Let's Talk
Submitted by jordans11 on January 10, 2008 - 4:43pm.
Barack Obama | CCN | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | c | Democratic politics
Hello fellow Clarkies! Let me get right to it: I do not consider myself to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. I do not hate her, I do not even dislike her, but I am not a solid supporter. I do, however, consider myself to be a strong Wes Clark supporter. Between the time that Wes made the decision to endorse Hillary and now, I get the sense that most Clarkies have either chosen Hillary as their horse, or have packed up and left. Every time I visit CCN I see diaries in support of “Hilldawg” as I now refer to her, I see diaries justifying support for her, and others pointing out the flaws of Barack Obama and John Edwards. The purpose of this diary is to open up a discussion. First of all, I want to raise the question: is there room for dissent here? I also want to – in the most civil way possible – present a neutral view of the race and my thoughts on Hillary Clinton. I wrote my first DailyKos diary on February 9th, 2007 entitled “Assessing a Clark Candidacy”. After it became clear that I was on a mission for Wes Clark, other Clarkies lured me to CCN, where I’ve always been welcomed with open arms and kindness. Wes Clark supporters are probably the most reasonable people in politics, and I hope that all of you will consider my thoughts and not mistake them for attacks on anyone.
First of all, let me tell you that Wes Clark is the reason I care about politics. I was inspired by his campaign in 2004 when I was only 14 years old. He is absolutely the epitome of a dream candidate, and everyone here knows why. I didn’t want the Democratic party to make the mistake of NOT nominating the General twice. I began writing diaries in support of Clark on DailyKos and soon came up with an idea to raise money for him in pledges. After a couple postings I had gotten several hundred people to pledge over $110,000 to Clark08. I made a spreadsheet with all the pledges and names and wrote a letter in which I literally begged Wes to run. I also created a Draft Clark for President myspace page (www.myspace.com/draftclark -- I still keep it up) where I spent hours and hours looking for Clark supporters and adding them. I reached 900 friends before I decided I couldn’t stand one more minute of adding supporters one by one. I tried to get people to sign the Clark for President petition, and I think I probably was responsible for about 100 signatures or so. My point is that everyone has their hero. For many it’s MLK. For many it’s Ghandi. For me it’s Wes Clark. It was an amazing experience to finally be able to meet him in Seattle. Only those who are truly lucky get a chance to shake the hand of a person they idolize.
So you can imagine my disappointment when Wes declared he was not running in 2008. I was depressed for days and I felt torn inside that he had endorsed Hillary. It’s not that I disliked her, I was simply not convinced. Having Clark as the first presidential candidate I ever experienced caused me to have a very high bar for who to throw my support behind. None of the candidates this time around even remotely compare to him. I remember the day when Wes came to CCN and blogged with supporters about the reasons he was endorsing Hillary. Many thanked him for coming and respected his decision, and many announced their disappointment in his judgment. His myspace page was pummeled with negative comments and I spent many hours contacting those who had commented and urging them to show a little respect. Some apologized. I wrote a diary on DailyKos called “We Lost Our Best Candidate Today” that made the rec list. Among other things, it slammed those who removed themselves from the WesPAC mailing list because of the Hillary endorsement.
After the dust settled I took a good look at Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd, and weighed everything. I ended up nowhere. For months I remained undecided and struggled with Wes’s defense of Hillary’s Kyl-Lieberman vote. It was the first time I had ever looked at something Wes wrote and deep down inside, no matter how hard I tried to change my mind, disagreed with him. He was wrong. I looked through some of his old writings and quotes to try to make some sense of it and all I could find was Clark saying what a terrible mistake it had been to label Korea, Iraq, and Iran as the “Axis of Evil.” All I could find was months of months of Wes calling for open dialog with Iran and saying that Joe Lieberman was someone who has never worn the uniform and never thought seriously about national security. It just didn’t make sense to me that he could support the labeling of a state organization as a “terrorist” group in a resolution that was authored by Joe Lieberman. His defense of it did calm my initial outrage at the passage of the resolution, and I could never lose an ounce of admiration for Wes over this. It was only about two days before the Iowa caucus that I penned a diary in support of Joe Biden because he appeared to be the best to me on his own merits. That didn’t last long.
So Wes wasn’t able to convince me that Hillary is the best candidate. What did I do? I organized a StopIranWar.com petition drive on campus here in Seattle. I convinced the Young Democrats that WesPAC is an organization worth supporting. I kept on supporting Wes Clark, even though I was still undecided on the Hillary endorsement. One topic I’d like to raise for discussion is this – is there room on CCN and within the Clark community for people like me who don’t support Hillary Clinton as their first choice? The primaries are putting huge strains on the party. The animosity I’m sensing between the supporters of the three candidates is shocking. I recently posted a comment defending a statement of John Edwards and there was talk of banishing me. It feels like you are treated as though you are an outsider if you don’t support Hillary. My opinion is this – WesPAC and CCN is a community of Wes Clark supporters. All of the General’s soldiers should be welcomed to this site regardless of their views on ANY candidate for president. It’s not HillPAC, it’s WesPAC. All of us have worked hard for Wes Clark – we should never view each other as enemies because we are all united by a common admiration for one of the nation’s greatest leaders.
Now I’d like to quickly share my thoughts on all three of the remaining candidates and get some honest feedback from all of you.
First of all Barack Obama. I remember a diary on CCN recently that proclaimed Hillary was the most electable democrat. The claim was based on a poll where democrats were asked who they thought had the best chance of winning. They chose Clinton. To put it bluntly, asking a group of democrats who they think is the most electable has nothing to do with who is actually the most electable. The clearest indicator of who is most electable comes from looking at the head to head matchups. Have a look at the RCP averages of several of these scenarios…
48.8% John Mccain
43.8% Hillary Clinton
48.3% Hillary Clinton
43.5% Mike Huckabee
These are based on an average of usually the last 3 or 4 polls taken. Hillary is losing to John Mccain and beating Mike Huckabee by about 5%. Now take a look at Obama…
45% Obama
45% Mccain
49.4% Obama
39.0% Huckabee
Obama is tied with Mccain and beats Huckabee by more than 10%. I think that Barack Obama is more electable and it’s hard to make the case that Hillary is in the face of those numbers. Another reason I think he’s more electable is because independents and young people – two critical groups in this coming election, have favored him heavily in both Iowa and New Hampshire. If nominated, the democratic base will support him, and he will be able to draw in a large number of independents that may not go for Hillary. I may be wrong, but this is how I see it at this point.
As far as substance goes with Obama, I generally like what he has to say. He opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (just like Wes). He understands that we need to curb lobbyist influence. He is advocating a more progressive tax policy. He is advocating good environmental policy. Also, and perhaps more importantly – he is inspiring millions of people to get involved in the political process for the first time. He is firing up crowds everywhere and is really injecting new life into this party. He has a great, strong wife, and you gotta admit, there is a lot to like. On the flip side, I have concerns. I am concerned about his foreign policy experience. I read that he has never been to Latin America and that he has only been to Europe once. We desperately need to reach out to our allies in Europe, and Obama is obviously not as equipped to do it. Could he do it? I don’t doubt it – with a strong state department team. So Obama is an acceptable candidate to me.
Now on to Edwards. Have a look at these polls from the same source as the others…
46.7% Edwards
43.0% Mccain
52.0% Edwards
37.7% Huckabee
Edwards is the only democrat who beats Mccain. He also crushes Huckabee by over 14%. He is probably very electable in a general election.
The thing I have taken a liking to most about John Edwards is his message of standing up for the middle class. He has the most credibility for me with taking on the entrenched corporate interests like huge corporations, health insurance companies, and oil companies. The income gap in this country is growing dramatically and it’s because of institutions favoring the wealthy. Because of Edwards’ background, I really believe that he would be a fighter for the middle class and work to make our economy benefit everyone, like it is supposed to in a fair capitalist system. All that being said, he doesn’t have a ton of experience in foreign policy, which is a concern. I think he gets the big foreign policy picture, but I would feel more comfortable with someone who is more experienced.
And now on to Hillary. I actually do like Hillary. I like that she has always been a public servant. I like that she is a woman, and that fact that we could have woman president is something to be proud of. I think she was an important advisor to President Clinton and she knows foreign policy well. She also has a knack for being extremely specific and hast vast overall policy knowledge that Obama lacks at this point. Also with Hillary, it’s virtually guaranteed that Wes Clark will play a big role in her administration, which is a BIG plus in my book. I liked her emotional moment – I got to see a real, genuine side of her that I wish I could see more often. I think she is motivated by a deep love of country. On the flipside, it annoys me very much that Hillary still takes money from lobbyists and talks about taking them on at the same time. She has received the most money from the people are obstructing progress on healthcare, yet she talks about taking them on as well. My biggest problem with Hillary Clinton is that she unites the Republican party against her. I am not just saying this to “repeat media talking points”, I’m saying it from my own experience growing up in a conservative town. My dad is an independent who leans republican. He is going to vote democratic, but will not vote for Hillary because he doesn’t feel she is honest. I also think she alienates some young people. I was at a Young Democrats meeting today and the president asked those to raise their hands who were extremely angry about the results of the NH primary. About 40-50% raised their hands. As I watched the coverage of Hillary’s victory in my dorm, everyone who passed by was angry or disappointed that Obama was not ahead – and these are not republicans. There are no republicans at my school. These are democratic college students, and there is a lot of anti-Hillary feeling among them. There is a feeling that she represents the past and not the future. Independents have often come up to me and said “You guys may have my vote if it’s Obama, but no way if it’s Hillary.” Try to look past what these people are saying and whether or not you agree – the important thing is that they are saying it. I’m trying to be as honest as possible. Hillary may prove all these people wrong, and as more see her in action, more may drop their negative preconceptions of her. I don’t know. I think she’s a good candidate, I think many people dislike her for no valid reason, I think she is unfairly treated, and I think she’d make a good president. I’m just not sold on her electability.
I know this was a long diary, and I’m sorry for that ;)
Let’s have a real discussion of these issues with no anger, no frustration, and no animosity. We are all Clarkies here, regardless of our differences. Dissent and dialog will only makes us stronger.
Snark and namecalling should be left at the door. Respect and disagreement can coexist.
On a personal note, the use of the term "HillDawg" calls to mind too easily the B**ch term so casually thrown around on some self-named leftie sites, so be aware though you may not intend it, what might be considered a term of affection to you could be seen as derogatory and demeaning to others.
I see your point and I agree that it's better to be safe than sorry, but it is a really cool nickname. It's a shame it may be offensive. I really loved BigDawg.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
I'd never refer to Obama as "my boy" for instance, but some Obama supporters seem to. (Maybe because his wife called him that????) I find it just a step away from more derogatory language.
Maybe it's all about the 'tone'.... I don't know. It's really hard to convey 'tone' well just in text on the screen. The default has always been to be MORE courteous rather than less, so that there's no misunderstanding.
Maybe we should all go meet in Second Life -- that way we can 'see' faces rather than just type.
primary reasons I am not aligning with Wes for Hillary; but I don't know why I have to justify that to anyone on Wes' site he does believe in debate and discussion and airing of views being essential to inform and 'found' a living breathing democracy;
synthetic environment Americans deserve what the rest of civilized world has affordable guaranteed single-payer healthcare.
I'd love to hear your input. You don't have to justify it to anyone, but this is supposed to be an exchange of ideas.
but I would recommend anything you wrote and I will read it later and hope I have the energy to participate in a discussion here;
synthetic environment Americans deserve what the rest of civilized world has affordable guaranteed single-payer healthcare.
That always gets us screwed in the end. It's like picking the person Republicans like the most. Guess what, Republicans aren't going to vote for us, even if we do put up the person they like the best out of all our candidates.
I think it comes down to framing. If we keep the frame Republicans have been using (fear), we're going to lose. Edwards may poll OK now, but the Republicans haven't started pushing people's buttons with their frame yet. If we let them keep their frame, they will win.
So where does that leave us? IMO, we need to change the frame. Who can change the frame?
Well, I think Obama can. He's doing that with his Hope/Change/Yes We Can message. That can work. People can get caught up in Hope and drop their leaning towards voting on Fear. Obama reaks of shattering the Fear frame. Good for him. We need to shatter that frame to win in November.
I also think Hillary can. Instead of creating a new frame, I see Hillary breaking the Fear frame apart with the same frame we had through Bill Clinton's administration. We were all pretty excited about the future in 2000--so excited and so positive that we became complacent and we let GWB "win" (regardless of whether he actually won or not, it should not have been even close). We had a plan for the future and GWB f'd it up. Let's get back to that future. We had OBL under control and GWB f'd it up. Let's get back to that plan. We were making progress in the Middle East and GWB blew the place up. Let's get back to that progress. I'd call this a Competence frame. And it can work.
Now, I don't think the Competence frame is as exciting as the Hope frame. The Competence frame is kind of boring, like, well, competence. Nobody ever jumps up and cheers for competence. It's kind of just expected to be there, until it's missing, that is.
On the other hand, the Hope frame is kind of like a balloon. If somehow the air comes out of it, it's going to become extremely flat. So, it's definitely riskier than the Competence frame.
As I've said, I'm a boring engineer. I've picked the more conservative option--the Competence frame. IMO, the Clinton administration, the team that Hillary has picked up to work with again, wasn't broken so we don't need to fix it.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
To me doesn't mean picking the person the republicans like the most.
It means picking the person who has the best chance of winning in the general election. Looking at it from that angle, I see it as more of a question of who will bring in the most independent voters and voters who have not participated before.
You have some good points on the "competence" framing however.
I think that's a good point.
However, I worry that trying to attract "independent" voters often means the same thing as trying to find the person the Republicans like the most. It's a fine line that I'm trying to point out here. If you're changing the frame to attract independent voters, then that's a good thing. But if you're just moving toward what they'd already like, then the odds are that attracting independent voters and picking the person the Republicans like the most is the same thing.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Ever go to a game wearing the away team's colors? I believe in most places, it can be done without taking one's life into one's hands. But if you walk into the bleachers full of drunken saps after the home team just lost to your team and shout, "The home team sucks!" you're liable to get the shit kicked out of you. They're going to go to jail, and you're going to be in pain. In other words, everyone gets screwed in that case.
You're also pretty naive if you walk over to them after the home team has just beat your team and expect them not to razz you a little. They're a group of people, most who have a like for a team in common, they're happy, and they're going to express it. Of course, it's not in their best interest to abuse you to the point that you reach for a baseball bat and start beating someone. You go to jail, and they wind up in pain. Everyone gets screwed again.
But, usually this doesn't happen. Because people accept that fans congregate and a certain restraint is used, on both sides, to protect everyone's feelings and let everyone continue to have fun.
Like it or not, when Wes endorsed Hillary, this place kind of became one of Hillary's home fields. What does that mean? Well, if I go to a Bears-Eagles game at Philadelphia's Lincoln Financial Field, I might wear my Bears colors, and I might discuss relative merits of the teams with my opinion perhaps leaning toward the Bears. But I'm not going to stand up and scream THE EAGLES SUCK. And, honestly, this has nothing to do with the fact that the Eagles, or Philadelphia, owns the field (in fact, I don't think either does, but I'm not really sure). It's because it's a really stupid thing to do and is surely going to ruin the game for me and for everyone around me.
What makes the Linc "home" to the Eagles? Is it the ownership of the stadium? Is it the city? Or, is it more likely the fact that the stadium is filled mostly with Eagles fans? I think it's the fact that it's filled with Eagles fans. (You can probably ask Jets and Giants fans this question considering that they share a stadium and played against each other this year.)
So, yes, for the most part, this site is now filled with Hillary fans. Do we want to act like a bunch of drunken bleacher bums beating up people wearing Obama colors? Or if you're a supporter of some other candidate, do you really want to walk in to Hillary's home field and shout HILLARY SUCKS?
All fans occassionally get carried away. It happens. And it will happen here. But nobody is right when a fight insues.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
nominated, will win in a landslide. That's why the competition between HRC and BO to get nominated will be so heated and dirty. The winner will take all. People are finally sick and tired of the dirty-trick republics and the buffoons they have running.
My suggestion to you and others; don't worry about who others pick or endorse. Stop relying on polls; they're only indicative of a particular moment in time. Do your homework, be open and unbiased, pick your candidate and work your tail off to help them.
I made my choice based on the process of elimination and BO and JRE didn't make the cut. And yes, experience does matter. I've lived through a time when a leader was picked based on his emotional speeches; I don't want to see that again. Ever.
We need to replace their thugs with our thugs.
I think there's a very good chance McCain could win, no matter who our nominee is. UNLESS it's Hillary and she picks Wes as her running mate. Then it's game on.
Thanks jordans11 for your thoughtful (as always) insights.
I'm going to post a comment ms in la posted at Daily Kos a few days ago in response to someone saying Hillary has put Wes's army at risk. ms in la's response explains more clearly than I could why I trust Wes's judgement on this enough to back Hillary.
Before I came to that decision, I was considering Dodd and had donated a few times to his campaign.
I was turned off to JE during his 2004 run, when his record and past actions were looked at, and nothing has changed for me as far as trusting him to be who he now claims to be. Past actions speak louder than current words for me.
Obama has never been an option for me. Too many reasons to list, but mostly I find him arrogant and vague.
I hope that no matter what happens, you hang on to your passion and hope for our country, jordans11. You've got a lot going for you, and a gift for expressing yourself that will take you far.
Anyways, here's what ms in la said that I think sort of pushed me from being a soft Hillary supporter, to one who is now willing to actively work to get her elected.
What I don't understand then... (5+ / 0-)
You say: "She is unqualified to make serious judgment" --"It's proven"- and "She has put his army at risk".
So either you believe:
(A) Wes is supremely unaware that the dire decision he made poses such threats to his army, and as such, unaware of her obvious poor judgment skills - that you have readily detected but that have somehow escaped General Clark's keen scrutiny.
Either that or you believe:
(B) Wes has gone forward with a presidential endorsement in an era of multiple theatre warfare despite being cognizant of all these apparent defects in her judgment and harm she herself has caused to his beloved troops.
Then if it's 'B', and he's not merely judgment-impaired... Why would Wes do that?
I've heard some bloggers call out blind ambition or mere jockeying for political clout - a seat at some future table. Others say he's beholden to the mythical Clinton machinery we hear so much about; Supreme Allied Commander collapses under threat of potential Clinton wrath or some similar theme. Seems pretty far fetched to me... given you too know Wes, you have the added advantage of perspective here.
Do you think that after decades of friendship, he still somehow can't discern her character flaws as skillfully or readily as yourself and others? ... Or that he has chosen to spend his winter back east trying to propel her to Commander in Chief status, risking further damage and harm to his army for some... other, ulterior motives? Or randomly? Or he is simply mistaken...? I can't grasp the logic there.
I can't fathom Wes Clark made a decision of such consequence casually, or as some favor to a buddy, but I also have a really hard time wrapping my mind around any sudden loss of insight into character.
...
My biggest concern is a corp-press prop-up of Obama, kid-gloved up until the nomination, when the swifters descend en masse (the storm after the quiet) and we alll end up fooled again. With McCain-abee and his PNAC backers marching off to wars 3 and 4. I so want to be wrong about that.
by ms in la on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:55:41 PM PST
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Boston RedSox = Hillary
NY Yankees = Barack
Seattle Mariners = Wes CLark
Safco Field = CCN
I see it like this.
Let's say the Yankees, RedSox, and Mariners are in a three way battle for two spots in the playoffs. The Mariners lose, and it comes down to the Yankees vs. RedSox.
Most of the fans at Safeco Field love the Mariners, and a majority of them choose to root for the RedSox. So there is some sniping and bad feelings between those who have chosen the Yankees and the RedSox.
A Mariner fan walks into the stadium wearing only a Mariner jersey. He thinks that some of the RedSox fans are being unfair and says so. There is some talk among those who chose the RedSox that he should be kicked out of the stadium.
He wonders though -- Aren't we all Mariner fans?
You can explain anything with sports ;)
What really happened was you walked in during the middle of a food fight between the RedSox supporters and the Yankee supporters and got slugged with a pie.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Let's just say: It's the deciding game of a tied World Series; top of the 9th inning, in New York. Yankees are ahead of the Red Sox by 1 run. Do you put in Rivera (Clinton) or do you put in some new kid (Obama) who has promise as a closer, but is basically unproven?
Unlike a relief pitcher, there are no totally objective standards to say whether the known quantity was good or not.
Some people didn't like what the Clinton administration did, and if they didn't, that experience is actually a negative.
I think there are two separate arguments being made by non-Hillary fans: whether she has experience and assuming she does whether that experience was in the right direction.
That makes it difficult to discuss because when there are two separate but closely related questions, the argument tends to go circular as people bounce back and forth from one question to the other and try to use example relative to one question to answer the other. If you want to get to the bottom of that kind of discussion, you have to separate out the different questions and stick to the point on each one.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
I feel like our country is in a similar position, right now!
We're in dire need of someone who can "close" the Bush inning and I don't think an inexperienced "reliever" is going to be able to get the job done.
Not this time, anyway. There is far too much at stake right now.
and the horror to me is what msm has done by excluding so many potential 'closers,' starting in '04 with Wes.
Gotta love him. He'a a true pitcher. I can throw as hard as him, but he can make big league hitters look like fools.
myself- but you are as always a thoughtful observer of events. I know that when I saw Wes out at the first YearlyKos gathering in Vegas he certainly stressed the need for us to reach out to undecided voters & to those who feel disenfranchised from the political process. If I recall he did much the same when I saw him in Baltimore prior to the 04 election, suggesting that reaching out beyond "our" own domains might be the right card to play, rather than engaging in so use a colorful phrase "partisan trench warfare" (my phrase not his).
Sometimes I look at the American flag & I think- what do those white stripes, the white background really mean? I think these are the people we need to reach out to, the ones who aren't normally engaged & that this vast invisible "grey" zone is where we, even as partisans, could most helpfully direct our efforts. For Barack he is said to be bringing new people into the party (though I also hear a crossover argument), for Clinton, she will bring us our sleepers, our invisibles as she showed in NH.
That said this is now the season of choosing, of conversions & of choices.
I am already bone weary of the hope & change meme from certain campaigns (not the fault of the candidates so much as a theme that has been so oddly handled & mangled by the media so as to have become nearly meaningless) trying to market & sell candidates like to much soap powder or corn flakes.
We are losing a number of wars. Not only Iraq, but Afghanistan & the so called war on terror, so called war on poverty, so called war on drugs, etc. The economy shows signs of recession & heath care is in, and has been in chronic deep crisis despite the efforts to address it more than a decade ago (Hillary Clinton was famously part of that effort). Federal agencies are broken, underfunded, or badly compromised. States are starved for funds. An entire generation of NCLB kids are hitting maturity in a nearly brain damaged state. The specter of global warming haunts us as globalization hastens in a consumer lifestyle that is unsustainable & based on human rights abuse issues we can only have nightmares about. Aggressive domestic spying & widespread issues in the judiciary are cause for much more than alarm. And this is to say nothing at all about our plummeting influence around the world & our diminishing ability to positively impact any number of issues.
The next president will walk into a train wreck. We must send veterans, not rookies.
I'm for sending seasoned pros who have direct firsthand experience in exactly the kind of problem solving & critical thinking & economic midwifery exhibited by & embodied by the Clintons.
I surely hope Senator Obama will develop his glowing potential & begin to make manifest the change he would like to see in specific successful policy initiatives in the Senate & become a major positive force in the Democratic party in years to come.
window here when Wes endorsed Hillary. Many still lurk, but don't post when the discussion becomes all Hillary, all the time.
Rather than saying something negative, we say nothing at all.
As to your discussion of the candidates, I am famous (I think) for not currently wanting to vote for any of them.
Obama is inspiring, but very inexperienced. He would need a strong VP and strong Democratic Congress to help get things done. I do believe he has a vision of where he wants to take the country and I would be comfortable with it.
I can't support John Edwards. The amount of good he could do by working with the poor instead of talking about them would be staggering. Just as Jimmy Carter has accomplished more through the Carter Center than he did as President; Edwards could do more by not being President.
Hillary - she's OK. I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton - and I don't know that I look forward to a repeat of the Clinton years. Hillary hasn't inspired me with hope for the future, but I believe she would be a competent President. I know many believe Hillary is the best chance for Wes to have an important role in our government, but I really don't trust the current Democratic politicians enough to believe it would happen.
I'll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is; we need a Democratic President, but more importantly we need a STRONG Democratic Congress.
And I'll get in trouble for saying it here, but we really need the Vietnam generation to start leaving office. It's time for some fresh blood and ideas in Washington.
Ultimately I would love to vote for a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket -- anyone think that might happen?
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
:)
it is possible that such a ticket could happen, it depends on the philosophy of the eventual nominee- will they prefer to reinforce the ticket with someone similar to themselves, or seek instead to balance it by choosing a running mate more or less opposite themselves who shores them up. Plus - the electoral map looms large, as will the current events of the days leading up to the election.
I don't know what happens if they try to play the diversity card all the way across.
I'd rather like to see them draw in some talent from some sectors other than the Senate, really.
Ultimately I would love to vote for a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket -- anyone think that might happen?
Personally, I'd prefer a Clinton/Clark or Obama/Clark ticket. I don't imagine an Obama/Clark ticket since the good General endorsed Clinton, though.
I do think Clinton provides the best platform for Clark to have influence within the executive branch. Their Arkansas ties go back a ways, and he says they have a friendship. Why not Clinton/Clark?
I don't have enough confidence in the Clinton campaign for it to happen. I am famous in my little part of the world for seeing the glass always half empty :)
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
I believe it is much closer to reality.
What clark said last night intensified my belief ( when ask if he'll be Hillary's VP: "You never know what's gonna happen" ~Wes Clark
WE all know, over the years, Genaral Clark's pat answer for related questions is: I'm in the business community...and so forth
Something else Clark sid about six months ago peaked my interest....he mentioned that "he only needed 1 more year in the business community(6 months left to go..umm that's convention time isn't?)"
and from Hillary herself...
We also asked her if General Wesley Clark would be her vice presidential running mate since he has endorsed her and has been out campaiging for her. She said it's too soon to make that decision, but that he will have a role in her adminstration.
A vote for Hillary is a Vote for Wes Clark
and I agree with much of what you have to say. I read you over at Kos, and have been impressed with your research and well thought out opinions. I, too, am an admirer of Gen Clark. Quite frankly his endorsement of Hillary Clinton absolutely swayed me.
I could easily throw my support to Obama or Edwards on the issues. In fact, I actually have a great deal of respect for Sen McCain's character even though I disagree with him on several hot-button issues. However, the op-ed he co-authored with Joe Lieberman sealed the deal and I couldn't possibly vote for him.
Bottom line: I think Gen Clark becomes a key player in a Clinton administration. I do not believe that would be the case with anyone else. If Hillary picks Clark as her veep, I think she goes all the way, and I'm happy as a clam.
Since Clark isn't going to be at the top of the ticket, that remains my hope. I beleive Hillary is more likely to run Gen Clark on her ticket than anyone else. And that's why I support Hillary Clinton at this stage.
I didn't start out that way, but Wes's
endorsement as well as the points that
shortie makes about the ability to go
farther faster because we don't have to
go back to "start" again, as well as
Hillary herself and the gratuitous
venom spewed at her, convinced me that
she is the superior candidate. I was
also struck by something said by the
right-wing radio host Wes was on with
last night (the one Maria called and
straightened out). While the radio guy
prefers McCain, he did state that of all
the Democratic candidates, only Hillary
would be up to being CIC. I believe the
R's will pull out the "fear" card again.
Why not? It's worked every time. I think
Hillary is the only D running who can calm
those fears.
I can't stand that Andrew Sullivan article comparing Obama to Kennedy. I remember Kennedy and what it was like living then. It's not the way Sullivan wrote it and he was born in 1963, the year Kennedy died, so he only knows from hearsay, as good as he thinks his second hand sources might
be. Hillary also remembers the Kennedy years and also the Truman and Eisenhower years. I thinks that's a plus for Wes and I think it's a plus for her. Experience actually is a good thing.
Hillary is two months younger than I am (60). I was five when Truman left office and only 13 when Eisenhower left office. I don't remember Truman at all, I have a vague memory of the 1956 Eisenhower-Stevenson race, but most of what I remember of Eisenhower is as an ex-President. Maybe Hillary has a much better memory than I have.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
And all I remember about him was that he was the "shiny-headed man (bald and sweaty) who was on PBS ALL day (Watergate Hearings) instead of Sesame Street and The Electric Company." I remember flipping through the channels (you know, with a dial) and thinking, "Nope, shiny-headed man there (flip), shiny headed man (flip), shiny-headed man there too (flip)..." Of course back then, the ... didn't go on to long as we only had like 6 channels.
In fact, I was quite convinced at the time that all Republicans were shiny-headed.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
When I was really little turning on the TV in the morning and seeing the test pattern. Looked like the Indian on a Big Chief tablet. Then Liberace came on. I thought he was so sparkly!!
Now instead of hearing the national anthem at 2am and then seeing a test pattern, we get to watch them try to convince us to spend $200 to make our feet look pretty or some other such nonsense.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
...give Chris's blog back to him, speaking of excessive irrelevance. Sorry I got it started.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Do I get to choose the weapon? If so, I prefer the term "passing out."
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I was an evangelical and afraid JFK would be a disaster. Several years later I was an anti-war Democrat and later a McGovern supporter.
I was six when I helped with the campaign for Kennedy and I remember it. I also remember President Eisenhower before him. I'm 6 years younger than you. You just weren't tuned into politics at a young age, I'll bet.
If it wasn't baseball, basketball, "American Bandstand," or girls, I wasn't too interested.
Anybody remember Lik-m-Aid (or however the hell it was spelled)? For a dime I could get some Lik-m-Aid and a Three Musketeers bar. Seems like I could take in a double-feature, cartoon, and serial on a Saturday afternoon for a quarter.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Candy was much different back then and Coke was Coca Cola in a bottle that cost a nickle for the longest time.
around corner in Bklyn.
Tried to edit that I saw JFK on Senate floor; I was with tour group in 'balcony.'
I remember Italian Ice in squishy paper cones and I'm more like Wes jr's age. I miss that. Why don't they sell it that way anymore? It's looser than that now. It used to be that it came in an ice cream carton and they kind of shaved it out with an ice cream scoop. I was 8 and my sister used to walk me down to the Woolco and I'd have a quarter which was enough for an italian ice or a candy bar. I always had to choose. It would depend on which flavors of italian ice they had that day. Watermelon was my favorite.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Dunno xcept I bought it from a small mom/pop shop, under the el, in bklyn. el gone.
'Shop around the corner' gone. Can get Ital ices in grocery store, ice cream depart : Luigi's. various flavors.
...a brand New Jersey.
Where did Chca go? To pay her Texas.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Krugman says we grew up in the best time economically in our country's history. Everybody got a chance to prosper with Bretton Woods.
so our folks, greatest generation, saw it all, and watched the prosperity. Now not so much.
Apt we lived in bklyn still there, neighborhood looks great, apt bldgs now COOPs! 'Mine' going for $6 somethings!!!!
in a drug store. Had to make cokes from scratch. Poor in just the right amount of the coke concentrate, add just the right amount of fizz to it and stir it. They had coke quality guys who would come around and order a coke and make sure it was just right. I never flunked anyway. And we could add a squirt of cherry or chocolate or butternut concentrate to make great tasty cokes. And of course real malted milks, not just milk shakes.
Ah, the good old days. I like these days much better in many ways though - maybe in most ways.
So no more soda jerks, I am just a jerk now. Lol!
Of course, I sometimes skipped the Coke and went straight for the cherry phosphate.
I discovered Playboy at Veazey's and couldn't believe it!
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
"Institution" is my word for the structural fabric of something. The foundation and framework that makes things work. On the other hand we need "inspiration" to shake up the institution when it becomes too moribund and self-serving, forgetting the vigor of its youth and the goals of its founders.
Let's take another analogy. Religion. We know the ills that beset religion when heavy dogmas and systematic theology (of whatever sort in whatever religion) triumph over the spirit of the movement when it first began. Institutions tend to become self-serving and self-perpetuating and from time to time we need some folks to come along and shake the framework hard revitalize the institution to make it true to the foundation on which it was based.
I could go on with that, but of course the institution here is the beltway, the congress and also the executive branch the foundation is the constitution. The framework sometimes gets moribund with good old boy (and gal) club politics, compromise, patting each others back, and all the rest that leads us away from standing up for our founding principles into a state of rigidness and even rigor mortis.
This institution really needs to be shaken up. The pentagon needs to be brought under control, the congress needs to be responsive to the people, the executive branch need to do its job and reach out to the world and to its citizens. So we need inspiration to bring about "change" in the sense of shaking the place up and bringing us back to our founding principles embodied most obviously in the Constitution. Inspirational movements do shake things up, but they seldom last long. They need the institutional support to make their message become reality. And if the inspirational ones take over, the pigs soon become the humans (Animal Farm).
So that is why I am a Wes Clark supporter. As for the candidates, they are all seasoned politicians (except for Edwards whom I will put aside as an empty suit wtih a message he did not invent and no substance to back up his one meme). Obama is inspirational, but he has long been part of the institution (in Illinois, in Washington) as well. He has a soaring message and is an inspiring speaker. I have always liked him. However, I do not see Hillary as antethetic to change. She has experience not just in getting things done that needed to be done, but also has been an agent of change. Bill Clinton was inspiring. He faced a Republican majority but still managed to get many programs and policies in place. He got the economy reinvigorated, he gave us a huge surplus, and, well, he inspired us.
Hillary was part of that and carries that legacy on in her own work withing the institution. Not as inspiring, but competent, a proven agent of change, and with the exprience at getting things done. To be effective, Obama would need a Democratic congress to get things done or be sucked into a situation in which the administration could not act on its inspirational message. Hillary will get things done. The Clintons have a track record for doing just that. Give hereven a slim majority (of course we would like a veto proof congress, but we may not achieve that goal) and she will find a way.
And I do not find Hillary boring and non-ispirational though she does not have that mantle. We need Obama in te party, we need voices that raise our hopes and lead us on. We also need experience and a proven track record. My first choice would be Wes Clark, but I think a Clinton administration is our best hope. A Clinton/Obama ticket would galvanize the voters with Wes as a senior statesman in state, defence or United Nations. He is also inspiritng and a Clinton /Clark ticket would put Wes in position to help being his message across and if, as Clinton says, the VP would be given a major role (not like CHeney) say as roving ambassador or some such thing it would be great.
I don't believe in tearing done the institution, only renovating it. I don't believe we did what we should have in Iraq by outlawing the folks who provided the framework and disbanding the army. I would like to see more Jim Webbs and the others who are helping to revitalize Congress. But Jim Webb was part of the institution and had experience not just charisma.
We need a revitalized institution and a message of hope. We need charasmatic leaders and competent ones. I believe both Hillary and Obama will be in the forefront of seeing this done with a dem majority in both houses of Congress and a strong, capable and experienced administration. I see her as the best hope we have now despite many things that I might have felt earlier on. As always, Wes is my inspiration and his part in a Hillary administration will be the leaven that creates both change and responsible, capable leadership. We need vision and substance and Obama at this point is a little weak on the substance side.
I like this thread.
Uncle Noel
...Wes Clark Debating and Pie Eating Society.
I so agree with Kat. Disagreements always challenge me, 'cause I worry when someone I value disagrees with me. It causes me to think more deeply.
I don't start a whole lot of blogs. It seems I don't have very many original ideas, thoughts, or beliefs. They develop in reaction to what others have said. That's why I treasure this place so much.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I appreciate it. But I'm a better analyzer and sythesizer than I am a creator. And I try to write clearly and precisely. Often I don't know what I think or believe until I start trying to communicate it to others.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
often is the root of creativity. Putting together facts to create a new view of a situation is one of the factors. I have often thought that creative people have funning little synapses things going on in their brain so that they don't zing off in the same direction as others. Be that as it may, synthesis often has the same effect of producing a new (and hence creative) view of a situation. I love analysis and synthsis.
Especially when it's people you respect and admire so much. I welcome it, however. If I can have a reasoned discussion with someone, where we each present our points of view reasonably and rationally, then I see it as a victory for both of us.
I'm learning about law right now and one things we are learning about is the adversarial method in which two lawyers oppose each other. The idea is that each case will be presented, all relevent facts will be considered, and somewhere between the two sides, the truth will be revealed. Disagreement is a beautiful thing ;)
make my feet look pretty. Might as well donate it to a worthy cause. I'm grateful to just have feet.
You are one of the most articulate young men I have ever read on the topic of politics. Great to see you're in Seattle, too!
I, too, am a huge supporter of Wes, but have not yet jumped on board with Hillary - or any of the candidates. I can't say that I dislike her either, but I have some of the same concerns you have, especially in regards to a head to head with McCain. I know a lot of independents who would find it very difficult to support her. The big draw, though, is of course Wes in her administration. So if she gets the nom, I'll work hard to get her elected.
As far as Obama is concerned, I happen to like him - a lot. My major concern with him is experience - especially in the foreign arena and with our military. That's why i haven't jumped on his train.
Edwards? Well, edwards left a sour taste in my mouth since the 2003 presidential campaign. His campaign did some extremely shady things against the Clark campaign - and I have no patience for that. I also don't like the fact he never did pro bono work while he was an attorney. Honestly, I have a sixth sense with him that I will not ignore - no matter how electable he might be.
My visits to CCN have become much more infrequent since Wes announced his support for Hillary. I used to read almost every day - I've never been much of a commentator, though. Honestly, it was too painful to know Wes wouldn't be on the ticket this time around to spend too much time on the blog. I am very disapointed in our elective structure, in general, as well as the mainstream media who make it nearly impossible for anybody but their chosen "horses" to get a chance in this process.
I was surprised, however, to come on some threads during the Iowa caucuses and see so much disparaging of candidates, other than Hillary. Actually, disappointed would be a more accurate word. When did it come to this? The points you made about Obama are so true. He is exciting a whole new set of people - and that is so awesome. And he does have some great policies. And I happen to think he has a phenomenal background. I love that he was not raised strictly christian. I love that he is of mixed descent. I love that he spent a sizable amount of time growing up in another country - and it wasn't Europe. His mother sounds like a great woman - and his wife seems like one as well. And it says a lot about a man who can surround himself with great women! Granted, he seriously lacks experience on the world stage of politics, but does that deserve such scorn? Maybe I have missed something, since I have not kept myself so closely involved in these campaigns, but I can't imagine anything his campaign could have done that the Clintons wouldn't be willing to do.
So, finally, thank you for opening a discussion. Even though I don't post often, I felt compelled to tell you your topic was very well thought out and and it was a treat to come here and see it today. I think after reading your post, Wes would be pleased to see another thoughtful supporter of his! So thanks again!
I agree with a lot of what you have said. I find his background also very intriguing and I think it does add a certain weight to his resume. At the same time I do share your concern about his experience. If I knew who would make up his cabinet -- if I could stare into the crystal ball to be sure he surrounds himself with the right people -- I would be a lot more ok with him. Woohoo Seattle! And I'm tired of kind of lurking in the shadows as well. I'm gonna be here often during this primary process if I'm the only one who is undecided within 100 miles. This is CCN -- a place for ALL Clarkies.
as I had hoped at convincing undecided Clarkies to discuss the candidates. I was hoping to get some of the Obama and Edwards supporters to talk more. I miss talking with some of my friends who don't come around as much any more.
I really would like to have a few more objective discussions about the race here, so thank you.
I am so proud of the Democratic party. Just look at the talent that is running let alone the talent that chose not to run.
First. Electablity.
While your national RCP averages show Hillary as the least electable, but if you look at it state by state she cleans up in the electoral vote by bigger margins then Obama or Edwards against all Republican challengers.
So I really don't see that as much of a problem.
I like Obama. He could still get my vote. <u>But</u>and really that says it all. He still has to prove he has the beef.
Edwards has proven to me that he is too combative to run the country. I'd want him in an administration but not at the top.
As it stands right now I'll be caucusing for Hillary on the fifth of February. I totally understand why Wes endorsed her. She sees a positive role for American power, but under moral and institutional constraint. I think the key to this for Wes was another moment of American failure, Rwanda.
As far as the Anti-Clinton stuff goes. It is way over stated. It has become more of a reflex then anything active. Yes there may be some rally effect for the republicans but she also draws new voters and unlike Obama she actually hits a republican leaning demographic in suburban women. A demographic that could actually swing some congressional districts.
One final point. You can also judge her by her enemies. When Edwards did his little forces of the Status Quo fighting change lecture in the last debate. I felt Clinton didn't get angry enough. Is there a person alive today who has had more thrown at her by those force than Hillary. Even her husband doesn't get the consistent negative press and backhanded complements she does. If the amount of change a candidate will bring can be judged by the intensity and volume of opposition shown by the forces of the status quo, Obama is still playing in the minor leagues.
and Wes Clark ;)