Don't vote for Hope. Vote for Reason and Experience, so you can be hopeful
Submitted by kaflinn on November 9, 2007 - 5:54am.
2008 Presidential Candidates | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | potential presidents | Wes Clark | Wesley Clark
(Note: With the greatest respect for Gordon's opinion about Obama, this blog is still meant as rebuttal to his blog, "Why I Will Support Barack Obama for President 2008." Initially, this was going to be a comment to his post, but it's since expanded as I've written.)
In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I will be voting for Senator Clinton, but not because I'm a Hillary fan or because I dislike Republicans or even because someone I respect as much as Wes Clark endorsed her. If you'd asked me a year ago, and some of you did, could I imagine any circumstance under which I would vote for Hillary Clinton for president, I would have, and did, say no. Then I remembered what's best for my country is a hell of a lot more important than what I want, and wrote this comment June 30th:
Well - since then I've been paying more attention to her, and the others, and no longer distrust her just as a matter of course. But more on that in a moment. Let me put this issue another way...
This is not the time for amateurs. Considering the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves now and for the foreseeable future, this is not the time for on the job training either.
What's best for the country is to have a team of pros in the White House on the first day of the new administration come January 2009, who know where the light switches are and how to find the bathrooms without an escort. That includes the president and vice president. Given the possibility that the state of the Union, by 2009, may well include us being at war in three separate countries simultaneously, we don't have time for any administration to spend reading "How To Run The Country For Dummies." Currently, there is only one campaign that satisfies that criteria and that's the Clinton campaign. But let me explain myself by reposting the pertinent part of the comment I mentioned above...
If forced to be dispassionate about her, one might consider the following:
- she lived in the White House for eight years - odds are she probably absorbed a bit while there
- she is far from stupid
- she doesn't fall apart when things don't go her way, or when she makes a mistake and gets her ass kicked by the public. There is at least something resembling a backbone there, even if voters don't always like what she did
- she possibly has a far better grasp of foreign policy and national security and the real value of diplomacy now, and because of those eight years in the White House, than perhaps any other current candidate
- she comes with a spouse who has eight years of experience running the country during one of it's most successful periods, and one who is well liked by most of the rest of the world and this country...and is brilliant.
- she is the only current candidate who has been a First Lady of a southern state, a senator of a northern state, and the First Lady of the nation - in fact, if you take out the word "lady" she's still the only one who has represented a northern state for the Senate, a southern state via the Governor's mansion, and the nation via the White House. Demographically - that's a home run.
- (New) along with the spouse with eight years of experience, comes an enormous pool of talent who also have the experience of being part of one of the most successful administrations in recent history - people like Wes Clark and Richard Holbrook and Madelaine Albright, for a start. Many of them, some of whom may be be in contention for cabinet posts in her administration, have already been vetted through the Senate conformation process at least once - so it should go pretty quickly if they have to do it again. At least in theory.
In recent posts and comments (all over the blogosphere), I've seen several people refer - quite negatively - to the practice of "triangulation". It seems to bother people more that Hillary may do it than when Bill did it. Maybe because it was a seemingly newer practice when Bill did it. Well, it isn't new, and it isn't bad. It's actually quite smart...unless you happen to be a someone who thinks it's a bad idea to listen to what constituents think and try to find a way to do as they wish. Yep...that's bad. Why would anyone want to have a politician listen to and consider the views of all of their constituents, including, God forbid, non-Democratic ones!
For all the yelling we voters do about our representatives not standing up for what they want, we seem to have a bad habit of forgetting they are supposed to stand up for what we want. I'll take a little more of that triangulation, thanks. Consequently, I am less concerned with whether or not I can trust her personal positions, so long as I can trust she will not further violate the positions of the country.
I'm less concerned she be the smartest person in the room, so long as she is wise enough to surround herself with the smartest people available - even if, and especially if, they are smarter than her. So far, she has demonstrated that wisdom.
I also appreciate that, unlike both Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards, she has paid her political dues by at least completing a full senatorial term before running for the presidency. That demonstrates, at least, that she has some patience. Senators Obama and Edwards haven't seemed to consider that important. To my thinking, deciding to run for president before one has even completed half of one's first senatorial term, demonstrates not patience, not loyalty, not a commitment to obligation, not a desire to restore hope, and certainly not wisdom, but rather a childish egotism.
I'm sorry but I've had enough of a childishly egotistical president in the last seven years to last me a lifetime. I'd like an adult with a modicum of wisdom to be the next president, please. While Sentors Biden and Dodd both qualify as such adults too - they can't win the nomination. She can. And, contrary to my previous opinion of her, and while it will by no means be a cakewalk, she can also win the general election.
But...and I say this to all Democrats, with the greatest respect for your individuality and your opinions, there is a time to push your pet candidate or issue/single issue/"my" issue importance - it's when you have a veto-proof majority in both houses. When you don't have that majority, then it's time to suck it up, look at the big picture and pull together. If your party cannot do that, especially when it matters most to the survival of what we want to believe we are as a people and as a country, then you doom us all to wondering what could have been...again.
apologize if I gave that impression. But, by all or most accounts, she took a quite active role as First Lady and more active than many - much to the dismay of many who thought that unseemly. I think most would be hard-pressed to say she spent eight years living in the White House totally oblivious to the ways it works and uninvolved in the decisions of her husband's administration.
It might be easier to think that, had Bill Clinton not made a point of representing her as a literal partner in much of his decision making process.
It also should be remembered that First Ladies often serve as back channel ambassadors with other First Ladies/Royal Consorts/Spouses of World Leaders and must be well versed in what's happening to accomplish that. Not too mention she doesn't have to relearn all the forms of protocol!
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
but to all those members of Bill Clinton's administration who are now working with her, too. I should have made that point more clear and am sorry I didn't. Thanks for reminding me.
;-)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
...I think it was very much a co-presidency.
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"
...and would be again.
Clearly a plus or a minus, depending on one's p.o.v.
"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
And because I graduated from Roosevelt University in Chicago, I'm probably more informed about Eleanor Roosevelt than the average person on the street. Her work in the United Nations led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's truly remarkable because this was in the 1940's, when women were not thought to be the equals to men. Like Hillary Clinton, she was not afraid.
Proud to be an American.
True. And what she achieved during the 40s was truly remarkable, esp. considering that during her young adult years, she was still 'property', not permitted a vote, Eleanor went on to set the bar for women.
Still, when drafted to the presidency following FDR's death she had the humility as well as the clarity to firmly decline, saying that the people would only be 'voting' for her husband. (And even at that many people are still saying there were too many consecutive Roosevelt years...which pretty much explains I think, why Hillary's campaign is 'Hillary' and not 'Clinton'.
'that was then this is now' aside, being president was never part of Eleanor's personal agenda
"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
Yes, believe it or not, I am fully aware. I'm all grown up.
Are we permitted an objective discussion on the General's board? or are we not?
"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
as if
I'm 'all fuzzy' on where you stand?
point taken:
I should SD and STFU
"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
Women who know their own minds and make choices for themselves is the point -- and not every single point is congruent.
I can personally separate "Bill" from "Hillary" and (in fact) am not confused at all between the two. For instance, I believe that Hillary is much more 'task oriented' than Bill. I think she has less 'fragile' ego and is more about the details of completing the 'job' than he was.
If they were artists, I see Bill as painting a more broad 'impressionistic' canvas while HC is into realism.
I pretty much agree.
I'm not sure the majority separates Bill from Hillary, however. I think that's what she's attempting to do, while at the same time having it both ways.
but then, it is politics...
As has been said on this very thread, the first Clinton presidency was a co-presidency. Hence "Billary" as fondly referred to by even her ardent supporters.
"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
I don't think it counts, unless she was like a member of the staff or cabinet. And if she was, I'd like to hear some examples, particularly from the foreign policy realm.
Come on, Wes, tell me some good stories about her. Talk about her the way we talk about you. Inspire me! Get my heart into it.
Frankly, my head basically says what my best friend from high school said when I told her that Wes endorsed Hillary. She said, "Well, she's probably slightly better than any of the rest of the clowns." (Sally and I worked our butts off together for Mondale/Ferarro. I don't think we've ever gotten over it. At least we managed to kick Chuck Percy out of the Senate that year.)
It sure would be nice if my heart was in it along with my head. Come on, Wes, motivate me!
....now there's a name out of the past.
Caveate.....a cousin of my late husband married into the Philip family, he is Pate Philip's brother. Big time Republicans in Springfield......still are. Their Christmas letter always includes some cute little anecdote about meeting Bush or some such. Of course my Christmas letter always includes something about our long national nightmare. She never calls me any more. ;P
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"
Being that we were in high school and all, we replaced that CH with a different consonant sound.
"She never calls me anymore." LOL!
I don't really believe it's up to Wes now. I think it's up to you. Thanks in part to Wes, you/I/we have all the tools to make an objective decision.
"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
well if that's all you need,
I'm sure you'll get one
"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
She never gets any credit but Roselyn Carter is the definition of tough and smart. She took a lot of heat for her activism when her husband, Jimmy Carter, was President. I had a chance to talk with Mrs. Carter recently. She looks great and I just can't say enough about her work on mental health issues. Eleanor Roosevelt & Roselyn Carter really did pave the way for Sen. Clinton. By the way, Michelle Obama is tough & smart too!
Well, Hillary is no Mamie Eisenhower or Betty Ford. As Kelly said to me on the phone early this morning, the Clintons were much more of a political team than most First Couples have been. Mrs. Wilson and to a lesser extent Nancy Reagan were "assistant presidents." Hillary as First Lady was much more than even either of those.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
One reason I'm for Obama is that he seems best able among the candidates to inspire people.
I still run into people who remember John Kennedy when they were very young (I'm too young to remember him) and invariably they talk about how he inspired them. Many, many of the young people I've encountered with the Obama campaign talk about how he is like Robert Kennedy. Of course, they are ALL to young the remember RFK but they sure know the history of the Kennedys. Young Republicans talk the same way about Reagan. But this year none of the candidates, except Ron Paul, seems to inspire the young Republicans. Go Ron!
If she wins the nomination I hope Sen. Clinton can be a little more inspirational.
....Wes has a much better chance of being on the Clinton team in some capacity, than in any other Dem administration. Personally I would sleep better nights knowing he was part of the solution to get this country back on track.
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'd like to add to your tick list of positives the lady Senator's historic interest in & efforts to get out in front of America's health care crisis early on & provide universal health coverage- well over a decade ago. Against a backdrop of Reaganomics, too.
While her plan doesn't go as far towards not-for-profit as I would like to transition to, the point is to begin to transition. Paul Krugman seems to have generally blessed the Democratic plans - I think he likes Edwards rhetoric best here - noting that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." I will remain curious about WKC's ideas about using the current VA system as one potential model to provide health care to more people. I suspect that there are lots of elements & many solutions- let's get in gear & let some good old fashioned American ingenuity show us the way.
Can you imagine what a different world we'd be looking at if we'd been doing that difficult work of reforming health care all these years? How much stress & misery would have been reduced for countless millions of people? I give her credit.
And I also give her credit for staying in the game. The Clintons could have walked away entirely, but instead they chose to continue their journey. Hillary Clinton can be my girl. This time.
I feel she'll be a ready on day one President. The others still strike me as legislators (at best) rather than executive types. She's the best fit of this particular field, a field I find basically appalling. I really don't even find a serious VP prospect among them. Sorry, I just don't.
I strongly disagree with PA above about Nancy Reagan & Laura Bush being equally experienced on the basis of having each been First Lady as possible presidential candidates though. It's not about osmosis, it's about networking & exposure to layers of interlocking possibilities.
The Clintons are both extremely gifted people & have long demonstrated & embodied a philosophy of government that actually believes government is here to serve us, not this obscene, abuse of power preying on the people on behalf of private power continuously exhibited by the Bush/Norquist camp.
...is getting a thumbs up from many people.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/the-hillary-cli.html
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'm not impressed with lofty goals without concrete workable plans.
Anyone seriously following the energy crisis should know by now that corn ethanol is a laughing stock... it's been good for corn farmers, but the fact remains that Iowa, heart of the corn belt is going to become a net corn importer to provide feed stock for all the ethanol refineries.
I see a lot of promises, but not anywhere near the commitment of resource's need to make anything close to the kind of impact we need to. 150 billion over ten years is a joke.
I'm not impressed that senator Clinton supports 160 billion a year for our occupation of Iraq and does not support the same amount of money or more a way of getting out of our entanglement in the Middle East, because the only way out of our mess in the middle east is to get the oil monkey off our back once and for all.
....she still votes to fund the war too....
But a little reality check.....
3. Obama v. Clinton on Iraq
Sen. Obama's position vis-a-vis Sen. Clinton is equally interesting. His campaign has been making statements like this on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment:
[O]nce again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view.Let's start with Iraq. Sen. Obama naturally gets maximum credit for presciently opposing the war against Iraq essentially from 2002. However, his voting record on Iraq once he entered the Senate was virtually identical to the voting record of Senator Clinton. As Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld noted at TPM Election Central:
So here it is: A massive compilation of Iraq-related bills -- and the votes by Hillary and Obama on them, side by side -- beginning in early 2005, when Obama first joined the Senate.Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one.
...
As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.So, while this doesn't take any credit away from Sen. Obama for his original anti-war position, it does raise the obvious question of what exactly he did in Congress differently that distinguished him on Iraq from Sen. Clinton, whom he claims to be "fundamentally different" from on this issue. As a corollary to this, his go-forward vision on Iraq is also not dramatically different from Sen. Clinton's, as Taylor March has observed. The differences are mostly in nuance, not substance. (NOTE: Given his voting record, there is also the obvious question of how Sen. Obama might have voted if he had been in the Senate in 2002-2004 - but I am going to give him some benefit of the doubt on the latter
The Leading Democratic Candidates - Clinton, Edwards and Obama - on Iraq and Iran
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"
waits until Obama votes and then casts her similar votes.
Not sure what the truth is to that, but there are two sides every question.
I am not necessarily looking for an anti-war candidate, but someone who recognizes the mess we have in Iraq and can concrete, reasonable solutions to getting out.
No one - Democrat or Republican - even comes close to that so far.
And propaganda is exactly what we are being fed by each of the Presidential candidates.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
1. 1960 JFK beats Nixon. And who was the most experience? I think the guy who had been just finished eight years as Vice-President. HOPE won.
2. 1976 An unknown, untested peanut farmer-turned governor, versus a sitting president. HOPE won again.
3. 1992 A governor from a small state with questions about his personal behavior versus a sitting president. A man from Hope, who ran on HOPE.
And then there were the standard, issue minded Democracts, loaded with experience: Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.
Here we go again........
Kennedy, Carter and B. Clinton....
They all had hope.....backed up by experience. Kennedy in Congress, Carter/Clinton as Governors
As far as I know, none of them entered the Presidential race only two short years after been elected to their first term in Congress. Remember how horrified we all were when Edwards did that?
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"
Obama does not come to this race with only his now 3 years in the U.S. Senate. He had 8 years in the Illinois Senate prior to that, which I know some people scoff at as not really experience of any kind. So, Bill Clinton was a governor, but he came to the presidential race with no national security/foreign policy experience, and he was 46 years old when elected. So, I don't know that I'd use Bill Clinton as a comparison to Obama. Or Edwards either, for that matter, since prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, Edwards had even bothered to vote most of the time, yet alone been politically active in any way at all.
to the WH is because they have demonstrated an ability to govern. Senators demonstrate they can legislate and debate. (to put it simplistically). But that's where the comparisson to Bill Clinton should end. Frankly, there were so many parts of his campaign/election to the WH that were anomolies, he's really not a fair comparisson. And I mean that in an academic sense not some kind of hero-worship.
I'm not saying Obama is unqualified, at least not intellectually unqualified. I'm saying he lacks wisdom, just as Edwards did last time and , unfortunately, still seems to. Both have a lot to offer, but hope isn't enough in and of itself. There must be substantive reason that illicits that hope for it to have any concrete benefit - at least as far as I'm concerned.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
You really believe that Obama "lacks wisdom"? Based on what? And that the only thing he offers is hope and nothing substantive? Again, based on what?
To not bother to show up for K/L then attack Hillary's Clinton's position on it. I don't think it was wise to not sign Webb's letter and then introduce his own no-way-in-hell-its-going-anywhere joint resolution.
And instead of criticizing Clinton supporters for not recognizing the Obama's substantiveness (is that a word?), why don't you give some examples of it?
of any serious legislative propositons Obama has made on his own, either at the national or the state level. I would be curious to know how many votes he has missed or sent in, "Not voting," at both levels. I would be curious to know his true relationship with turncoat Liebermann, and others of the "money" party. I would be curious to know why he was virtually unknown until his book tour made him into a rock star. Bluntly, what has he done for me lately? Same goes for the others, who all have the albatross of the IRWR hanging around their necks. Hope is fine, but Hope is a city in Arkansas. There's more to governing than giving an occasionally rousing speech - like showing up for work, for instance.
We need to replace their thugs with our thugs.
When you said we were spending too much time on things that don't really matter - like Joe Biden not signing Webb's letter. So, let me get this straight. We shouldn't spend too much time on the fact that Biden didn't sign Webb's letter, but Obama not signing the Webb letter should be a continued takling point?
What you take as criticism of Clinton supporters, I take as a simple question to Kelly. This is Kelly's blog, Kelly's the one who said Obama has offered no substantive strategies in regards to the pressing issues we face, and I expect that Kelly is quite capable of answering my question, which was simply "do you really think Obama has offered no substantive strategies" over the past 10 months? Kelly might say yes, or no, or I don't really know. So, thanks for jumping in to help Kelly out, but I think I'll wait for Kelly's response.
I've been complaining about Biden not signing the letter as well. You missed the whole damn point of my "Where's the leadership post" which was meant to indicate that Biden should have signed the letter.
And the whole stupid thing about Kelly--KISS MY ASS. I'll answer any question I want to answer here and you can go jump in a lake.
I am so pissed off that none of the Senatorial
candidates showed up for the Mukasey vote. I dont'
care what else they were doing, they should have
been there to register their disgust at this
appointment.
Seems like they had a gentlemen's agreement with one another not to bother to show up.
Proud to be an American.
Earlier today I read a loooooooooooong explanation about what happened -- boiled down, it sounds like Reid agreed to have the vote at the last minute on the AG nomineee in exchange for the Republicans agreement to have a vote on the Depense Appropriations bill. The Prez candidates were caught out of town.
(and yes, this would be bashing, sorry) I'm embarrassed Feinstein represents anyone, let alone my state, and have been for many many years.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
working instead of out of town campaigning. When people I pay do not attend work as required it tends to upset me. (I want value for my money).
This is, I think, the bigger problem as to why the presidential candidates did not vote on the AG nomination. And potentially more damaging than how they would have voted.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
Maybe missing this one particular vote could happen to anyone. Maybe you're at home with a sick relative or at home dealing with a crisis in your state.
But why aren't they in the Senate dealing with Iran? And immigration? And torture in general?
If they can't do their jobs, then they should resign and let their Democratic governors appoint Dems to replace them.
lacks wisdom, not that he is unwise. Two big differences; one, that this is my opinion, and two, that lacking wisdom and being unwise are not the same thing by any stretch.
Please bear with me - you've asked a lot of good questions, and I want to do my best to answer you, but I'm also working on no sleep since Wed. pm...so I'm a little punchy.
You're questions, along with many convesations with Gordon and Stan by phone, and many of you here too just gave me an idea (thank you for that - i don't get them often, lol)...
Some of us often find ourselves at odds with each other here, and on other blogs, because we each define certain terms and concepts differently - even, at times, in ways that are diametrically opposed to each other. Unfortunately, before we know it, tempers can ignite before we have a chance to expand on what we meant. So - how about this:
Every now and again, as often as each of us thinks about it, how about starting a blog post just with a single question? Like "What does it mean to be wise?" Or "What does 'triangulation' mean to you?" Or "What is the definition of honor?" Then - let everyone jump in with their answers and definitions - but here's the catch - the person who poses the question has to wait at least eight hours before posting any responses ;-)
If you are all willing to give this a try, I'll start one in a sec. Then I'm going to go take a nap so I can come back and try to answer the questions latinjum has asked me.
Thanks!
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
This isn't a full throated defense but it's worth noting that Obama was a well respected Constitutional Law professor and was a very innovative community organizer.
By any reasonable standard the most experienced candidate is Bill Richardson. Biden and Dodd are also very experienced. The most experienced President in recent years was G.H.W. Bush who held just about every appointive office possible in the GOP hierarchy. He was mostly experienced at kissing the rears of every Republican that mattered but he had a heck of a resume.
Truman was very inexperienced and was VP for only a few months before becoming President. Truman had been a fairly undistinguished Senator (he had led a very successful investigation into war profiteering) and was thought to be a hack for "Boss" Pendergast of Kansas City. Carter had been Governor for only four years and was less experienced that virtually every Democrat who ran in 1976.
In my book, experience is usually too narrowly defined. In political terms, it is often thought of as a list of offices held. I heard HUNDREDS of times in 2003 about how Wes Clark was inexperienced, it drove me crazy. What they meant was that he had not held elective office. Hillary's experience is also somewhat unconventional. She gets credit for having been in the White House, almost as if she had been Vice President. I don't argue with that. My problem with her is that when she was tested, during the health care debacle, she failed. Wes Clark, when he was tested in the Balkans, succeded.
You write that President Truman "was thought to be a hack for "Boss" Pendergast of Kansas City."
Even his most favorable biographers concur that Harry Truman WAS a hack politician. Certainly from his earliest political days through his election to the United States Senate. Truman did escape (for the most part) the Missouri bosses once he got to Washington, but even his selection as FDR's VP in 1944 was a political (hack-job) compromise.
General Wesley Clark, Senator Barack Obama, General Anthony Zinni. People like that. They knew enough to caution against giving George W. Bush the green light to invade Iraq. Now THAT is what I call wisdom!
My New York Senators have great paper pedigrees. One of them (apparently) had the ear of a president of the United States for eight years before she decided to give the green light to invade the 'cradle of civilization.' I guess those wisdom people didn't know there was so much written about those Arab/Muslins who still resent the westerners and their Crusade. Or the experiences of other Christian countries meddling in the Arabia.
My Senators apparently couldn't figure out that a couple hundred million Arabs and a billion Muslins wouldn't like it when American bombs were killing their loved ones.
Ah, yes. wisdom...and then there is political expediency.
You can't compare Clinton in 1992 with Obama in 2008.
In 1992 we were NOT AT WAR WITH ANYONE. Foreign policy/national security was not the paramount issue of the day...it was "the economy, stupid." And Clinton did great on that issue, leaving a large surplus and a balanced budget.
Obama has zero foreign policy/national security cred/experience. Now we are at war in 2 countries, maybe another before 2009.
Also to consider is the large amount of rancor and bad feelings toward America now (thanks to w).
I think there is a lot of residual good will toward Bill internationally and that will carry forward to Hillary.
Obama will surround himself with "experts" just like W did. Who's advising him on foreign policy issues?
Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.
good question
straight answer from today's news (some of these names mean nothing to me):
Obama's policy team
Foreign policy/national security
Anthony Lake
(Bill Clinton national security adviser)
Susan Rice
(Clinton assistant secretary of state for African affairs)
Samantha Power
(Harvard Kennedy School of Government professor, Pulitzer Prize-winner author of book arguing for more vigorous U.S. action to counter genocidal campaigns)
Gregory Craig
(Clinton impeachment defense attorney and director of policy planning for Clinton State Department)
Richard Danzig
(Clinton Navy secretary, has written on potential dangers of terrorist biological weapons attacks)
Former Maj. Gen. Scott Gration
(Retired Air Force officer, former director of strategy for U.S. European Command, military officer assigned to accompany Obama on senator's Africa trip)
Former Gen. Merrill McPeak
(Retired former chief of staff of the Air Force)
"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
besides that fact that these are all General Clark's friends and once supporter in 2004.
The good thing is that all the arguments about General Clark being respected by Hillary also apply to Obama is he is successful, with the added notion that it's Hillary's people that are closing doors on non-supporters, which is not so sweet.
And who are the advisers to the GOP now?
Bill Clinton's people!
Bill Bennett just flipped too!
It'll be interesting to see what George Stephanopoulos has to say, considering that he was so appalled by BC that he actually quit.
...well then, I'll just read that as "bingo!"
"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
The whole thing is priming the pump for a third party it seems.
Mike Bloomberg, Ralph Nader.
It'd be damn near a billion dollars all as a response to an HRC nomination.
And Chuck Hagel is on the Teevee now as one of the more sensible people in the discussions.
What a mess.
Mike Bloomberg, Ralph Nader
Ron Paul
...yea and only last night, that "sensible" Hagel went and endorsed the sport of water-boarding.
"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
Ellen, Hagel voted to confirm Mukasey.
But what the hell, at least he showed up. Who gives a damn if he cast a vote for torture in the process?
Yep, at least Hagel showed up for the vote. It was the sensible thing 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
I say we take all these guys and subject them to it. Whoever lasts longest gets to keep their job. And, of course, after this, they will be the strongest opponents to it, so it wil no longer be an issue.
Bullet to the kneecap would prolly poll highly as an effective alternative interrogation technique among the masses however :/
I'd be in heaven if Ron Paul (love the OB/GYN doctor, although it is reported that most of his money is invested in gold and silver), Mike Bloomberg (who truly can say he lead NYC during perilous times since 9/11 --- the town is BOOMING), and Ralph Nader EACH form a third party and become presidential candidates.
interesting election process next year! I, for one, could use a bit of levity. We take ourselves too seriously here sometimes.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrill_A._McPeak
http://www.eucom.mil/english/CommandStaff/gration.htm
synthetic environment Democrats break your heart but GOP just boys you'd never go out with anyway - Nora Ephron
...when talking about candidates who didn't know beans about national security but had lots of great advisers?
He was probably talking about JE or Dean at the time. But I'm sure the same applies to BO.
I think it goes something like this.....
What happens when you get conflicting advice? How do you know which is the best way to go?
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"
You have got to be kidding.
Who advised Hillary on k/l, pray tell?
or did she take that leap unadvised and of her own volition?
LOL
Sorry, I really can't explain why so many of Clinton's (and Wes's) people went over to Obama. But they did.
"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's like they forgot all the arguments we used against his lack of NS exp. over the past 11 months. nvm
I still say that HRC voted for K/L so she wouldn't be branded as soft on terra in the GE. It's called politics. Agree or not, and I certainly don't....if she wins the WH, her FP strategy will probably be pretty much like Bill's....and I don't remember him bombing countries unilaterally. In fact I believe the Dayton Accords happened on his watch.
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"
Yep, they musta forgot. Just as Hillary's people forgot all that we all said about her IWR vote and her hawkish ways.
So busy was she, promoting her tough-girl image that I have serious doubts as to her electability among voters of all stripes who are sick to living death of the blood and the endless war and the American MIC. Roughly 80% of Americans at this point if not mistaken?
To say nothing of going up against the R's mean machine.
"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
...she has proven she can stand up to the R's mean machine......and that's what it's going to take.
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"
yes, she only has to convince the voters
yes, she seems to be doing well in the polls
"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 could all turn around with Iowa. BO could win....then we'll see how well he does against the mean machine,
Once again a minuscule number of Midwesterners will chose our nominee. Ain't politics grand?
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 know!
I almost PS'd that message:
You got your Iowa, your NH...blahdeblahdeblah
...and then we shall see who stands where
whadda system we got!
"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
For some, their motive may be based on belief in Barack Obama; for others, an opportunity to be heard.
Some Obama financial heavyweights are with him because they will have more influence and be insiders --- something not available to them in the HRC juggernaut.
that they have a distaste for "dynasties".
Yes, that is the word that was used.
"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
I think it was the chicagotribune's fault. musta been.
Besides, I can't pronounce z-big's name, much less spell it
:)
Trib may have missed Richard Clarke too. At some point he was with Obama. That name sound familiar to you?
heh!
"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
I knew that name was familiar. Travel back a few years, to February, 2004... the heat of Presidential campaigning.
________________________________________________
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/022004/02052004/1255175
< snip >
But this week, a former top military leader openly attacked Clark.
"You do not see any senior officers stand up behind Clark when he's at the podium," former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill "Tony" McPeak said during a phone interview while campaigning in Virginia for Howard Dean.
"[John] Kerry has been very effective with his message [because] his old Army buddies are there with him," McPeak said. "That's great testimony. With Clark, you don't see much of that. Where are his West Point classmates, his battalion-mates? Where are the Army four-star [generals]?"
Clark was eager to talk about that yesterday, vehemently denying McPeak's contention that his military peers are not getting behind his campaign.
"I've got hundreds of West Point classmates supporting me," he said. "Some of them gave up jobs to work in my campaign. There are dozens of senior officers providing testimony."
Former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton and retired four-star Gen. Johnny E. Wilson have endorsed Clark. And Michael McClintic, a private who saved Clark's life in Vietnam, is working in the campaign.
McPeak said: "Look, let me say this--I know Wes Clark. And I know Howard Dean. And I'm working for Dean."
"I like General McPeak, but General McPeak never worked with me," said Clark, an Arkansas native, "and he doesn't know me. We sat next to each other one time at a dinner."
(I can almost hear Wes saying that) : )
________________________________________
The years prior to landing on Howard Dean's campaign:
< snip >
In 1996, McPeak served as Oregon state chairman for the Bob Dole for President campaign. (Paging; Defoliate!) During the presidential election of 2000 McPeak endorsed George W. Bush and served as co-chairman of Oregon Veterans for Bush.
McPeak is currently the Co Chair for Obama's National Campaign.
oh goody, one of Obama's fp advisors discredited.
Got anything on the others?
"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
Sometimes it's hard to tell with the written word.
I remember Hugh Shelton...'nuf said.
Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.
no Arky I'm not being sarcastic, I am totally amused
definitely
LOL
I think Hugh probably still works for somw, don't you?
And you're very welcome for my straight answer to your question. Seems we have found at least one bad egg. I trusted that could be done.
"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
I don't much trust the Air Force Generals...they all seem kind of strange (maybe it the Academy's fundie "Christian" influence). And don't forget "Dickie" Myers.
Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.
I like her. McPeak is no longer just an FP adviser, he's been 'promoted' to National Campaign Co Chair. They have him on a rigorous road schedule now stumping to veterans org's. These retired Generals seem to have amazing reservoirs of energy. :)
Since this blog is promoting Hillary I think it would be a good idea to familiarize ourselves with her complete panel, (and in any case just for the record) So here's a link to the complete lists of all the top tier candidates advisors. Maybe more than you wanted or needed to know. Still, every voter should have these lists, in my view.
(and oh yea, Z'big and Richard Clarke are in fact on Obama's fp/ns panel)
The War Over the Wonks
A list of the national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties.
DEMOCRATS (Hillary's up first)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html
You might wanta google up General Jack Keane who, along with Fred Kagan (remember him?) co/authored the surge... and ohyea, maybe that O'Hanlon guy from the Brookings institute
My google finger is sprained.
:)
Gen. McPeak came to one of our Colorado Veterans for Kerry meetings. He was singularly unimpressive. I ddn't like him at all.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Gen. McPeak vs. Gen.McDreamy
Could it be you had already fallen for Gen. McDreamy and that could have clouded your thinking? I hate pitting Generals against Generals. We all love General Clark here. But let's not let politics let us hate the others. Each of them are doing what they think they need to do. I think it wasn't easy for any of the Generals to speak out. When they do, I listen.
I listen to Clark most intently because I know him best and think he is most in tune with my views.
"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark
about Wes-- look at that post. The guy smears him nine ways from Sunday and what does Wes say? "I like the guy- he sat next to me once at dinner!" I love that.
Only one morsel of the menu he has to teach us about dealing with opposition forces who set out to discourage or disdain. He always responds with class and calm. No matter how stormy the attacks may get. And somehow he avoids the petty and the snarky at all costs. Remarkable communication skills.
Senator Obama doesn't have it.
I don't agree with your point about being First Lady of anything being the same as experience. It isn't. On that basis, we could also look at Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan as possible presidential candidates.
Senator Clinton must run on her record, not former President Clinton's record -- she hasn't convinced me yet.
Very undecided in Pennsylvania.