have believed it twenty years ago?

    Reply

  226. Molon Labe says:

    “General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others.”
    No, he isn’t. He’s almost universally reviled by evryone in DOD. He was an overbearing, arrogant micromanager. I know several people who worked on his staffs at SOUTHCOM and EUCOM, and everyone hated the SOB. He thought he was God’s gift to the military. He only got as far as he did through politics — kissing ass, for you civilians. As demonstrated by his incompetence during ALLIED FORCE in Kosovo, he has no idea how to conduct a major operation.
    There were cheers in EUCOM when he got canned. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer snotweasel.

    Reply

  227. Paul Norheim says:

    “General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the
    convention.” (Steve Clemons)
    This is what General Clark`s office have told Steve, and there is
    no reason to think that Steve is not reporting this as accurately
    as he can. Actually, I`ve never seen Steve repeating exactly
    what he`ve heard again and again in this manner; he obviously
    wants to get this right.
    What Clark said about McCain as a POW and his qualifications
    as a future US president does not seem to be a good reason not
    to give him a role “of any kind”. So if he`ll not get any role at
    the convention, one would guess that there are reasons
    (reasonable reasons, or bad reasons) that the public are not
    aware of.
    “no role of any kind”…
    Perhaps I am ignorant regarding Clark`s position, but here is
    my question: Are there only two choices here:
    (A) offering Clark the role of VP candidate or
    (B) nothing?
    Or does the formulation “no role of any kind” hint at other
    possibilities?
    Would General Clark have rejected a role as Secretary of
    Defense? Would he have rejected other suggestions?
    If the answer is: he would have accepted it – the whole affair is
    even more strange.
    All this leaves us with four possible explanations, as far as I can
    see:
    1) Obama has simply made a mistake or bad judgement
    (Steve`s assumption).
    2) There is something we don`t know about the recent/current
    relationship between Clark and Obama (I assume that Clark`s
    biography, past mistakes and alleged mistakes were well known
    to Obama a long time ago), that makes Obama keep a big
    distance to Clark, not wanting to offer him any role,
    whatsoever.
    3) Clark has made it clear that he does not accept anything
    except becoming the VP candidate, and Obama has chosen
    someone else as VP.
    4) Obama has actually chosen Clark as his VP candidate,
    whispered this in his ears, made him promise not to disclose
    this to anybody except his wife (not even his office, since
    Obama does not yet want to show his cards). His staff people
    know nothing, inform Steve accordingly, and he reports what he
    hears from an office that has not yet been informed.
    5) Clark will be invited tomorrow.
    Just my two cents. We`ll soon know, regarding the fourth or
    fifth alternative. And don´t waste your time questioning Steve`s
    credibility in this case. I`ve never seen him so anxious to give a
    correct report.

    Reply

  228. lutonmoore says:

    “General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others. General Clark spoke the truth when he commented about McCain’s time as a POW was not qualification for being Commander-In-Chief. Whether serving an active role or not at the DNC convention, General Clark belongs at the event. He is one person who truly supports the troops—Is there a “Support-The Troops” activity planned for the DNC convention?”
    Puh-leeze. “The Troops” know that Wesley Clark is a piece of sh*t who’d sell the military down the river for a chance at some political job. Obama’s people have figgered out that he’s a Clintonoid. Yeah, he’s a real hero. Wiki him up. I’m one of the troops and have been my whole life. He’d make the Messiah B. Hussein Obama hated by the military even more.

    Reply

  229. Walt Lear says:

    Gen. Hugh Shelton, who relieved Clark of his command of NATO during Bosnia, informed the campaign that if Clark is the nominee he would go public with exactly what “issues of integrity and character” led to Clark’s firing.
    Obama won’t touch him with a 10 foot pole. He’s radioactive at this point.

    Reply

  230. Richard Power says:

    Steve,
    Thank you for drawing attention to this.
    It is perhaps the most disturbing news yet in string of troubling signs.
    Obama, Kerry and the others were wrong to distance themselves from Gen. Clark when he showed the courage to take on the false idol of McCain the “military leader.”
    And they are certainly wrong now not to position him prominently at the convention.
    I have been inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on how he runs his campaign; my feeling was he had earned it — but this is way off the mark and out of touch …
    He has been listening to the weak-kneed a little too much, I am afraid.
    Thanks for all the tremendous work you are doing w/ Washington Note.
    Best,
    Richard Power

    Reply

  231. gotalife says:

    He tossed a great General that gave us our last miltary victory when Russia is invading under the bus.
    OMG.

    Reply

  232. Dan Kervick says:

    This whole thread reads like an outbreak of mass insanity. It’s worse than that. Steve has created a viral Saturday blogospheric kerfuffle that is nothing but a game of Telephone based on a single context-free, poorly explained and imprecise statement by some apparently miffed Clark staffer. And it’s posted without any background, and without a sought response – not even a “no comment” – from the Obama camp. Plus, we have two conflicting accounts. According to one, Clark was *told* “there is no reason to come” to the convention. In other words, he was told to stay away. According to the other, Clark has not yet been invited to speak at the convention, and he and his people have concluded *on their own* that their is no reason to come. Of course, many thousands of Democrats who are not speaking at the convention are nevertheless going to Denver attend it.
    I feel like I’m reading a Lyndon LaRouche blog, or watching middle schoolers pass notes in class about how Billy hates Kailie because he didn’t invite her to the prom. Pretty damn irresponsible stuff.

    Reply

  233. ms in la says:

    Bob Sakowski, Thank you for this:
    “Actually, Gen. Clark´s first loyalty is to the United States, period.”
    The actual true statements really stand out in this jumble of distortions called “comments” today.
    I think he’s too ‘scary progressive’ for the Obama campaign. He’s a self avowed and unapologetic liberal who – when faced with political ill winds blowing his direction – refused to throw Michael Moore under the bus, even when it meant political damage to himself. He speaks out loudly and frequently about the dangers of PNAC and their target list of nations – to people who might otherwise not be informed about it. This threatens the boyz in the five-sided building and the status quo at Defense and in Washington. But it doesn’t stop him. He won’t back down.
    Oh, and for those who may be seeking some banning of the blog or commentary over at General Clark’s website– I’d abandon that idea … After shedding his own blood for it, General Clark has far too profound a reverence for free speech than to ever ban it on his own real estate. And furthermore, he is exceedingly proud of his blog and his bloggers. He’s professed that many times to me and continues to do so.
    Wes Clark is the original “hold their feet to the fire” guy when it comes to holding our leaders accountable, regardless of party. He encourages everyone to not fall into blind obedience … to do homework and to never stop questioning.
    —————————-
    “Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic; than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable… I think that’s the duty of people in democracies, to hold their leaders accountable.” ~ Wes Clark

    Reply

  234. lutonmoore says:

    HAHHAHAH!!! One of the Clintoon’s @skissing political generals, and totally useless. Maybe he can make it selling insurance.

    Reply

  235. Dan says:

    Steve, between your reporting of the facts as you learned them from the inept crew at WesPAC you do General Clark a great disservice with this. It makes him look whiny and petty. I don’t know who other than Catherine you talked to over there but it does not surprise me one bit they were all too anxious to share with you. What a disaster that group has turned out to be. Talk about crisis management, it begins at home.

    Reply

  236. Eric says:

    Are you people just plain stupid? I was a supporter of General Clark when he ran, but anyone claiming he can bring in millions of votes is deliusional. He is a great public servant but has his own baggage from the end of his service and caused more than a little trouble when he questioned Sen. McCain’s service. I think he was right, but Obama is trying to stay away from giving the repugs ammunition. If you say you won’t vote for him because Clark isn’t at the convention you are a phony and weren’t going ot vote for him anyway. Report back to McCain HQ that you earned today’s salary.

    Reply

  237. KayCeSF says:

    Bob Sakowski –
    I didn’t mean anything untowards by that comment. I only tossed it out as perhaps one variable in choosing a VP. I frankly don’t think it should or will have a thing to do with it… but who knows?
    I agree with you! Wes’ allegiance has always been to this country first, foremost, always…. And that’s why I value his voice so much. :)

    Reply

  238. mike says:

    warrior, mccain has clearly violated te logan act over georgia. why no one is calling him on it is bewildering.
    msm doesn’t love obama. they love the buffoon mccain.

    Reply

  239. BDS sufferer says:

    If anyone, let me repeat myself ANYONE, thinks that Obama is a progressive, you’re tin foil hat is on too tight.
    This punk (who I was enthusiastic for back in Jan-March) sold out his grandmother for gawd sakes. What is the matter with you people? We are SCREWED for another 4 years no matter who wins.
    And yes, I don’t see Obama the Liar as any better than McSame. As a matter of fact, if Obama is the man he says he is since April he’d be the perfect running mate for McSame.

    Reply

  240. BDS sufferer says:

    If anyone, let me repeat myself ANYONE, thinks that Obama is a progressive, you’re tin foil hat is on too tight.
    This punk (who I was enthusiastic for back in Jan-March) sold out his grandmother for gawd sakes. What is the matter with you people? We are SCREWED for another 4 years no matter who wins.
    And yes, I don’t see Obama the Liar as any better than McSame. As a matter of fact, if Obama is the man he says he is since April he’d be the perfect running mate for McSame.

    Reply

  241. mike says:

    LOL. when mccain is insubordinate he’s a ‘maverick’. when it’s clark he’s ‘incompetent’?
    right wing fairy tales would be funny if so many idiots didn’t believe them.

    Reply

  242. JR says:

    Erik, Biden makes a lot of sense, but 2 sitting Senators = Change? Will Obama toss his slogan under the bus?

    Reply

  243. warriorofgod says:

    Gosh…..let us see…the fighthesmear…was bascially put on to remove rumors…yet…Obama has one major rumor not posted. Mr. Half muslim radical extremist that calls his phoney christian religion a religion and have us Judeo-Christians laughing at the comparison, believes that the people do not see through his deceit is finally being vetted by the pen soldiers of the internet. Good! Let Obamanation and all the books come out within sept through Oct, and then let the October surprise turn off the voters more! It is about time to stop this madness of spellbound idiots that are thinking of flowers and bees and not of our turmoil in our country. Let those same idiots stop smoking crack, stop running around like looneys with “yes we can” faces! No we won’t- the polls are saying- the American people will not be swayed by “false hope” and some guy who rather surf in front of the cameras in Hawaii- while the Russians are invading the oil in Georgia. Wake up idiots!

    Reply

  244. JR says:

    The WC has been flushed, well done BHO, well done indeed.

    Reply

  245. furyohgaijin says:

    Perhaps the Obama camp just found out that General Clark was removed from his post as NATO chief one year early by President Clinton’s Secretary of Defence. For incompetence. More than one NATO general simply refused to obey his commands. The real question is, with a record like that, why has he been allowed to hang around so long?

    Reply

  246. Insufficiently Sensitive says:

    Wesley Clark has always been foremost the darling of the media, mainly for his opposition to Bush policies and only lastly for any sort of military competence. Now that the media has slighted Clark for the holy Obama, it will quickly pull the curtain on any statements from the former General. Perhaps Clark can make a living selling souvenirs in Kosovo.

    Reply

  247. KayCeSF says:

    Defoliate –
    I think if I were you, I’d be a lot more concerned about what the dialogue looks like on General Clark’s own public board, including a few of your own “choice” comments, rather than worrying about what is said at Kos.
    Nuff said.

    Reply

  248. Bob Sakowski says:

    ¨it must be acknowledged that General Clark’s first loyalty went to the Clintons. That may be a deciding factor in Senator Obama’s decision, like it or not.¨ — KayCeSF
    That is the dumbest thing I have seen in a blog, ever.
    Actually, Gen. Clark´s first loyalty is to the United States, period.

    Reply

  249. warriorofgod says:

    A golden pen for the article and author! The koolaid children are upset because their messiah is being vetted. Oh, well….that is politics. The extreme radicals think that there will not be an investigation on the “passport incident” and the “birth certicate discovery”. I see ahead “jail time for many who were involved in this deceit”. And with pleasure I will see the ex-hillary clinton people laugh at the idiots like Dean, Pelosi, Dodd, Richardson, Kennedy, Kerry and yes…the cheater..Edwards, and say” That is all folks……say porky pig!!!!!!!!

    Reply

  250. Eric says:

    Steve,
    I’m not sure which is more disturbing: Clark’s current absence from the convention line-up OR all the ppl who apparently think you’re just making this all up out of whole cloth. As if you had nothing better to do with your Saturday afternoon/evening.
    So let me ask… Is this really about Clark’s alleged gaffe re: McCain’s lack of CiC credentials, or is there some other kind of behind the scenes dramz to which we’re not privy? If it’s the former, I find myself quite concerned that the Obama camp lacks the stomach for challenging McCain on his perceived strengths moving forward.
    Anyway, thx for the reporting.
    -Eric
    P.S. How would you feel if Biden is ultimately chosen as VP? IMO, he’s looking like the most palatable option of the remaining short-listers being bandied about.
    But enough about this…back to my dirty martini! Have a good one!

    Reply

  251. Howard says:

    Clark would bring out MILLIONS of voters???? You’re kidding, right? Wacky Wes won exactly ONE primary in 2004 and probably didn’t get a quarter million votes total.

    Reply

  252. j-m says:

    I’m re-entering my comment, since I had one typo (in case some democratic or repugnikkkan yahoo wants to make issue of it).
    —I’m a veteran and I would love to see General Clark involved, but I’m also a progressive democrat who will not get trapped or join the clan of democrats (many here I can see) that want to tell Obama who to pick and how to act. If Obama was all White instead of half-White, would they still be telling him what to do, and how to act? One thing I do know, democratic voters do not know how to unite, and that is sad!

    Reply

  253. j-m says:

    I’m a veteran and I would love to see General Clark involved, but I’m also a progressive democrat who will not get trapped or join the clan of democrats (many here I can see) that want to tell Obama who to pick and how to act. If Obama was all White instead of half-White, would they still be telling him what to do, and how to act? One think I do know, democratic voters do not know how to unite, and that is sad!

    Reply

  254. Steve Clemons says:

    Diamond — why of course, yes, would be my answer. If you read the bits above, you would see that I had other reasons to contact General Clark regarding the convention — and I happened to have been at the right place at the right time to learn this interesting news.
    Wesley Clark’s office called me immediately when I posted this piece just to make sure that my understanding of events and conversations with them were their understanding as well — and we are on the same page. They have not asked me to change any of the substance of my piece.
    And frankly, I think General Clark’s office, his staff people, and his friends very much hope that the DNC program committee revisit this decision and offer him a reasonable role during the many long hours of the convention.
    Best regards,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  255. Paul Wilsbach says:

    If this is true, I am pissed!
    Gen. Clark is the perfect candidate for VP! He can help Barack smash the Repugs! All the other choices are second rate. Grow som ball BHO!!!

    Reply

  256. Diamond says:

    What kind of reporting is this?
    “Clark WAS INFORMED by Barack Obama’s people that there was no reason to come”.
    Are we just supposed to take your word that you happened to have stumbled on a message from Obama’s people to Clark?

    Reply

  257. Deborah White says:

    This has to be a head fake of some kind. I just don’t believe that the Obama camp would entirely exclude Gen. Clark from the Denver convention, It makes no sense: Obama is smarter than that.
    Besides, if you read the entirely of Clark’s controversial remarks, he was absolutely correct!

    Reply

  258. Defoliate Bush says:

    KayCeSF -
    You’re more than welcome to post that at SecuringAmerica.com since as you note, is it still open for comments by all. If Clarkies were noted for defending against lies and focusing on the truth, I would say that the pro-Obama segment did a damn poor job of that over at DU and Kos when anti-Clinton statements there were posted. And that includes spreading some lies about Wes stating that he claimed that Obama was unfit to be CIC (something to this day we have to try to shoot down).
    Anyways, I know that there are segments of the DNC that are trying to follow the Republican playbook of purging any dissenting opinions (i.e. – anybody who supported Hillary), but I don’t think that Wes will follow that lead being the leader he is.

    Reply

  259. mike (the 1st one) says:

    other mike, clark coming out for hil first is not a disqualification, it’s an asset. he wants to prove he can win over clintonites. wes is perfect for veep, and this is just an attempt to save the surprise for last. no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise imo.

    Reply

  260. mike says:

    If true, this should not be surprising. Clark came out first for Hillary. That disqualifies him for Obama (assuming he has any self respect), no matter if he switched sides when he saw who would win.
    Obama has plenty of early supporters and always neutral people to choose from. He won’t reward early “betrayal.”
    The only exception to that is he might go with Hillary herself, if he can keep her in a traditional “funerals and state dinners” role.
    But good as we think Clark would be… you makes your bets and you takes your chances. He made his bet and lost.

    Reply

  261. Chuck says:

    “General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others. General Clark spoke the truth when he commented about McCain’s time as a POW was not qualification for being Commander-In-Chief.”
    General Clark is an idiot and that’s why he is not invited to attend.

    Reply

  262. mike says:

    sorry, it was an aide, not clark directly. still, on aug 11:
    For what it’s worth, an aide to Gen. Clark could not restrain near-riotous laughter when asked if there was anything behind the connection.
    “I don’t think it’s anything more than an interesting coincidence,” the aide said in between convulsions. “It’s just because his PAC was named so well!”
    really? wow his aide sounds sooooo depressed about clark being ‘shunned’ over it.
    you think they want the news out 2 weeks in advance?

    Reply

  263. Lou R says:

    General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others. General Clark spoke the truth when he commented about McCain’s time as a POW was not qualification for being Commander-In-Chief. Whether serving an active role or not at the DNC convention, General Clark belongs at the event. He is one person who truly supports the troops—Is there a “Support-The Troops” activity planned for the DNC convention?

    Reply

  264. Dan Kervick says:

    Well, I’m still totally mystified. Assuming you are right, Steve, and that Clark is not getting an on ramp, and Obama’s team is signaling that Clark will have no role at the convention, what possible reason could there be for these attitudes?
    I guess I’m just clueless. Everybody else here seems to have some dark theory about what is going on, and about the nature of the relationship between Clark and Obama. But I’m totally in the dark. If you or someone else knows what is going on, I wish they would speak up and fill me in. I see a lot of shooting from the hip and random griping about everything from Charlie Rangel to Haitian refugee camps, but no authoritative informative.
    Anyway, I don’t think this is not a constructive way to go about this. You have launched a thread that has produced an outburt of anti-Obama venting and hysteria based on some pretty thin stuff about how Clark’s people “feel” dissed. But there is no context, background or interpretation. Has anybody on Clark’s team simply called the Obama campaign and asked will Clark or will he not have a role at the convention, and if not, why not? What answer did they get?

    Reply

  265. mike says:

    another source said clark ‘cackled hysterically’ at someone pointing out the night’s title to him. he asked back ‘what a oincidence’ (paraphrased).
    think about it. why would he laugh so happily. does that sound like a guy taking a MASSIVELY INSULTING snub via ‘securing america’s future WITHOUT the guy that uses that catchphrase’?
    you guys are so gullible i’m sure.

    Reply

  266. zentrails says:

    Is it possible that the Dems are hoping Chaney comes out with one of his famous “he’s a good man” statements about Clark like he did with Joe turncoat?
    That would be rich. Tricking Chaney into supporting Clark as Obama’s VP. LOL

    Reply

  267. bluemoon says:

    I am frankly recycling this comment from the real SecuringAmerica where I’ve blogged for years.
    No Clark eh? But look who Obama chooses to run around with Air Force uniform Project Runway wannabe McPeak whispering in his ear.
    Republicans usually pick up ten points in the polls in the last month- the fact that the O! & McCain are purportedly neck & neck at this point considering recent history with a split party to boot should have everyone quite worried.
    I think if Barack Obama were a 1/8th as wise as he is over-ambitious…If he actually possesses 1/3rd of the potential we are told over & over again he has (because he’s got no actual accomplishments to point to to prove it)…
    And if he were a heckova lot less stage managed, he might have a chance of going to the best people available instead of pre-emptively shunning & snubbing the people who have an actual track record of success. Because frankly there aren’t that many. Instead of treating them as competition to be eliminated, he would show he’s big tent minded for something other than Republicans. Wes Clark could make Barack Obama a great president. But the O! is a fool, end of story.
    In PA I am seeing proBO ads where all the people are from Indiana or Ohio (pointing so stupidly to Bayh) & they are keeping Barack’s face out of the ads & going for the domestic angle.
    Think back to WKC’s argument at the DNC Winter Meeting in 2207- a soldier, fighting for his country.
    O! operatives reading- compare the famous blue state red state speech with the reclaim the flag speech at the 2004 convention & you tell me which one has held up better. Which one is more relevant to the office of POTUS?
    Lost in some blue state red state fantasy, these New Left Democrats are lost in a fuzzy dreamworld of Hope & Change while Rome burns. They don’t have a clue- they are not going to field someone like WKC who is an anti-neo-con silver bullet- they are going to run a timid campaign based on having read What’s the Matter with Kansas, have Evan Bayh (who makes Steve Clemons & the left apoplectic!) as your VP unless they are so brazen as to recycle John Forbes Heinz Kerry.
    General Clark has spent a lifetime immersed in the fine details of America’s national defense. The O! seems to have only the vaguest idea of what that might entail. General Clark is an expert on all of the complex underpinnings of the delicate geo-political world & how they intersect with major world institutions, etc. – I mean, there is NO comparison between what the philosophical slant of WKC could do to correct our course. The O! should surround himself with the best & brightest- evidently, that is not going to happen.
    What a moron, and that’s putting it as kindly as I can. Nobody has worked harder for Democrats- who apparently don’t deserve it. After seven years, they have internalized the abuses of their evil twin brethren across the aisle & merged into a giant purple stupidity machine.
    I thought they wanted to try to win this time.

    Reply

  268. Frank Warner says:

    If this is true, it shows Obama has sense.
    A president doesn’t need a military adviser who gives only politically popular advice.

    Reply

  269. mike says:

    wes is no more a war criminal than mccain is an inept pilot who stunk in naval school, crashed planes, and revealed secrets to the vietkong manchurian candidate.
    wes neutralizes mccain’s ‘but i was a pow!!’ bullshit.

    Reply

  270. Carroll says:

    It appears to me that Steve has confirmed numerous times that General Clark’s office has confirmed that General Clark WAS NOT ASKED TO BE PART OF THE DEM CONVENTION.
    Period.
    A very popular figure among dems for both Hillary and Obama and even among some repubs WAS NOT ASKED TO BE PART OF THE CONVENTION.
    The question is WHY.
    More important than asking Obama to revist that decision is demanding the Obama camp be asked to explain WHY.
    And the nonsense that he is not invited to particpate because he supported Hillary is just nonsense since Hillary herself will be there.
    So what is it Obama?
    Is it that the (accurate) remark he made about McCains POW experience not being a adaquate qualification for commander in chief and setter of foreign policy is offensive to the neo and wing nut votes you hope to attract? If so will you make US policies acceptable to the wing nuts too or are you just fooling them for their own good?
    Or is it Clark’s remark about the money men in NY, taken to be Jewish neos ( also accurate) as source of influence for Iraq and now an Iran war is offensive to your financial backers?
    It has been suggested by Obama surrogates that what Obama has been demostrating is his flip flops and under the bus tossing from primary to general is his “pragmatism” about how to gain office and govern thereafter. I wonder to which issues will he apply his “pragmatism” in behalf of America? Will it be slective as in the case of US-Isr-Pal and his own ambitions?
    The public is tired of having to “guess” which shell the pea is under.
    BWTTGASO

    Reply

  271. Reg says:

    And ignore the fact that Wes Clark is a war criminal?
    You’re not really much different from the Bush gang are you Steve? You just think you can run the murderous imperial operation with more panache.
    No thanks! I’d rather have the real thing.

    Reply

  272. Paul Strummer says:

    Sorry, that should read NATO.

    Reply

  273. mike says:

    “the key thing to know is that Clark’s people have been told (at this point) that he will have no role.”
    the key thing to know is that Clark’s people have STATED THEY HAVE been told (at this point) that he will have no role. :)
    come on. ‘securing america’s future’? they made it too obvious now they’ve trying to ccover to avoid it going on the news beforehand.

    Reply

  274. Paul Strummer says:

    I think most of you are missing a bigger point: Wesley Clark was in charge of U.S. refugee camps for Haitians who were escaping from Duvalier rule in the 80′s and 90′s (the treatment of the refugees was despicable) and is a war criminal because of his actions as supreme Nato Commander during the war in Yugoslavia. Please read this:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen09172003.html

    Reply

  275. bmc says:

    Obama is really becoming a divisive figure in the Democratic Party. He’s also told Charlie Rangel he’s not invited to speak at the Convention. I can’t believe Democrats are going to end up with this loser. What a shame. Well, this Democrat isn’t voting for him.

    Reply

  276. Steve Clemons says:

    Dan Kervick — the point you make is noted by me. I want to emphasize that it folks close to Clark and who work for him are the ones who have told me that the “message” they are getting from the campaign is not to come — not by words “don’t come” but by words “we have no role for General Clark” — or approximately those. I do get the difference…but diplomatic tact aside, the Wes Clark team is not getting the onramp from Team Obama to be able to attend the convention. He won’t go without a role of some sort in the program….and there’s plenty of time.
    To your issue of is it too early to be upset about him not being on the schedule because it’s still coming together.
    My answer is no — but I am hopeful that they can now reconsider their neglect of him in the program and invite him in.
    I know what I know from talking to people close to Clark who communicated with the Obama team and DNC who told Clark’s people that he would have no role.
    So whether or not the process is finished or not, the key thing to know is that Clark’s people have been told (at this point) that he will have no role.
    So, it’s the right time to raise this and hope for reconsideration of that position.
    best, steve

    Reply

  277. Defoliate Bush says:

    Ed -
    “While he is certainly personable and at least modestly intelligent he is viewed with suspicion by the warriors”
    Are you kidding me??? Number one in his class at West Point and Rhodes Scholar qualifies as a bit more than modestly intelligent

    Reply

  278. mike says:

    bullshit. far more likely clemons got fooled or is doing a great cover job. if they anounced clark was going the question would be ‘in what role?’ which they can’t answer if he’s veep.

    Reply

  279. me says:

    Another BIG Obama mistake. These keep adding up. Obama is going to LOSE!

    Reply

  280. Pending Comment says:

    You screamers are hilarious. You don’t understand what this blog and Steve Clemons are up to.
    It’s clear to me that Steve found out some information that no others really had in hand. He found out not only that Wes Clark wasn’t attending the convention but that the General really wanted to and wasn’t being asked to do a damned thing. In the high court of politics at a Convention with a top Dem like Clark, that’s a big DISS.
    So, what does Steve do? He lays out the info and riles folks up (as they should be) and then offers the Obama team an olive branch that says FIX THIS.
    You guys are all wrapped up in whether this is real or not — IT’S REAL. Clemons calls folks up and talks to them as he says he did today. Clark would have Clemons killed if he misspoke on something of this importance.
    So, wake up folks. This is a great post. We now know that Clark is NOT going to the convention. We know that Obama’s team, or some of them, don’t really want to give Clark a reason to go to the Convention. BUT, Clark wants to help and be there.
    So, Obama campaign readers, FIX THIS. Get Clark on the program.
    Clemons never throws grenades without a reason and a strategy. Clemons is saying he wants Clark in.
    TWN is a get things done blog.

    Reply

  281. mike says:

    GUARANTEE he’s veep. ‘not going’ is their way of saying ‘not available’. think he’s gonna sit in on your little middle east sideshow after he gets the nom? HA. relax guys. vp clark indeed. :D
    obama loves to shock and awe. he rarely shows his hand.

    Reply

  282. Dan Kervick says:

    Thanks for the clarification Steve. To my mind, there is a big difference between telling Clark that he is not going to be invited to speak and that he therefore has no reason to come to the convention – which would be a sort of in your face insult and message that he is not welcome – and simply not having invited him, as of yet, to speak. Even if they never invite him to speak, that certainly wouldn’t mean he is not very welcome in Denver. But as far as I can tell, the speaking schedule is still in the process of being created. Some very major figures were just announced on Thursday. Isn’t it a bit too early to be complaining about being dissed?
    I remember the incident of Clark’s statement about McCain, when he said being shot down in combat did not qualify someone to be a commander in chief. I know the Obama team criticized that statement, because it deviated from the Obama team message, but it doesn’t seem like a big enough deal to keep Clark away from Denver. Not unless there are some other issues we don’t know about.

    Reply

  283. Steve Clemons says:

    Brad — my sources are insiders near/around Obama – - but even they do not have a perfect read. I sort of get shadows of shadows.
    So, my assertion that Wes Clark will not be named Obama’s running mate is based on lots of conversations with these people. I hope I’m wrong.
    Based on my conversations with these folks, the leading candidates are Bayh, Biden and Daschle — and Jack Reed is a dark horse.
    I don’t hear much about Sibelius or other candidates. Might I be wrong? Absolutely.
    Politics is full of surprises — and is a game based on one’s ability to sort through information, get information, and to separate bad from good information….so one makes the best hunches on all of this as one can.
    On that basis, I don’t see Clark coming out on top of the VP list — even though I know that the netroots and out in the country liberals would love him. I would be pleased to.
    We’ll know Monday or Tuesday this week whether I’m right. . .or wrong.

    Reply

  284. Reg says:

    Well, at least the families of the journalists killed by Wes Clarke’s Nato bombs may be relieved that he’s not going to benefit politically from that slaughter.
    Also the many thousands of other families whose loved ones were blown to pieces by “The Perfumed Prince” and his merry band.
    Obama is best rid of the leech.

    Reply

  285. Julia Perry says:

    I think that Howard Dean owes us an explanation. NOW, if not sooner. let’s back up and look at 2006 and upcoming this Nov, and wonder what his goddamned fifty state strategy would look like, if it weren’t for the General?

    Reply

  286. Steve Clemons says:

    jryanlamar — nothing shoddy on my end. the words “no reason to come” were said by Clark staffers as shorthand for the impression they were getting from the Obama team. I removed the quotes from the words — though they were said to me — because they were the words of Clark staffers and not Obama’s team. Clark staffers do believe that the message from the Obama camp is that there is no reason to go to attend the convention because General Clark will have no role.
    I think he should have a role….
    best regards,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  287. Ed Rasimus says:

    Conspicuously absent from the comments or the original post is some input from career military officers. Gen. Clark is among the most reviled of careerists to have served in recent years. While he is certainly personable and at least modestly intelligent he is viewed with suspicion by the warriors. From his earliest days at West Point throughout his rise to four-stars, he curried favor and played the politics rather than the mission.
    He is, of course, joined by an AF parallel, Tony McPeake who is equally despised as having done more damage to the AF than any Chief of Staff in the past forty years.
    It is only the lack of common military experience in the nation today which allows such individuals to be given credibility.
    My God, Clark is so conniving that even Obama seems to have noticed.

    Reply

  288. Steve Clemons says:

    jryanlamar — find me something in July or August. The comment about the relative contact between Obama’s team and Clark’s was made by Clark’s staff.

    Reply

  289. jryanlamar says:

    More subjective interpretation = not proof of anything:
    “CathiefromCanada — the Obama team did not tell Obama not to go to the Convention. They told him he would have no role at the Convention. His team appropriately interpreted this to mean that they were not wanted — and fundamentally there is no reason to go the convention.” – Steve Clemons
    So you are basing your interpretation on how you think someone else interpreted what you say is “no role in the Convention” which you earlier reported was a message that said “no reason to come.”
    Shoddy conjecture, that is all that this is.

    Reply

  290. jryanlamar says:

    Nonsense: “There has been very little contact between the Clark office and the Obama campaign since Clark’s comments about McCain’s lack of command experience on a TV show that the Obama campaign asked Clark to appear in at the last minutes.” (author of this post)
    Clark’s comment, June 13, 2008,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5bYzL2y7xQ
    “Obama meets with Clark for advisement, June 18, 2008:
    Democratic US presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks as retired Army General Wesley Clark (R) listens during Obama’s meeting with generals and other military flag officers at a military and foreign affairs round table discussion in Washington June 18, 2008.”
    http://securingamerica.com/node/2963

    Reply

  291. Brad says:

    Steve, in a response you just said “Clark will not be the VP candidate”
    Do you know this for a fact, and have you specifically been told this by someone who would know?
    How do you know that Obama has picked his VP?

    Reply

  292. Steve Clemons says:

    CathiefromCanada — the Obama team did not tell Obama not to go to the Convention. They told him he would have no role at the Convention. His team appropriately interpreted this to mean that they were not wanted — and fundamentally there is no reason to go the convention.
    your larger point is exactly on target.
    best regards,
    steve clemons

    Reply

  293. mary says:

    I believe what you’re saying but it doesn’t make any sense. Clark’s
    stock just went way up with the Georgia crisis. After that no one is
    going to care about the McCain comment. Obama needs his
    experience and credibility on this issue.
    It is supposed to be a salute to the troops night and they would
    exclude their own general? They would steal his slogan and not
    include him? Now that’s just plain rude.
    When something doesn’t make any sense you have to wonder. Is
    this a decoy? Is there something about Clark that they know that
    we don’t know — something like Edwards???

    Reply

  294. Steve Clemons says:

    Brad — thanks for your comment. I did not mean to change the tenor of my note. Clark not being asked to play a role at the convention is akin to being asked to remain distant. That is the way that General Clark’s close team and friends are perceiving this diss. It is negative — and I think unfortunate.
    Wesley Clark will not be the VP candidate — and he will not be whisked in at the last minute. If the Obama team does not in fact change their minds about the fact that they haven’t scheduled him to do anything, he will be a non-person at the Convention.
    This shouldn’t be allowed to happen without comment.
    – steve clemons

    Reply

  295. John says:

    Here’s what is really happening. They’re playing a semantics game. Clark will be the VP. But it is 100% true He will NOT be attending the DNC convention. Instead, he will give his VP acceptance speech from NATO headquarters in which he will address America’s need to use multilateral diplomacy to address the current security situations around the globe.
    Source: My imaginative arse.

    Reply

  296. CathiefromCanada says:

    I anticipate some quibbles about whether Clark was actually told not to attend or whether he just got into a snit and decided by himself not to go.
    Though he is trying to make this into his own decision, it sounds to me like he got a very, very clear message from a major player in the Obama campaign organization that he was not welcome and should stay away.
    It’s an absolutely stupid move on the part of the Obama campaign.
    Now this will hit the talk shows by Monday, and they all like Clark. So now there will be lots and lots for them to talk about because kicking Clark out of the party fits right into the “out of touch” frame, the “small cabal running everything” frame, and the “democrats don’t respect the troops” frame. The pundits will just LOVE it.

    Reply

  297. karma for all says:

    and one more thing…anyone that thinks Obama doesn’t want Clark’s services is a damned fool. Just last month the two were together at Obama’s heavily publicized national security meeting. There are photo’s on the internet of Clark sitting right next to Obama, on his left. I guess that’s what Obama does when he snubs people, he invites them to his table.
    Think a little, sheesh.

    Reply

  298. Steve Clemons says:

    Jo Martinson — your note is odd. What part of this story do I not know? I know everything I wrote…it’s confirmed. See my last note above.
    – steve clemons

    Reply

  299. Steve Clemons says:

    Dan — Thanks for your reasonable questions.
    The background of this story is that I am organizing a Middle East policy event in Denver during the Democratic convention. I am doing the same at the Republican convention.
    General Clark is one of those I had invited. My staff followed up with his office, and he was told that General Clark would not be going to the convention. After a bit of surprise and further discussion, my staff member sent me a note stating that Clark had been told that there was “no reason to come.”
    I was surprised by this and then called Clark’s office and spoke with multiple people. I received the same message that my staff member did.
    Essentially, the Obama team have not asked Wesley Clark to play any role at the convention. There has been very little contact between the Clark office and the Obama campaign since Clark’s comments about McCain’s lack of command experience on a TV show that the Obama campaign asked Clark to appear in at the last minutes.
    Thus, Clark has decided that since he has not been asked to play any role at all on any of the days of the convention, he has better ways to spend his time. I think he has maintained a positive, pro-Obama demeanor through all of this — but in my own view, Clark should appear in some role at the Convention and he does matter to many Dems.
    I have no idea if the Obama team is throwing Clark under a bus — or is just accidentally neglectful.
    What I know for a fact is that Clark has not been asked to play a role at the convention. If there is nothing for him to do there, then there is no reason to go. The Obama team did not explicitly tell Clark not to attend the convention — they just have given him no role.
    As one of the top ten most identified Democrats in the nation — I find that odd and hope that the Obama team will revisit the decision.
    I spoke with a Clark spokesman today who told me that General Clark has a tight schedule but that he would rearrange that schedule to appear at the Convention if asked to do something that might be constructive and of service to the Democratic Party. If asked.
    That’s the whole thing – no big drama….I just accidentally ran into this stuff because of my own invitation to Clark to do something….
    best,
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  300. Anna says:

    I would love to see General Clark as Obama’s VP. I would love to see General Clark be honored with a significant role at the convention. Perhaps he would have been had not Hillary Clinton’s people pushed for her so hard that there is no more room at the inn so filled with Clintons. What a shame this is.

    Reply

  301. Jo Martinson says:

    This is exactly the kind of half-baked opinion that creates unnecessary trouble. By admission you don’t know the whole story. If the MSM is remiss because it refuses to print the truth, how is your view of a situation you only partly know about, helpful. You guys can be too full of yourselves and inappropriately sure of the rightness of your own views. Give it a rest.

    Reply

  302. Quizmos says:

    A shame, Obama and all his minions wouldn’t amount to a pimple on Clark’s ass when it comes to being a strong militar man or, for that matter a patriotic American. Americans should see Obama for what he is; just another chickenshit democrat willing to appease his neoconic masters. Maybe he shold look to his opponent and see that we already have a Bus- hugger.

    Reply

  303. KayCeSF says:

    It is not necessary for anyone to be angry with Senator Obama. He will choose who he feels is the right person to be his Vice President.
    I, too, wish he would choose General Clark. Having said that, it must be acknowledged that General Clark’s first loyalty went to the Clintons. That may be a deciding factor in Senator Obama’s decision, like it or not.
    And for the people I see here commenting, who remain as remnants of the Hillary camp, the very, very few “PUMAs” who will find any reason to slam Senator Obama, I contend you have said enough at Wes Clark’s own website to cause anyone, including Senator Obama if reading that general discussion thread, day after day, to take notice of the vitriol and lies spread about Senator Obama since early in the primary season. You have done more harm to General Clark by spreading lies and distortions of the truth concerning Senator Obama. Clarksters were always known for defending lies and focusing on the truth. Shame on all of you. General Clark should have shut down his general discussion part of the Securing America website, long ago. None of you speak for General Clark and your self-serving ugliness has shamed all the rest of the Clark supporters!
    You can’t have it both ways, as I’ve read you say on his general discussion that you are glad if Wes doesn’t get chosen for VP, and then come here or at Daily Kos or anywhere else and say Obama is the wrong candidate if he doesn’t choose Wes Clark. You all have been doing this kind of thing for months! You all thrive on distorting who Senator Obama is with every twist and turn.
    Hillary Clinton lost the primary and Senator Obama won the nomination. He has the right to choose whomever he wants… but I do hope he will consider General Clark.

    Reply

  304. Dan Kervick says:

    OK, based on Steve’s multiple comments, I’m a little bit confused by what is being reported here. Did the Obama camp actually tell Clark that “there is no reason to go” to the convention? Or is it just the case that he has not been given any speaking role as of yet, and he has therefore concluded on his own that there is no reason to go? And has he been told definitely that he will have no speaking role? Or is it just the case that he has not yet been invited?
    If this pre-emptive criticism of Obama is just part of a lobbying effort by Clark’s people for a prominent convention role on Securing America night, it seems a bit ham-fisted and irresponsible.
    All the hysterics about Clark’s being thrown under the bus, or an absurd backlash against every single human being from Arkansas, don’t seem to be based on any actual evidence. What bus? What backlash? I wasn’t aware that there was any kind of serious rift between Clark and Obama. And lots of people who supported Clinton are appearing at the convention.
    But I’d like some more background. Is there some particular Clark statement that Obama’s people are worried might prove to be a distraction?

    Reply

  305. Brad says:

    I think your update really changes the tenor of the original post. There is a big difference between them saying he is not going to attend and them saying his schedule remains tight but he is willing to attend and play a role if asked.

    Reply

  306. karma for all says:

    and Alegre, still supporting every bit of baseless conjecture…I would have thought the failed Clinton campaign would have taught you something.
    I’m kind of sorry for you. You can still just stop, you know, you used to be somewhat reputable.

    Reply

  307. karma for all says:

    Um, Steve, not for nothin’, but what did you expect them to say, “Wes Clark is going to speak as the VP nominee, but please keep that secret until Obama announces his choice, thank you.”

    Reply

  308. Steve Clemons says:

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

    Reply

  309. Steve Clemons says:

    kestrel and others — I remain supportive of Barack Obama. I want his team to reconsider the decision to not ask Clark to play a role.
    Wesley Clark’s office is the source for this article.
    best, steve clemons

    Reply

  310. Brad says:

    Steve,
    This is what I don’t get. Why would Clark, who has spent so much time this year stumping for Hillary, now Obama, and numerous congressional races, not attend the DNC convention? Clark has been extremely active politically this year for democrats. Regardless of whether he has a formal role, one would think he would make it a priority to attend the convention.
    And you should update the original post to reflect that you have re-contacted the office and got another responce.
    Who, specifically, are you talking to? And “Obama people” don’t solely set the agenda for the DNC convention schedule btw.

    Reply

  311. kestrel9000 says:

    Alegre, shut your PUMA ass up.
    And I don’t believe this until Clark or Obama says so.
    Unsourced bullshit.

    Reply

  312. LInda says:

    Watch the Olympics, go for a walk, enjoy the remainder of summer, or spend your time commenting about what is going to happen in 10-14 days with all the rumors,etc. above. We will know soon enough. But if you want to speculate, why isn’t this just as plausible: Clark is the VP choice and all this is smokescreen to keep it secret.

    Reply

  313. Bill says:

    Bleh, I think this is VERY bad news for Progressives, and a sign that
    Obama is losing control of the convention.
    Can anybody imagine that Clark is any more polarizing for the right
    than Hillary and Little Bill? At least Clark is RIGHT. I will be very
    interested in the various opinions on this one. I think Clark’s
    Military Experience would have attracted many sick-of-it
    Republicans and Independents. Perhaps having cajones disqualified
    Clark from the Democratic convention.
    THANKS, and hope it’s not true…

    Reply

  314. SaysWho? says:

    I don’t believe a word of this at all.

    Reply

  315. Steve Clemons says:

    Onyx — read my site, perhaps search hillary and IRGC — and you will see that I am not and was not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Rather than screaming on the blog here, perhaps you should do some due diligence to discover whether what I write in the article is true or untrue.
    I have just spoken to Wesley Clark’s office again – - and was told that General Clark’s schedule is tight but that he would make himself available at the Convention if there is a constructive role that he can play. As it stands, General Clark has not been invited to play a role. . .and thus there is no reason for him to go.

    Reply

  316. Steve Clemons says:

    james — Barack Obama’s team has not asked Wes Clark to play any role at the convention. No Role. Thus, there is no reason for Clark to go. This is not rumor-mongering…this is a fact. Obama’s people didn’t say “stay away” — they have just given him nothing to do there. That’s significant.
    And thus, Wes Clark is not going.
    I think that the decision by the Obama team to not ask Clark to do anything during those convention days should be revisited.

    Reply

  317. Onyx488 says:

    FAKE!!!
    I don’t believe this Article. The Author is a staunch Hillary Supporter, just trying to stir up phony drama.
    I don’t believe Obama would be so dismissive of someone who has been such an Outspoken Supporter.
    So before you all start passing judgement on Obama just remember his words “you will know who my VP when I say it!”
    Untill this all these “speculation” articles are In my humble Opinion Bull SH!T!

    Reply

  318. Jake says:

    If this is true, then Obama and those who advise him must be obtuse beyond comprehension. I support Hillary Clinton, 18 million plus supports Hillary Clinton…should we all stay home. Obama…you motherfucker!!!

    Reply

  319. Brad says:

    Somebody call Clark’s office. This smells like BS.

    Reply

  320. Kimo says:

    Hope this hypithesis is wrong.
    Hoping for Obama/Clark.

    Reply

  321. serge says:

    I think this a mistake by omission, not a reason NOT to vote for Sen. Obama. I think Gen. Clark would have brought a lot to the administration, which capacity notwithstanding.
    I believe he’s the only Democrat, speaking freely, who hasn’t caved to the chorus of wolves who are the self-determined arbiters of appropriate speech. He should not have apologized for his statement about McCain (correct to any thinking person), and he didn’t. I wish more in positions from which to speak had Clark’s balls.

    Reply

  322. james says:

    If Wes Clarks office said this they have to be questioned further. I refuse to believe that Wes Clark would instruct his office to tell the press that he should stay away.
    Is he speaking? No. Maybe they should replace Bill Clinton to give him a speaking spot..or Chelsea?
    This is rumor-mongering by Steve Clemons. He is trying to make something out of nothing. Clark has been saying for weeks that he was scheduled to be at a conference in Italy for months. Obama probably told him he is not the VP nominee and so if he prefers Italy to Denver..go ahead. That becomes some kind of snub? Ridiculous. Wes Clark is doing a fine job advocating for Obama as recently as yesterday. No tension. No drama..as much as some would like to create it.

    Reply

  323. jen says:

    If the reason Obama is rejecting Clark is because Clark is “too close to the Clinton’s” how is that putting country first for Obama? Oh. Right. It’s not.

    Reply

  324. Swannie says:

    Chicago Injury Lawyers Reach Bus Accident Settlement
    In Chicago, Illinois bus accident attorneys from Cain and Abel, P.C. have reached an insurance policy limits settlement for client WESLEY CLARK stemming from a campaign 2008 crash. The client was supporting the candidate while speaking to the Media in a bus lane. He was hit by the Barak Obama campaign bus that was completing a U turn ; one of many on its route .
    That is the last thing our client remembers until he woke up uninvited to the Democratic National Convention .

    Reply

  325. Alegre says:

    Holy mackeral. They’re going to need a bigger bus in ObamaLand. Unreal – Gen. Clark coul dhave brought in millions of supporters.
    After the way Obama’s treated him I wouldn’t blame them if they stayed home next November.
    Is Obama that determined to LOSE the White House for the Democrats this year????

    Reply

  326. Thompson says:

    Don’t be obtuse. All politics are local. Clark is from Arkansas. Too close to the Clinton’s. Show some critical thinking about stuff, America the Dumb.
    signed, America the not Dumb.

    Reply

  327. Don Jo says:

    Just another reason NOT to vote for Obama. The guy has no clue.

    Reply

  328. Dan Kervick says:

    This surprising. Is there some sort of tension between Clark and the Obama camp? Over what? Is Clark radioactive? Does this all go back to that remark about the “money people”?

    Reply

  329. CathiefromCanada says:

    Well, so much for the speculation that Clark might be named VP.
    I know its a conventional joke to say how everything is bad news for the democrats, but this actually is bad news for the Democratic Party.
    How about Jimmy Carter? Michael Moore? Or anybody else that the Republicans don’t like?

    Reply

  330. WigWag says:

    Memorandum:
    To: Super Delegates
    FROM: WigWag
    Re: Democratic Nominee
    The Democratic Party is in disarray. In a year in which our candidate for President should sweep to victory, we are witnessing, against all odds, an election that we could actually lose. This is almost unimaginable given (1) the policy failures of the Bush Administration; (2) President Bush’s unpopularity; (3) the results of the generic Democratic versus Republican polls in the presidential race and (4) our anticipated victories in the House, Senate and gubernatorial races.
    While Senator Obama currently holds a razor thin lead in the popular vote and a stronger but precarious lead in the electoral vote, it is universally acknowledged that he should be far ahead of where he is now; especially in light of the fact that the Republican attack machine has not even started yet. And remember in the last several presidential cycles the Republican candidate always does best in the month before the election.
    It is also shocking that the Democrats have lost the edge in the money race. While Senator Obama, the DSCC and DCCC have far out raised their republican counterparts, the Democratic National Committee (under Howard Dean) has done such a poor job at fundraising compared to the Republican National Committee, that the over all monetary advantage once held by Senator Obama has all but vanished. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the fundraising for the Republican convention in Minneapolis has been spectacularly successful while fundraising for the Denver Convention is hopelessly in the red. The DNC (unlike their republican counterparts) will need to spend many millions of dollars subsidizing the Democratic Convention, which will limit still further any financial advantage that Senator Obama should have had.
    Senator Obama himself has been a terrible candidate. Between March and June, Senator Clinton won most of the primaries and caucuses. And of course, she won almost every large state that Democrats usually rely on for victory. Senator Obama amassed the largest number of pledged delegates by relying on caucuses that discriminate against older people and working people; and in any case, his early victories were followed by a string of losses. As everyone acknowledges, from the time he became the presumptive nominee, his attempt to move to the center has been handled so awkwardly that the Senator has become the focus of ridicule. Thank goodness he is being sustained by allies in the press, or his plunge in the polls would be even more precipitous. Between the PUMA movement which is growing rapidly and working class voters who claim they will not vote for Senator Obama, it is hard to remember a time since 1968 when the Democrats have gone into a convention more divided.
    It is crucial to remember that neither candidate won enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In fact, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are separated by less the 150 pledged delegates. This means the Super Delegates will decide the nomination. Senator Obama won the mist pledged delegates. The rules may have been unfair, but the Senator played by the rules. If the Super Delegates vote for the candidate who won the most pledged delegates, Senator Obama will win. Senator Clinton won the popular vote. Her vote total (18 million) exceeds the vote total of any candidate of either party in recent times. If Super Delegates vote for the candidate who won the most popular votes, Senator Clinton will win. And it is important to remember that if Super Delegates vote for the candidate who won the State that they come from, Senator Clinton will win.
    Now that the names of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will be placed in nomination, the Super Delegates who will decide the nominee have three choices: (1) vote for Senator Obama despite his obvious failures as a candidate and his lack of qualifications for the job; (2) vote for Senator Clinton who may very well be the stronger of the two candidates against McCain; (3) vote for none of the above and turn to a compromise candidate like Al Gore that all Democrats can rally around.
    As stewards of the Democratic Party, either options 2 or 3 mentioned above would be responsible choices. Option 1 amounts to political malpractice.
    Nominating Senator Obama will put victory in the presidential race at grave risk.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *