I believe General Clark is walking point for the Democratic Party again
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on September 16, 2007 - 12:02pm.
Democratic politics | Wesley Clark
Over the last four years I have come to appreciate that Wes Clark seems to have a sure sense as to where attacks on the chances for a Democratic Party victory are most likely to come from, and how he carefully pre-positions himself to protect whatever flank of our Party is most exposed and vulnerable to an attack that might deny us an important victory. There is no more important victory to secure for the Democratic Party now than the White House in 2008, because that victory is not just needed for a domestic and partisan political party, it is needed both for the health of our Democracy and for sanity in this world.
The visible danger that the Democratic Party faces in 2008 comes from all of the usual suspects, starting of course with the Republican Party but including a host of puppet masters and enablers, from powerful special interests to a rightist propaganda oriented mass media. Most Democrats know those enemies well enough, they are familiar foes; dangerous yes, but easily recognized and fairly straight forward to defend against. Sometimes we do well in that regard, sometimes not, but it is an unseen adversary that can ambush and thereby defeat our efforts to deny Republicans the White House in 2008.
That adversary hides in our own passion, in our own desire to right all that is wrong in our nation now. I am guilty of that passion though I do not view it as a crime. I make no apologies for fighting for what I believe in my heart is best for our nation. But passion denied frequently leads to bitterness, and for many of us in the activist base of the Democratic Party, passions flow in support of Democratic candidates for President far more progressive than Hillary Clinton will ever be in our eyes. Passion isn't the hidden adversary that will have to be overcome for Democrats to defeat the Republican nominee for President in 2008. It is a lack of passion for our most likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, that I fear may doom us.
I am among those who believe that Hillary Clinton will be a tough sell with the American electorate in 2008. I am also among those who believed barring a Clark or Gore candidacy, that Hillary Clinton is destined to win the Democratic nomination for President. To me that now seems all but certain. Neither Obama or Edwards or any other of our declared candidates can overtake Clinton in my opinion; Wes Clark is not running and I don't believe Al Gore will either. It will take a lot of hard work by a lot of committed progressive minded Democratic grassroots activists to put Hillary Clinton over the top in 2008, and she can not afford for that effort to lurch forward in low gear after her nomination.
I suspect this is one of the reasons why Wes Clark chose to endorse Hillary Clinton now. Clark is a thoroughly decent human being who was trained in the profession of warfare. There is no room for woulda coulda shoulda in a military campaign. Clark has been on the equivalent of such a campaign ever since he entered politics to oppose George W. Bush's neocon scripted disastrous plans for America.
I firmly believe that Wes Clark believes it is near certain now that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. If he is correct, and my respect for Wes Clark's ability to analyze pending events has grown continually since I first was exposed to his thinking four years ago, then the future of our nation's well being in the first half of the 21st century will largely rest on Hillary Clinton's ability to defeat the Republican nominee for President in 2008.
I don't think Hillary Clinton needs further active support from Clark supporters in order to win the Democratic nomination. I for one can not bring myself to give her such support at this stage, but that part doesn't matter. What matters is how fast so many of us who have deep resistance to the idea of supporting Hillary Clinton for President are able to work through our antipathy toward her to fight for her chances to win in November. We can all pretend that there is an intellectual switch each of us can throw that shifts us from opposing Hillary with a passion to fighting hard to help her defeat the Republican if she wins the nomination, but most people are not wired that way. There is an emotional psychological journey that must first be undertaken, and that journey can be slow and torturous.
It was that type of journey that took too long to take for far too many in 1968 that allowed Richard Nixon to hold onto a rapidly shrinking lead over a late charging Hubert Humphrey to win that presidential election and doom our nation to four more years of war in Viet Nam. It took a long time for anti war Democrats to become pragmatists in 1968 after the Chicago convention nominated LBJ's Vice President to run over Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern and the ghost of RFK. By the fall most of us were sobered enough by the prospect of Nixon getting elected that we could then seriously work for Humphrey, but we were a little too little, a little too late.
I don't think Wes Clark expects his endorsement of Hillary to turn many people who oppose her now into supporters of her now. But I think he realizes by endorsing Hillary Clinton early, who he (and I) fully expect will be the Democratic nominee, that he is helping hasten for many that emotional psychological journey I mentioned above, so that come the day when she is nominated, more of us will be ready to stop sitting on our hands and start working hard to get Hillary Clinton elected.
In my opinion (and I suspect in Clark's) Hillary Clinton doesn't really need further help to win the nomination now because it is already hers to lose. What Hillary needs most is for more Democratic activists to view her nomination as at least marginally acceptable when in all likelihood it actually comes to pass. That is how Wes Clark is helping Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party in my opinion, the most. That is why his support of her now is critical. Hillary will need some serious bridge building to this party's activist base to unify the party behind her if she becomes our nominee. Wes Clark is helping walk point for her now in that regard. In so doing I believe Wes Clark is also walking point for our nation's future well being, just like he has for his entire life.
For those who do not see Hillary's nomination as a near certainty already, Clark's endorsement may be a bitter pill. Since I have long believed that only Al Gore or Wes Clark could deny her that nomination, of those who either are in the race or had a potential to enter it, I can appreciate what I think Wes Clark now is attempting to do, even if I am not at all pleased at the prospect of Hillary Clinton being our candidate in 2008.
Back in the 90's when the Republicans ruled the Congress and the their big fat mouthpiece was Newt Gingrich with the other big fat mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh on the radio bashing the Clinton's on a daily basis, I yes I was a Republican.
Like coming out of a cult having to be exorcised I finally was shocked back to reality when one day I heard a light headed president inform our country that he was invading Iraq without provocation. Well let me tell you I became sober as a judge that day and had an immediate conversion experience that rivals any Jesus freaks conversion to Christianity!
As the years have gone by since 2002 I think back to the early 90's and a woman who at the time was absolutely berated by the Republicans, the so-called liberal press? and the big pharmaceutical companies because she and her husband believed all Americans should have some kind of medical coverage in their life.
I bring this up because last Friday was my last day at my most current job, my company decided to lay off our department and Saturday was my last day of medical coverage.
If Americans had listened to this lady back I think it was 1993 and 1994 millions of Americans would not of suffered and I believe many would still be alive today if a medical plan to protect all Americans would of been implemented.
Who was this woman who was berated and dragged threw the mud by the self-interest Republican Party, and by the Drug Companies? Well it was Hillary Clinton wife of our President.
So as many of you have noted these last 24 hours your coldness and distain for Senator Clinton, I ask you to search your heart and mind and really evaluate if maybe some of your opinions have not been effected by the huge Conservative propaganda machine that has tried for decades to pummel the Clintons who in my opinion have tried and tried to better the quality of life of so many Americans.
I know that we could do far far worse than to elect Hillary Clinton our next President, and that we already did far far worse when we elected the president who followed Bill Clinton into office.
I admire Hillary Clinton's quick intellect and I have been greatly impressed by the ability she has shown in the political arena. I see Hillary as a moderately liberal Democrat which just so happens to be to the Right of where I am politically myself, so her political agenda as a result does not excite me but I know it is light years better than anything we can expect from any Republican now running for President.
Though I was profoundly disappointed in her IWR vote, and have found some of her more recent public comments about the middle east to be more hawkish than I am comfortable with, I know that Hillary Clinton has a clear respect and understanding of the complex role that diplomacy can and must play in resolving international conflicts, and that is very reassuring to me. I know she is seasoned in that regard by her years spent in the White House where she was an active member of her husband's inner policy circle, and I respect most of the people she has surrounded herself with in regards to international relations and national security.
When I say Hillary Clinton will be a tough sell for the American electorate, it is not because I doubt her abilities or think that her program for America can not resonate with most Americans. It is because hating her has been a cottage industry for Republicans nation wide, and her running may energize our opposition, and that will have to be dealt with. I think Hillary is up to that job, the question is whether enough Democratic activists will be. And that is why I wrote the piece that I did here.
of Hillary during her foray into healthcare reform,and gave her big creds for being smart, I can promise you my dislike for the woman has nothing to do with repugnican talking points, nor does it have anything to do with thinking Wes is far superior to her in the realm of leadership.
I knew in my heart that Wes wasn't going to run months ago. I've tried to find another candidate that I'm comfortable with by checking out their stands on issues...and...as you mention, listening to my heart.
Both my issue checking and my heart tell me...here comes another one, just like the other one. No, I'm not saying she's as bad as the current idiot-in-chief in all ways, but in others???
Corporations win again.
Hillary Clinton will get no support from me...ever.
Can't put it more plainly than that.
and pretty much bought a lot of their claptrap. I did like McCain, till I believed the stuff about him; and even Perot, till he went off the rails.
But it only took Bush deciding to invade Iraq, and actually doing it to send me irrevocably away from the GOP and into the Democratic party--and it took Michael Moore to connect me with WKC.
I had been so apolitical (and just plain ignorant) before that I was really unaware about the Clintons--except for the evil rumors. I sure see things differently now.
Johyn, I am so sorry about your job loss--I hope good things start happening for you--and fast.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
and that is exactly what Wes Clark is doing, once again.
Right on, Tom.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
Is for E2's, E3's and E4's, not General officers. They are expendable, he is not.
John 11:35
to allow the Republican Party to hold onto the White House in 2008. If you start with an assumption that barring something very unusual and unexpected happening, that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat's nominee, then it is our Democracy at stake if she loses to a Republican, and the certainty of a war with Iran if it has not already begun by then.
If General Clark believes either that Hillary is best prepared to lead now out of those available to chose from and/or that Hillary Clinton securing the Democratic nomination now is all but certain, than it might make sense for a ressurected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, FDR and Ike to join Clark walking point for Hillary right about now.
If you don't believe Hillary Clinton is the best person out of those available to lead the nation now, and you also don't believe she is the all but certain nominee even if she isn't the best person for the Democrats to nominate, then yeah, sure, I can agree with your point
Watching Wes the last five years, walking point is his favorite place to be. I hope all his interviews tomorrow show up on the SA front page, and we'll see the General toying with O'Reilly.
I am disappointed with General Clark’s endorsement of Clinton, but not surprised. The Clintons were a big part of promoting Clark’s run in 2004 and a quid pro quo carries weight, barring a compelling reason not to support her. I would much rather have seen the General run himself, as he would have brought to our national government something that Clinton cannot, leadership.
It is not that Mrs. Clinton does not have the capability; it’s simply that she would be divisive. There will be a huge subset of the American population that will see the sky as green if she says it is blue. It was true during her husband’s administration, but he was facing a period without the extraordinary challenges that she would face, most notably in foreign policy, and a nation which was less divided than it was when he left office.
Secondly, we are on (if not already passed) the threshold of a constitutional crisis with the usurping of power by the executive branch of government. There is nothing that tells me that the Clintons and the entourage of power brokers (public and private sectors) that surround and support them will do anything to bring back a balance to government. That heavy weighting of special interests will continue to promote short term goals, which (in case anyone hasn’t been paying attention) is the underlying problem to our crisis in foreign policy, energy policy, and healthcare policy.
I would have campaigned for a Clark presidency, but I urge all not to support Hillary Clinton, rather to support a populous candidate like Obama or Edwards who would have some possibility of uniting the nation.
I don't believe much can get done on a progressive agenda until this ship of state has been righted and steered out of that sea of blood.
So, while I won't give Clinton money (she doesn't need mine), I will endeavor to look at her through Clark's eyes.
Maybe, just maybe, all but the ignorant 30 percent who still hang with Bush are tired of the Clinton bashing and won't rally to vote anti-Clinton as presumed.
After a U.S. attack on Iran the question will be "What Domestic Program?" rather than "Which Domestic Program?". Essentially there will be no money nor attention to devote to the problems we face at home if the U.S. attacks Iran. That war would no more lead to a quick and decisive "Mission Accomplished" conclusion than attacking Iraq has for America, and the negative consequences will be far more lasting and probably far deeper also.
It's not exactly like Obabma or Edwards have been saying things to make me feel warm and secure about their leadership regarding Iran. And though Hillary hasn't either, she comes with a solid history of personal involvement in the relatively sane foreign policy of Bill Clinton's Administration. The fact that Wes Clark has just joined her team strengthens my hope that sanity would prevail in a Hillary Clinton presidency also.
YHM...