Abrams is a really bad interviewer. I always hate it when Wes is on a panel because he doesn't get enough of a chance to answer questions.

Abrams seemed to want to set his view as the premise then have everyone argue over it in the first segment. Wes pretty much rejected his whole premise so Abrams didn't quite know what to do from there. And Wes wasn't going to get into a screaming match with the others. Hardly. As I said earlier, Wes was trying to come up with a solution (after some Dems mucked it up again)...that's a novelty with the pin-head pundits. Solving things. John Kerry has a blog up at HuffPo today talking about a solution to the Makasey situation that seems alot like what Wes was saying here last night.

Part 2? Well...the whole thing was a media-manufactured event....bruhaha. So...Wes did fine. Doesn't bother me when he helps Hillary. It's what he has chosen to do and she's lucky to have him do it. Wes will be right in the long run....again.....he always is. And he's looking way on down the road long past just today or tomorrow.... at that iceberg that is out in front of us. :)

John Kerry's blog...if anyone is interested:

"Fighting to Stop Torture"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/fighting-to-stop-torture_b_71520.html

Well...that's the real point isn't it? Stopping torture? Lot's of naysayers in the comments....but it seems to me like he's on to something here.

I'm signing on.

If anyone's interested, Senator Kerry is taking action and asking us to join in. At his website Here.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

to list "listening to long, boring, political speeches."

It's time for both Dems and Indys to start working together so we can replace their thugs with our thugs.

People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

It's time for both Dems and Indys to start working together so we can replace their thugs with our thugs.

nope

"We are involved in an endless War for nefarious purposes. There hasn't been anything like this since the founding of our Republic, in my opinion." -- General Wesley Clark NYC 6/19/06

It just seemed to me he wasn't as focused as he can be in his wording. He's been so good at getting his point across very precisely when it comes to the things that really matter...you know, like war and diplomacy and life and death in the world outside of politics.

It struck me that he more or less tossed out something about an issue that really isn't at the top of his priority list. I just found it so sad that he had to deal with the nonsense when his true worth is in teaching us about the really important issues that face us.

Call me crazy.

...he has chosen to deal with this "nonsense". He could have taken a pass....gotten out of poltics and stuck to teaching. But he didn't. Getting HRC is obviously very important to him.

So it looks like you will be sad for a long time. Pity.

People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"

Because his true value as a stratigic thinker (and damn smart man) seems likely to be overshadowed by the candidate advocate label at a time when his other attributes are more valuable than ever.

Maybe you don't find that sad, but I do.

I'm not blaming Hillary for the phenomenon. I'm just saying its sad that its happening.

With all the current events in the world does anyone really think his first choice of subjects during his appearance would be whether or not Hillary is being swift boated?

the conversation wouldn't have been about that. He should have turned it into a discussion about immigration itself. Now, that's not his thing either, but, heck, he's a smart guy. That could have been interesting. Or, he could have at least turned it into a discussion about leadership and how these guys should stop all this petty bickering and start working on the issues themselves. That would have been defending Hillary AND it wouldn't have been sad.

It's very difficult to make your case if you don't have conviction about the case you are making. And that's what I sensed...

seriously

Military analysis is what msnbc hired Wes to do.

"We are involved in an endless War for nefarious purposes. There hasn't been anything like this since the founding of our Republic, in my opinion." -- General Wesley Clark NYC 6/19/06

He could have found something in there to have some conviction about. He could have talked about leadership and how this kind of nonsense doesn't lead to the choice of good leaders. I wish he'd turned it that way.

Maybe the man was simply tired.

"We are involved in an endless War for nefarious purposes. There hasn't been anything like this since the founding of our Republic, in my opinion." -- General Wesley Clark NYC 6/19/06

If that's the case, next time he'll do better.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

..from now until the primaries are over, and then until the November 2008 election if she is the nominee, and then for four or eight years (WKC will be 72 years old in nine years), he will be defending his fellow Little Rockers. Both of them! Kinda wish he had stuck to foreign policy, the military, business, and academia. But then, he didn't ask me.

You wrote: "It struck me that he more or less tossed out something about an issue that really isn't at the top of his priority list. I just found it so sad that he had to deal with the nonsense when his true worth is in teaching us about the really important issues that face us."

And he knows a lot about more than just foreign policy and the military. It seems to me that he can find a way to spin defending them into a useful discussion. He just has to do it. He could have spun the Abrams circus into a real discussion about immigration or leadership. I know that he couldn't control what Abrams and the woman said, but he could have made what HE said about the real issue or about leadership. He should be able to turn anything into a question of leadership if he wants to. I think that should be his fallback position if he doesn't feel comfortable talking about the particular issue at hand. I would guess, though, that he's versed enough in immigration to have talked about it. He shouldn't have wandered into the meta-discussion. Nobody's making him do that; nobody can make him do that. And there's no logical reason for him to do that. He's not good at it. And even if he were, it's not, as Bill Clinton said, a good way to pick our leaders. I think the best way to have defended Bill Clinton in this case was to take his advice and talk about solutions to the problem of immigration for more than "30 seconds, raise your hand, yes or no."

I just thought he did a bad job of it. I thought he should have picked up on the part about how important it is to have real debates over real issues instead of going off into "cutesy land." And then he should have picked up talking about what Hillary is going to do about the real issue. Instead, he digressed into details that were unnecessary ("it was a question about Spitzer's policy, not hers..."), he talked about how it was a character attack (bad idea, you can't prove that so you just sound like a whiner), and as a result, it degraded into an argument over the definition of "swiftboating."

it's not Adams. Maybe his wife's name is Eve...

You state "Sen. Clinton admitted, herself, that she had not done well." Your spin?
Did she say that? Or did she say it wasn't her best performance. I heard the interview with Hillary and I believe I heard the latter. And no, it wasn't her best performance, but I thought she did a decent job.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

The Rasmussen poll in NH and the Zogby poll in Iowa has her down since the debate. My spin is that it was one of the worst debate performances in political history (since Nixon in 1960) followed by a strategy that has them prolonging the agony rather than changing the subject. She is the frontrunner and has run a great campaign until a week ago. I predice she will recover but the inevitability thing is gone with the wind.

That's all the pundits have been saying...."Is it the end? How bad has she stumbled?" etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Same thing with Obama, he's a media creation. "Ooooh, he's a rock star!" etc. You'd think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He has been singularly unimpressive in the Senate, what kind of track record does he have?
They'll get around to tearing him down, too.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

...they will tear him down too. He has a great record in Illinois. Sen. Clinton has a lifelong commitment esopecially on children's issues and on national security too. I think Gen. Clark is very sincere in his support for her. I just think it's time for a new generation of leadership. She would not be a good President, she would be a great one.

But from the Illinois posters here, I get the impression he was not especially noteworthy. A lot of "not voting" during his time in the Legislature. I have no first-hand knowledge on that, maybe someone in Ill. will weigh in.

I think there is some residual good will internationally for Bill and I think that will carry forward to Hillary. There is one helluva mess that needs attending to and I just don't think Obama can handle it. the rock star persona only goes so far.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

Obama does NOT have a great record in Illinois. Where are you getting your info from, his campaign staff? Cripes, good luck with that.

I second that.

The only reason the whole "inevitable" thing ever came about was due to corpress. At the time they were telling us all that, not one of us knew anyone who supported her. They create the storyline and they can knock it down at will. And sadly, too many peeps buy it hook line and sinker... :(

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

think one performance, good or bad, in one these ridiculous debates, is really going to make even the slightest, teeny-weeniest difference? Nobody watches them except nutcases like us and a few pundits. (And I, for one nutcase, don't.)

It's time for both Dems and Indys to start working together so we can replace their thugs with our thugs.

And they may be prolonging the agony now, but they're setting the stage for later. I'm not sure I like or agree with their strategy. I'd prefer they ALL concentrated on issues instead of quibbling with each other.

I think the four sitting senators should get their butts back to work in Washington and work together and with Webb and Durbin to stop a war with Iran. That would be leadership.

Edwards and Obama will keep trying, but they will never come close to Clinton's numbers. The rest of the pack will be out of the running come mid-Janurary.

the English language IMHO. Not that anyone cares about MHO, but the word has become over-used and almost mantra-like with little real thought needed to repeat it.

INEVITABLE
unable to be avoided, evaded, or escaped...

Seems to me the only thing that falls into that particular category without doubt is DEATH.

Hence...the word is being sorely misused by even those in the "reality based community".

But the word that should be stricken is "nuance" in all its forms.

Just curious.

as we learned in 2004. Nuance killed the election.

of nuance did more harm than nuance itself.

And then of course, there were those electronic voting machines.

you missed the one where Bush was wired in 04? heh 

Or the one where he was storming around almost crying? Or the Republican debate this year where some people running to be POTUS raised their hands in the year 2007 when asked if they did not believe in the theory of evolution? Those were definitely "worse" by any measure.

Spin is right.

Let's be fair. You've completely left out Admiral Stockdale and "Could you repeat that question? I had my hearing aid turned off."

I love how some people act like he found this random madwoman raving beside the road or just suddenly out of the blue for no discernible reason decided to endorse this big loser, heh.

...worse since Nixon. Well at least Nixon came off badly during a 1 on 1 debate.....not to mention, those that listened to in on the radio actually thought that he won.

Anyway.....This was 7 on 1....yes, I'm including Timmeh.

Personally, I thought she did bloody well. I doubt your guy could have handled 7 on 1 any better, in fact my guess is he'd have done a whole lot worse.....but we will probably never know will we?.......Well....unless he wins the nomination, and by that time, it will be too late to ask for a do over if he turns out to be someone who can't take a beating and still keep standing. BO has never won a tough election. He has never been battle tested. He's been the media darling since he jumped in the race. Well watch out. I just hope for the country's sake that if he does pull off the nom, he turns out to have half the toughness of HRC, because he'll need it.

You might want to read this....

"Clinton's Downturn: Careful What You Wish For"

People want leadership......and in the absence of leadership, they will listen to anyone who walks up to the microphone.
Lewis Rothschild, in "American President"

I think it was.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!

necessarily giving voice to talking points.

The way I saw it, she did a bad job at the debate, but her position was fine. It's hard to differentiate the performance at the debate with the position itself in a short interview.

...next month.

Will you be in either place either time?

I'll be in New Hampshire Nov. 16 - 18 and in DC over Thanksgiving. IM me sometime & I hope we can get together!