Now this was after Joe Lieberman became an independent and was re-elected in Nov. 2006.

From the Huffington Post

Posted December 7, 2006 | 12:50 PM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Politics News, Google Inc.

Reality Check: As Violence Escalates in Iraq, Hillary Holds Press Conference on Violent Video Games

Hot on the heels of the release of the Iraq Study Group Report -- and a day in which 10 U.S. servicemen were killed and at least 84 Iraqis were blown up or shot -- prospective presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will join with Joe Lieberman to hold a press conference today at 3 pm ET to announce the launch of a television PSA campaign about... video game ratings.

Oh. My. God.

The violence in Iraq is becoming more savage by the minute -- among the dead yesterday were 45 bullet-riddled corpses found in Baghdad, many of whom had been tortured before being executed -- and Hillary is worried about video game violence? Are you kidding me?

Could she be any more politically tone deaf?

Unfortunately, given the realities of the space/time continuum, I won't be able to make it to Washington in time for the press conference -- so could someone there please ask Hillary about her priorities?

Is she really going to make a big deal about Resident Evil or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas when we have real tortured and mutilated bodies piling up all across Iraq?

This press conference should be rated UC -- Utterly Clueless.

there's no relationship between seeding violence into kids & war. So crappy of Hillary Clinton to continue to be champion children's issues.  

You do know that the PMRC Lieberman fetish group (parental advisory labelers) was a big player in the crazy heyday ultra liberal 90s, right? They are part of a wider group alliance responsible for engineering Lieberman onto Gore's ticket, etc.

Senators have to do a lot of tiresome crap like forge alliances, work with activist groups on all sides of the spectrum, cut ribbons, dedicate bridges & weigh in on such hefty matters as parental concerns.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the whole V-chip thing, but parents need ways to have technology help them instead of hinder them. 

WRESTLING FOR OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE

Violence on TV has become so prevalent, we've all become a bit numb. Children are exposed to 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on TV by the time they complete elementary school. A recent survey found that prime time TV viewers see a violent scene every four minutes. And a recent study by Children Now found that almost three-fourths of children ages 10-17 describe males on TV as violent.

But as troubling as those statistics are, they don't tell the whole story. Every day as many children are killed by guns in the U.S. as died at Columbine. But where are the headlines? Where are the magazine covers? Where are the talk shows sympathizing with the grieving loved ones of these victims? The problem with statistics is that they are bloodless. They're just numbers. It's too easy to forget the humanity behind them. I never thought I'd be quoting Stalin, but he understood this aspect of human psychology when he said "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." 

--

You can't find something from this year? 

Peace takes Power

I can

...and it too involves waltzing with Lieberman,
strike up the band - part 2

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

how siding with most parents against violent video games hurts someone & using her stance on violent video games to somehow bludgeon her about Iran? Come on. 

If I'm not mistaken, K/L has been discussed here ad nauseum- Did you miss Wes's op-ed at the Huffpo? 

It's right here: 

I Support Hillary's Position on Iran

the "I" there = "Wes Clark"  

video ratings was not my issue, I'm not sure why it was raised

certainly I read Wes's op-ed, are you kidding me?

Sadly, I disagree on the issue of k/l.

If not mistaken, this diary is about Foreign Policy. Who's got the creds, who doesn't? Sorry, but k/l does not disappear. Surely a more substantial fp issue than who was doing what at age 10.

so when you asked, I answered.

Sorry if you feel that was out of line.

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

when you responded to me, maybe you could read the string above it to see the context & why I am mentioning video games.

You then triumphantly brought up K/L like some kind of smoking gun. I was talking to latin about their choice of damning Clinton's work against video violence & twisting it into an opportunity to slam her against the war.

I'd like her to serve her constituents & I suspect her job might involve doing lots of different things with lots of different groups, like parents groups. I also think she has a long public record & shouldn't be judged entirely on one NONBINDING vote. But that's just me. 

Yeah, I'm very familiar with the issue that dogged this blog for about a month!

...and will continue to dog the election for about a full year.

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

My reply was in response to this part of Mitch's blog, in which he used an article from March 2006 to go after Obama in regards to Lieberman. So, I thought it was only fair to also use something from 2006 in regards to Hillary Clinton and Lieberman, who was still working with Lieberman even after he became an independent, and continues to do so (K-L Resoluation comes to mind), and that on that particular day in Dec. 2006, when the Senators were taking to the floor to discuss the Iraq Study Group report, Hillary Clinton decided to skip that and do this with Lieberman instead.

And there's more. In May 2006, Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the delegates to the Connecticutt convention urging them to support Lieberman at the convention in May 2006 and in the primary in August 2006.

Dear Delegate:

When Bill and I were at Yale Law School, he volunteered to work on the campaign of a young man who was running for State Senate. The candidate's name was Joe Lieberman.
When I started running for the Senate in New York in 1999, many people thought I didn't have a chance. One sitting senator, however, provided me significant help early on in my campaign. That was Senator Joe Lieberman.

In the Senate, I have had the pleasure of getting to know Joe even better. We work together on both the Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees and I have seen his leadership first hand. He has repeatedly led the fight against the big oil companies that want to drill in the Arctic, he has championed innovative alternative energy solutions and his bill to combat global warming is the most thoughtful and comprehensive that's been proposed.

As Senators from neighboring states, Joe and I have worked on many issues together: strengthening support for first responders, improving children's health care, and cleaning up Long Island Sound so that families in New York and Connecticut can enjoy it for generations to come.

Last year, right after the 2004 election, President Bush announced that privatizing Social Security was his highest priority. Joe Lieberman fought tooth and nail to protect the guarantee of Social Security that this country has honored for seven decades to its senior citizens.

And Joe has also fought the Administration's outrageous attempts to gut Medicare and Medicaid and he has been a consistent critic of their ill conceived prescription drug plan. Now Joe is working hard to see if he can help improve that plan.

I believe that the 2006 election is a particularly important one for our country. We have the chance to put Democrats in control of the Senate and the House, to curb the excesses of one party Republican rule and hold Republicans accountable for their actions. Keeping Joe Lieberman in the Senate is an important part of that victory plan.

I know that you may not agree with Joe on all the issues. I don't either. But I know that he is a man of integrity and of devotion to the people of his state and the future of his country.

I hope when you cast your vote on May 20th and then again on August 8th that you will vote to send my friend Joe Lieberman back to the Senate.

Many thanks,
Senator Hillary Clinton

And Bill Clinton campaigned for Lieberman in July 2006.

So, if Mitch wants to use Lieberman against Obama because as the keynote speaker for a Connecticutt State Democratic Party fundraiser in March 2006, Obama supported the re-election of Lieberman, then Mitch should also use Lieberman against Clinton for also supporting the re-election of Lieberman in the spring and summer of 2006.

has the Senate by the balls.

Not just individuals. The institution itself.

edit:

And the oil cartels have got it by the throat.

reasoning is the following:

1) Joe Lieberman was NEVER a "mentor" to Hillary like he was to Obama:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman

By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman...

Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem..."

2) Hillary supported Joe Lieberman during the 2006 CT Senate primary race ONLY and she clearly pledged to support in the general election whoever the Democratic nominee was just like how Chris Dodd did. When Lieberman lost the primary race, Hillary and Chris Dodd immediately switched their support to Ned Lamont and Hillary gave Lamont's campaign $5000 right away.

Other respectable Democrats also supported Joe Lieberman in that primary but NOT in the general election 2006 CT Senate race!

But my main question to you is when was Joe Lieberman ever a "mentor" to Hillary in their personal relationship like how he clearly was to Obama?

As you say, Lieberman "became" Obama's mentor, Obama didn't select him.

on. And that fraud Joe also. How do you think it gets into young people that war is ok? That blowing peoples heads off is an acceptable reaction to conflict. That violence is always the answer. It is not until they pull the trigger or have it pulled on them, whether in a Baghdad street or on Main Street USA, that they realize that blood is not digital and that death does not have a reset button.

"...I must emphasize and
explain repeatedly the moral dimensions of all
social life, and point out that morality is, in
fact, hidden in everything..."

- Vaclav Havel, "Summer Mediatations", 1993

I am sure that Barack Obama is probably a very sincere person as well as being a good Senator for Illinois BUT he is in way over his head running for President right now in my opinion!

when you said "This is NOT about personality, its about knowledge, experience, and connections."

Gen. Clark definitely has a seat at Hillary's table and she will seriously listen to him if he has something to say while we do not know where Gen. Clark stands with Obama.

Yes, Wes certainly will, and from the picture posted, I believe Wes has Hillary's ear. Also, I think he feels he can do more to save our Country, by not sitting in the Oval Office, but by being able to meet with many foreign leaders where he has prestige and strong repoire' is respected (already doing it..China).
His strongest leadership will be in moving from Country to Country, negotiating with World heads of state, and also continue working with the House and Senate in a Leadership negotiations, guiding them to form the needed bills to change the direction of the country. The Presidents role is not the only one that makes the decisions (could have fooled me the past 7 years) there are 3 branches of gov't, with equal power. Hillary, if elected will need someone strong, smart, and well respected, to get the the congress together with all that needs to be repaired in our Country.

I really believe THIS is where he wants to be, and knows Hillary in the OVAL OFFICE as President, will get him where he feels he can do the most good for the USA and the WORLD.

Remember, when you can do GOOD, you SHOULD!!!

Maybe, maybe not. A Time to Lead has enlightened to me. All the great speeches and ability to inspire mean nothing without performance to back that up. And I haven't seen much performance from Obama -- performance in terms of legislation, performance in terms of attendance. He hasn't been on the national scene long enough to have much of a performance record.

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

The Dems will decide whether they want the turkey they know, or a different kind of bird.

The Union will survive, whatever the result, so I am not worried.

Peace to you, Stan.

And greetings from Lubbock. (Had I said that already?)

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

Exactly what meant when I said the future will determine his ability to be successful in the future. He hasn't been in the scene long enough, and also as a senator, it is difficult to get elected.
The american people are so upset right now, that taking a chance on a newbie, will be difficult. They tend to go with who they know, and had experience with in the positive. America went with change with George, and where did that take us....a repeat of 1986 market crash!!Deep recession...so I believe the seasoned voters, will go with the known and after researching all the polls it looks like its leaning that way on a national scale.Here is a good site to look up nationally listed polls statewide.

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

I highly recommend watching "No Middle Way" starring Keane, Kagan and O'Hanlon with Graham as master of ceremonies extraordinaire, if you're able. It should be archived at c-span, Sept. 2007

Damn, I do hope Wes has her ear since the endorsement. (maybe this trio is what drove him to it?)

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

Oh puleeze. If you think for one instant that Wes would bend to those guys' pressure, you have forgotten everything you ever knew about the General. imho.

Or is this another sideways slap at Gen. Clark and his agenda?

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

No, it was hardly a slap at Wes Clark.

But at this point I would certainly expect no less than for you to suggest such a thing, Arky...and for someone to rate you up for it of course.

I'm not at all concerned that Wes would bend to these thugs. Ever. It's the endorsee that I question. Why would she pick them to advise her on fp?

This would be like Wes going into enemy territory. Like Wes on FOXNEWS in my view. I hope he straightens them out.

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

Perhaps she, like Wes Clark, wants various opinions and viewpoints to gain a broader perspective of the issues and options. Heavens to Betsy, someone that looks at all facets of an issue. We can't have that now, can we.
Hell, Obama is saying he'll have Republicans in his Administration! Is that triangulating? Wanting to have it both ways? Name me one Republican you'd be happy to have in a Dem Admin.
I don't want a Repuke within 10 miles of the WH.

Why dost thou be indignant when I question your snipe at Clark?
So far, all of your posts I've seen have been derogatory of Hillary and of Wes' support of her.
As the General said at the DNC in 2004, "Hear this soldier!"
Why don't you listen to that "soldier?" Apparently any/everything he has said and written on this makes not a whit of difference to you. Do you stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalala" so as not to hear?
Sorry but I'm sticking with Wes, I still trust his judgement, and he knows the players much better than I.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

If I had not listened to every single one of Wes Clark's policies over the past 4 years (and beyond actually) I would have very few questions on foreign policy or any number of domestic issues for any of these candidates.

Wes Clark turned my brain on, bingo! and I'm not about to turn it off now. I intend to keep on asking the questions of all the candidates.

I don't have to prove my loyalty to Wes Clark on your terms. And you, of course, you're free do as you damned well please.

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

All the candidates? Seems you've been stuck on Hillary's case since Wes endorsed her.
Got any questions for Obama? SOMW? Biden? Dodd?
I hope you'll get around to them, eventually.

As for me, I'm taking a powder.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

Did you ever have any serious questions about Hillary? This suggestion that those of us who aren't Hillary supporters have just suddenly come up with questions about her after Clark's endorsement is based on what? My questions about Hillary Clinton pre-dated Clark's endorsement and they didn't go away just because he endorsed her. And, yes, I have lots of questions about Edwards, which is why I would never support him for the nomination. And Biden and Dodd, yes, also, but not the usual quesions that are thrown up here and elsewhere. You know, where everytime Biden's name is mentioned, at least one person jumps up to yell "bankruptcy bill" or when Dodd't name is mentioned at least one person jumps up to yell "credit cards". Are those concerns of mine, sure, but I'm waiting for the time when someone here responds to Biden's name by saying "Violence Against Women Act", or when someone here responds to Dodd's name by saying "family medical leave act" or "Headstart". Why am I waiting for that? Because it will indicate that some actual homework has been done on these candidates and a decision made on the whole picture of someone and not just one issue.

More than once lately, you have thrown out a question that makes me wonder if you really don't know the answer and, more importantly, why you don't know the answer. For example, just recently you asked "who are Obama's foreign policy advisors", and I'm thinking, why doesn't she know that, and if she doesn't, why doesn't she go find out, since it's out there to find if you're really interested in the answer to that question. And then, just the other day, you asked "why DID Obama run for the Senate", and, again, maybe some time on the internet doing research would provide the answer. On the other hand, maybe you're just throwing out questions about Obama that you don't think anyone can answer effectively, or will take the time to answer at all.

I know quite a bit about Hillary as I am a lifelong resident of Arkansas.
As for why I don't surf around the net looking up many things, I have slow dial-up that runs at 20K if I'm lucky.
Sorry, I won't ask any more questions since you have decided answering them is a waste of time.

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

you should spend all day researching candidates you have already decided not to support, that makes total sense.

I know I love to spend my time learning the finer points of Biden's partition plan, you know, the concept that worked in the Balkans which WKC has said is not the right way to go here.

Or take Richardson't brilliant "One Point Plan for Iraq: Out Now!"

It's a floor wax. It's a desert topping!

Poof! It's all okay again! Like there was no war at all. 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. 

It seemed obvious in context. If she is being advised by what you consider to be three terrible players, then maybe Wes felt the obligation to get in there and be the voice to counteract their advice. I don't buy that that would be reason enough for him to publicly endorse her, but you weren't in any way swiping at Wes.

"As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular." - Oscar Wilde

bingo!

It was quite obvious in context.

Happy TG, WMCB!

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

:-)

"As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular." - Oscar Wilde

Wes would build more and more and more on why he likes Hillary. That would help a lot. He's done some of it (see Ruth O's latest blog), but the more the better. I really feel like Hillary's got "it" when it comes to leadership and Obama doesn't. But since Wes has got "it" like cubed, I think it would be a tremendous boost for Hillary if Wes just talked about that more.

Experience, positions, those are important things but all they do is reinforce the "it" if "it" is there. Show us the "it," Wes.

[I don't feel so ridiculous saying "it" since Sestak says "it" all the time. I guess I stole it from him. :) ]

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

There were two Clarkie's in attendance, both undecided, still undecided. General Clark lowered & shooked his head as if to say, what more can I do to convince you? At that point he said he knew Obama and that he's a nice guy. I can't quote him exactly but he said something about playing basketball with Obama. I'm not sure if he said he'd like to or he did. Maybe Zoey can chime in about that. Either way, it was a derogatory statement. It didn't fly well with me because I believe Obama to be an exceptional human being. If there is something specific to criticize then by all means he should give it his best shot.

"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark

I think it would be useful for you to write exactly what you need to hear from Wes to make up your mind. Put it in a letter and send it off to WesPAC via snail mail (email it to Mary Lee too).

I know exactly what you're talking about with his non-specific criticisms of Obama. I think that he doesn't want to make specific criticisms of other democrats. (I'm guessing here.) I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I've actually decided that might be OK, because it might just be that his criticism of Obama is really not the issue. I got the same feeling from Sestak. It's not about Obama being weak. It's about them being so sure that Hillary can do a great job and that they don't see in him the things they see in her. There isn't anything specific there.

That's why I wish he'd talk about Hillary the way we talk about him. If he got that wistful "I'd follow this person to hell and back" look in his eyes when he talked about her, the way we all do when we talk about him, then he wouldn't need to criticize Obama to convince us.

But, I digress... that's what *I* feel and I'm not in Iowa. I think you should put together what you feel and get it to Wes. And I think Zoey should do the same. While I think it would be OK to post some of it here, I think you'd feel more comfortable saying what you really feel, without worrying about what some spy might do with it, if you kept at least some of the letter private.

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

There is a part of me in my gut that wonders if there is more to this. There is a part of me that wonders if things with Iran and allies and the ME and PNAC are more convoluted and involving more levels of government (not only elected, but the career guys) than we know. Yeah, I know we all know it's been dire, but I think it could be more than Wes is able to share. There is a part of me that wonders if Wes and Hillary and some others on her team know more than they are saying (or even can say), but they have a plan to derail the madness if they can get her in the Whitehouse.

If that's the case, I wish there was a way for him to say it without saying it.

Okay, you can all tell me to put on my tinfoil hat now.

"As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular." - Oscar Wilde

If you have not listened to the Mason City audio it is worth your time.

Check out Clark Quotes from Mason City, IA
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/comment/reply/13944

Thanks for a good post.

I hadn't realized there was so much there. It was definitely worth listening to.

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

I would like to hear Wes and Gert expound on their personal relationship with Hillary through the years. I keep hearing how wonderful, witty and truly human she is.

This is the element missing so far.

I agree totally. I have seen no sense of humanity, humor or anything else out of the ordinary in what has been shown of Senator Clinton. Maybe she needs to come around and sit a while. Since I am in Pennsylvania -- well out of reach of any possible influence on the nomination, I guess that won't happen.

"I keep hearing how wonderful, witty and truly human she is.

This is the element missing so far."

"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau

I was surrounded by a foreign-speaking family. Does that count as foreign policy experience? Besides the area I lived in was heavily Dutch. Maybe I should write a book, call it the Audacity of a Con Man, and then run for president. Also, I think I have spent more time overseas, hanging out in Holland, Italy, and Germany, (etc.) than most of the candidates. I am and was so "there."

We need to replace their thugs with our hugs.

I think the key is to build up Hillary and not to necessarily shoot down Obama. I think that's the path Wes is taking. Let's face it, if we were selling Wes, we wouldn't need to be shooting down anyone else. If a leader is shiny enough, everyone around them can be shining too, and they'll still stand out from the crowd. So, I'm planning to just watch Wes put a spit shine on Hillary for me and see what happens.

'Course, you can't polish a turd... (I'm not calling anyone a turd; I just needed to throw that in there before someone else did.)

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

by supposedly intelligent people are so ridiculous that they need to be shot down. Imagine if Hillary had said that her FP experience came from moving from Chicago to Arkansas.

We need to replace their thugs with our thugs.

As Kat mentioned, Biden put that quite well, but it's probably time to move on and work on shining up Hillary again.

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

his recent and extensive FP experience. Whoops, I forgot - he doesn't have any. Just what we need right now. :)

We need to replace their thugs with our thugs.

Is it really his lack of FP experience that's the problem or is it more his lack of FP maturity?

You can hire people who have experience if you know how to use them. And you can have all the experience in the world and still be a raving lunatic.

Like I said, I really don't want to disparage Obama, but I feel that saying it's a lack of experience is the wrong wording. It's a lack of maturity, and while aging (and experience) are inevitable, maturing is optional.

Sort of as a backward way of defending him, I'd say that perhaps his lack of maturity leads him to believe that living overseas when he was a child counts as "experience." It's a good thing, to be sure, to have a multi-culutural awareness. And that's certainly worth something. But you don't say that. You show it. And knowing the difference comes with maturity.

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

You can hire experts for their know-how, but the president (In bush's case, the VP.) still has to make the final decision, based on their cumulative experiences, knowledge, maturity, judgment, and maybe gut feeling. Right now, although she's not perfect (like me), I'm afraid Hillary is at the head of the class.

We need to replace them with us.

Can't you see the Republicans in the GE running and re-running a video of Barack Hussein Obama making this ridiculous comment.

It's over before it begins!

Biden is a hoot.

"Madam President has a nice ring to it." So saith my daughter.

Too bad the Press is not looking at old faces. The Fourth Estate decides who has a chance to run.

Biden would be a great president and an amusing one to boot.

and his 'guys.'

"Edwards’ spokesman Chris Kofinis released a "definition" of the term "mudslinging," calling it "the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent."

"As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, ‘Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face,’" Kofinis said."

Playing the rep game, call something 'mud,' and say it often enough, it becomes mud.

HRC was suggesting that the voters would do exactly what voters are supposed to do, judge between contestants.

...in her comment on Obama's claim that his living abroad as a child gave him experience in foreign policy. She didn't assault his character, but questioned the validity of his statement.

Edwards, on the other hand, has come very close to calling Hillary corrupt. That's character assassination as well as mudslinging.

Questioning one's policies and credentials is a perfectly valid thing to do in politics. Questioning one's character without any factual basis crosses the line, in my opinion.

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

she was stating the facts and putting them before the voters, to decide on their adequacy.

I didn't see any "leadership" or good "judgement" from Obama regarding the K/L vote. He didn't even bother to show up to vote. Talks a good game, but doesn't back it up with action.
As for his "foresight," he came out against the Iraq war a month AFTER Gen. Clark testified before the HASC.

As for proven leadership ability to inspire people...history is littered with leaders like that, some of them were very bad people!

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

Come out against the Iraq war after Gen. Clark testified before not just the HASC, but the Senate Armed Services Committee, you know, that committee that Hillary mentions all the time. So, maybe Obama actually listened to what Gen. Clark had to say in his testimony and also listened to what Perle had to say in his testimony and used his good judgment to go with Clark instead of Perle. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton obviously didn't choose to go with Clark, so what does that say about her in terms of either leadership or judgment?

1991 Iraq war, Bosnia/Kosovo intervention. At the time they were going on. Or was he in any position to be able to state his positions on those?

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

says that he graduated from Harvard Law in 1991, so I doubt he had much time to form opinions and put them down on paper regarding Iraq/Bosnia/Kosovo. In all fairness, the vast majority of Americans are still clueless when it comes to what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo. And Gulf War I is a blur too.

the vast majority of Americans aren't running for President.

The Book TV Q&A video here has a nice response from Wes on Hillary and the IWR vote:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13870 (Thanks to Ruth as always...)

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

perhaps he did listen to Wes Clark

...nor did John Edwards while sitting,
listen to Wes Clark's testimony

oh, but that's right isn't it?
edwards sat on the intel committee

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

that a woman who had been a First Lady for 8 years, after her party lost a contested election & the country had been attacked for the first time on its own native soil & had a new hostile party & president in power would not have much of a mainstream political future & zero influence in certain sectors going forward had she not voted yes to the IWR.

I don't think it is right, but I do think it is true. And it's only my opinion. I think it is also worth noting that Bush did not live up to the constraints placed on his end of the bargain by the IWR. However, that is on Bush.

I think she would have been persecuted on the basis of gender, accused of being partisan in a time of great national strife, and subsequently sidelined.

It is also not the case that the IWR passed by one vote, let alone that it was hers.

This country was going to war. Anyone could see that. If you think Hillary Clinton's Aye or Nay on that one would have altered the reality of going into Iraq, I certainly can't agree with that.

I think also hawky Evan Bayh had Hillary's ear at the time.

I'm furious about it. And because of it I will never have a ton of respect for her; it will be a permanent mark against her character for me. She sat down when she should have stood up. She did the politically expedient thing. And she, along with Biden and Dodd and Edwards and a whole ton of people who should have stopped it, jumped on the bandwagon. I do believe if all who should have known better had stood up, we could have stopped this thing.

But they didn't. And that was then. And this is now. I'll never forgive them for it. And maybe I even think they should all rot in hell for it.

But people lead differently in different situations. In a position of relatively little authority, Hillary may swing in the wind to gain more power, but just as some people behave well before they have power and like assholes after they have it, some people do the opposite. Some people who fold like a lawn chair in a minority position, may soar like an eagle when in charge. Those who've seen Hillary in charge are impressed by it.

She's flawed. Deeply flawed. She ain't Wes Clark. But that doesn't mean she won't make a great POTUS. Wes thinks she will. Sestak thinks she will. Their opinions on that mean a lot to me, enough to make me think that even though I haven't liked a lot of what I saw of her in the Senate, I should rely more heavily on the fact that I did like what I saw of the direction the country took during the 90's. And I did.

I think Wes could do the same good things and not be deeply flawed, but that's not going to happen.

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

I've tried to illuminate/explain it for my own satisfaction & all I can come up with is that it was indeed political. I could be wrong.

Just trying to swim in the direction of land here. There's a lot profoundly wrong, more wrong than one person can fix, that's for sure. 

And I agree, it was political. That's not an exuse. Not at all. In some ways, as a Senator, it makes it worse. But it really doesn't tell me much about what she'd do as POTUS. The politics work much different when you're in charge. And real leadership means you'll not be in nor putting others in an IWR-type situation. Yeah, she failed that test. Big time. I bet there are lots of tests she'd fail. Not sure how many of them are relevent.

We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.

more about the ones she can or did win. Her campaign has not quantified this well enough but they have to save some gas for the GE if they get there. If WKC didn't think getting here there was critical, I think he would not have made this endorsement. 

She has to find her voice & distinguish herself from her husband, take credit for things she has done, partially own the mistakes where they lay & also propose the way forward.

It wouldn't be easy for anyone to do. I think she is doing a decent job so far. 

makes me think of Ashcroft singing that song.

Very very well stated. Thank you, Shortie.

I know the IWR didn't pass by one vote, and I never said that Clinton's vote would have altered that, so, what's your point when you throw this out?

As for your defense of Hillary Clinton's vote on the IWR with the AUF, it doesn't add up to much, except to paint a picture of political expediency and calculation at its very worse, because this was a matter of war, life and death in every sense of those words, and you're saying she had to vote yes to maintain her "mainstream" political future and would have had zero influence in certain sectors going forward had she voted no. Well, U.S. Senators are paid to make the hard, tough decisions. And guess what, if the presidential wannabes had been thinking beyond their presidential ambitions in 2002, we'd all be better off now. The Democrats were in control of the Senate in the fall of 2002, after all, and they chose not to use the power they had in terms of controlling the committees, the hearings, the witnesses, the agenda, the timing of votes, the rules surrounding votes, and everything else. And as for constraints placed on Bush by the IWR, that's a joke. The IWR placed no real, honest-to-goodness constraints on Bush. And an attempt to do so by Sen. Levin was defeated, with Clinton voting no to his amendment.

And a no vote would have meant she would have been persecuted on the basis of gender? Why, because it wouldn't have played into her "See how tough I am. I, too, can be commander in chief and take us to war just as easily as any man can" campaign? And a no vote would have been seen as being partisan in a time of great national strife? Well, in times of great national strife, what we need are leaders who will not add to the great national strife by playing politics for their own future ambitions. And as for her being subsequently sidelined if she had voted no, well, so what? It's not as if this country was going to collapse or the world fall apart if Hillary Clinton didn't realize her presidential ambitions.

Now, this little back and forth here started with Arky Sue stating that Obama had shown no leadership on the Iraq War because he hadn't given his anti-war speech until "a month" after Clark testified before the HASC, suggesting, I guess, that if Obama had really been a leader, he would have spoken out sooner. What those two things have to do with each other, I'm not sure, although Clark testified before the SASC on 9-26 and Obama's speech was on 10-2, so it was only 6 days between the two events. My response was that if Obama hadn't shown leadership because he didn't speak out against the war before Clark testified then Clinton certainly hadn't shown leadership because she didn't speak out against the war before, during, or after Clark testified.

However, I think it's worth noting that Obama began thinking about and laying the groundwork for his U.S. Senate campaign in mid-2002, so when he gave his speech in 10-02, whatever future political ambitions he had were also laid on the line, because if the war had gone as Bush and so many others thought it would, then Democrat candidates in 2004 who had supported the war would have been riding high (Kerry, Edwards, Clinton) and touting their good judgment in matters of national security, and those who had been against the war (Obama) would have seen themselves vilified for being weak on defense and soft on terrorism. So, while not in the Congress at the time, Obama's political future was every much at risk as the "yes" voters in the Senate, but he decided to say no to war with Iraq, just like Clark, and Clinton and the others decided to say yes.

How does he only SAY no to a war then vote yes for Rice?

this is the Hillaryblog when in fact it is Wes Clark's place? heh 

First off, I'm not accusing Hillary Clinton of being a leader of the same caliber as say, a Wes Clark. I do think a no vote on IWR would have played into a lot of stereotypes about women. I don't say I approve of this, or especially of her vote, I just note it as one of the factors that may go some way towards explainiing it. I'm just thinking it through. I don't find a political lens very comfortable to don.

I would be a lousy politician. If I had my druthers no one in this current field would be running on the basis of a yes IWR vote. Not Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards all voted yes. So sadly she was not alone. (Maybe I wouldn't make a lousy politician?) 

And I think it is pretty sick that a game of staying alive as an incumbent or to preserve a chance later down the road for some can & does & has resulted in very much being dead for others.

The reason her considerations, particularly about gender,  may matter here more than it might in other scenarios is because we're talking about the office of the presidency which has never been occupied by a female, and the egoism & tradition & a number of other factors play into it. They just do.

I didn't say her vote was morally correct, right, or even defensible. Just that I think I understand why she did it. I didn't even say I agree with it. But I think it was politically savvy.

Barak Obama may have been planning a Senate run but he was by no means planning a run at POTUS - he looked like a deer in the headlights for the first few weeks of this.

I'm not sure about the origin of the argument about who said what when regarding Iraq, or who was earlier on the record as being against, but I'm not sure that in the end, it is anything but a pissing match or bloody shirt relatively devoid of meaning in terms of what impact it will have on the future. What is certain is that neither Wes nor Obama had to actually cast a vote on it. What is also certain is that Bush violated the terms. 

"... this little back and forth here started with Arky Sue stating that Obama had shown no leadership on the Iraq War because he hadn't given his anti-war speech until "a month" after Clark testified before the HASC..."

Doesn't take leadership to listen to someone then adopt their position on something.

One more question...why did Obama run for Senate anyway???

Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.

That Obama's positon on the Iraq War came from listening to Clark's testimony before the HASC and adopting Clark's position, therefore, no leadership, just following behind? First, you got the timing wrong, you said he gave a speech a month after Clark's testimony, it was 6 days after his SASC testimony. Second, do you really believe that Obama supported a war with Iraq or didn't know what his positon was and then heard Clark's testimony and suddenly Clark had somehow convinced Obamb to be anti-war and go give a speech about it. That's pretty far-fetched. I just thought it was an interesting argument you were trying to make - that because Obama's speech followed Clark's testimony they were somehow connected, and you've offered no proof of such a connection.

And, of course, you haven't responded at all about Clinton's not listening to and heeding Clark's testimony regarding Iraq, or what it says about her "leadership" qualities. So, if it's comparison you want to do among the candidates, then you really should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges instead of mixing the two up. You're the one who brought up what you say was Obama's lack of leadership in regards to war with Iraq, and yet failed to comment on Clinton's lack of leadership in regards to war with Iraq, even though she sat there on the SASC and listened to Clark's testimony in person, voted yes on the IRW with the AUF, and voted no on Levin's resolution to force Bush back to Congress before using military force.

As to your question, why did Obama run for the Senate anyway? Meaning what? That if he ran for the Senate, he should wait longer before running for President? Well, you know sometimes circumstances come together in a way that change people's plans. Remember Wes Clark, someone who had no intention of running for president ever, but circumstances came together in such a way, that he did. So, I think Obama ran for the U.S. Senate because he wanted to move from state politics to national politics and that he probably thought that someday he might well run for president. But I don't think he ran for the Senate in 2004 thinking that the time he'd run for president would be 2008. Charlie Rangel, who supported Clark and is now supporting Clinton (fellow New York member of Congress), has said himself that he talked to Obama about this, just like he talked to Clark in 2004, and Rangel told Obama to go for it, that this was a moment in time that may never come again, and if he didn't seize this moment, he may always regret it. So, maybe you should take this up with Charlie.

So, now I'll throw it back at you. Why did Clinton run for the Senate? Because that's where she wanted to spend the rest of her work life? Yeah, right. I think not. She ran for the Senate as her first step in running for president, and that run began in 1998 when she started thinking about and planning for a Senate run in 2000. It was just a matter of finding the right state to move to and run in. She couldn't run in her home state of Illinois or the state she'd spent 20 years in - Arkansas - because there was no opening there for a Democratic candidate. I don't she was at all interested in moving to a state and taking on a Republican incumbant. So, that left her to look for a state where there was an open seat and that would more likely than not elect a Democrat, so it was New York, here I come. And I think her intention was to then run for president, not in 2004, but in 2008 if Bush was re-elected in 2004, or in 2012 if Bush lost in 2004. So, that's why Hillary Clinton is running now. And, I might add, that I find it quite interesting that Hillary Clinton took absolutely no time for reflection on anything after her 8 years as First Lady, as she didn't even wait to get out of the White House, not exactly the sign of someone who has patience and thinks taking stock and reflecting on what comes next in one's life is something that's perhaps better accomplished if there's some distance between the last chapter, especially if it's been a very turbulent chapter, and the next chapter. Perhaps that's why Hillary Clinton still seems so focused on, even obsessed with, the old Clinton-Republican battles of the 90s - her old "I've been fighting these battles for the last 15 years and I can keep it up another 8" mantra.

Yours and others comments on Obama play into the "it's not Obama's time" or "Obama stepped in front of the line" argument, which I find somewhat offensive. You know, it's the Republicans who have always had this sort of pecking order in terms of presidential candidates - you know, it's this one's turn or that one's turn. Bill Clinton certainly didn't wait "his turn". Oh, but I forgot, we weren't at war then, so it didn't matter if Bill "waited his turn". And, of course, Bill had those oh-so-experienced advisors, just like Hillary has now, and poor Obama just hasn't been able to put together such a ready-to-go stellar team, so it didn't matter if Bill didn't wait his turn. Well, it's no more Hillary Clinton's "turn" than it is Obama's "turn", no more a woman's "turn" than a black's "turn". So, how about we put that one to rest.

I know Obama has upset Clinton's campaign plan, as she had to announce her candidacy earlier than she had planned, and she didn't get to bank so much more money than any other candidate that no one could match her state after state after state come the primaries/caucuses, and she hasn't been able to keep to her script of Democrats shouldn't be going after each other but after the Republicans, and she didn't get to run a general election campaign all through the primary season, and I suppose this has upset some people, Hillary Clinton among them, but I say, what a relief, that we actually have a real campaign and a real choice.

All of that said, as I've said here many times before, I've been voting for the Democratic presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972, no matter if my preferred candidate was the nominee or not, so if it's Hillary Clinton in 2008, that's who I'll vote for, but I don't have to to want her to be the candidate.

The first Tuesday in Novemember 2006: Mrs. Clinton wins re-election to the United States Senate, spending MILLIONS in excess of what she needed to beat the lamest of opposition. Conclusion: She hired some staff to groom them for her expected mid-year 2007 announcement for president.

Facing the insurgent Barack Obama, before Christmas decorations are taken down in January 2007, Mrs. Clinton announces she is in it to win, knowing that Senators Biden and Dodd --- with their impressive Senate records --- are contemplating a presidential candidacy. So much for waiting your turn.

I do not object to political oportunism. It is part of a politician's DNA -- as it must be. What I object to is "the pot calling the kettle black."

Hillary Clinton gets damned for everything- like John Kerry, she must have planned this all out 20 years ago. Do you think she threw in Monica Lewinsky just for the heck of it? Cripes if she can plan ahead that well it will be interesting to see her next move. 

Personally I find the idea repugnant that it is either Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton's time or that either of them earned it. That's what they should be out proving now.  

 "And, I might add, that I find it quite interesting that Hillary Clinton took absolutely no time for reflection on anything after her 8 years as First Lady, as she didn't even wait to get out of the White House, not exactly the sign of someone who has patience and thinks taking stock and reflecting on what comes next in one's life is something that's perhaps better accomplished if there's some distance between the last chapter, especially if it's been a very turbulent chapter, and the next chapter. Perhaps that's why Hillary Clinton still seems so focused on, even obsessed with, the old Clinton-Republican battles of the 90s - her old "I've been fighting these battles for the last 15 years and I can keep it up another 8" mantra"

Hillary Clinton is not some kind of baby, okay? What's with the weird Clinton boner around here? And what does it prove exactly if she didn't take time off to your satisfaction? Maybe you can put her on the couch a little bit more just like every other two bit amateur pundit psychologist does on the tee vee every night. She'd been a political figure for a very long time without a seat of her own. Did you ever see the Hunting of the President by any chance? If I'd spent 8 years batting in DC with a scandal & impeachment proceedings I think I'd make my exit post-haste as well. She saw an opportunity & took it, just as Obama did. Uh... big deal?

A Senate seat is a 6 year term. I don't think Chuck Schumer is going anywhere soon. If she didn't want to run to be a House Rep or wait six years, she didn't have much of a choice but to jump in, did she? What does it supposedly prove to you about her character that she left open the option to run for President? That she plans ahead? Wow that is so evil it simply knocks the breath out of my chest. Everything you are saying about her just reinforces to me that she is a smart cookie. 

In my opinion, Barak Obama got a little ahead of himself. Or a lot. Audacity is kind of an empty suit, you know. It's supposed to be a contest. I'm glad you think his presence in the race somehow transforms it into a "real choice." Personally I still think the field stinks overall & Hillary Clinton is the only person of potential presidential caliber.

And Mike Gravel, god love him, is really the only person of any historical significance in the race. 

... when it comes to WAR, I don't care HOW anyone reached their decision. I want them to make the RIGHT decision.

Millions --- yes millions --- of average citizens around the WORLD took to the streets begging, praying, beseeching Cheney-Bush not to invade Iraq. And they didn't have the National Intellgience Estimate at their disposal. I'll bet you this: most of these average citizens would have read it, if they had had it.

Iowa and NH will be finished by Jan. 10th and that's not even soon enough for me.

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain

My first online experience was playing Spades. I left the group before I got thrown out because I kept yelling, "Don't attack Iraq." I was in the minority but I didn't back down. I stayed and tried my best to explain how our government was skewing things. They didn't believe me. That's when I found Wes.

I'm no expert by any means but I knew a snow job when I saw it.

Hillary voted for the IRW because she thought she had to if she stood a chance being president. Just imagine if she voted against it. She'd be a hero today. Now, she's just treading water. As far as I'm concerned her vote for K/L sunk her ship.

"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark

It doesn't seem to have sunk yet, but it is taking on water.

I'm waiting for Oprah to hit the streets with her torpedos in tow.

I think that ex-Presidents (and their first ladies, in this case) have a natural reluctance to diss and/or tie the hands of a sitting President. When that vote came, Bush didn't have much of a history of President, and I think that giving the sitting Pesident some leeway was high on her list of priorities in making her decision.

Her speech to the Senate, though, had all the right words, especially in the context of the time and her time in the White House.

I firmly believe that there was much more to her vote than simple "political expediency and calculation."

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

...that one of the reasons I was drawn to General Clark was PRECISELY because he wanted to "tie the hands of a sitting President" --- because it knew invading Iraq was WRONG.

You are correct about one thing in your last sentence: Political expediency and calculation were part of Mrs. Clinton's vote on the Iraq War Resolution. Nearly 4,000 dead, plus, plus all the rest --- and somehow "polical expediency" is acceptable?

of taking someone's assumption and opinion and passing it around as a fact. (Not pickung in Gordon - he just happened to repeat the offensive phrase.) There is absolutely NO proof that this was behind her IWR vote; however someone, somewhere, some time ago assumed this was the case, wrote it down, blogged it, put it in a newpaper column or pundit show or whatever and therefore it traveled around the world as truth - and keeps getting repeated often enough so that it becomes entrenched. And people on this blog write it as though it came from her mouth. That's one more thing wrong about politics. People do and say anything to advance their agenda. Truth or a lie?

We bitch about Faux news reporting opinion as fact and we do the same thing here.

We need to replace their liars with our liars.

I don't think you read my comment closely, or if you did, I didn't write it clearly enough.

Wes Clark would not have been biased from being in the White House toward giving a sitting President early in his first time some wiggling room. So if my premise is on the mark at all, it would have been easier for Clark to oppose the IWR than it was for Hillary.

I'm sure that political calculation was part of her reasoning, but I don't think it was her sole motivation. Her remarks to the Senate before the vote clearly indicated that she was worried about abusing the resolution.

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

'number one' (as Richardson would say):

Lest we forget, Wes Clark did work in the WH.
(And wouldn't it be interesting to witness how that "experience" would play if Wes Clark had found his way into this race and was now running head to head with hillary?)

And... 'number two'

Hillary said in one of the '08 debates that she
would be reluctant to tie the hands of the president given how congress attempted to tie the hands of her husband during the Balkans action.

(I can't recall for sure if that was by way of explanation of her IWR vote, 1 or 2, but she say it, she did. Another inconvenient truth...)

"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor."  -- Mark Twain