An open letter to Gen. Clark, CCN Staff and open minded CCN members
Submitted by James Mitchem on May 31, 2008 - 3:22am.
The time is coming for resolution. It is hardly my place to lecture a 4 star general, particularly as a humble American citizen who has never worn our nation’s uniform or served under the flag. However one does not have to have experienced the passage of two or three generations or to have served in uniform to know right from wrong. Over the past several months I have shifted back and forth between trying defend Obama on this site against charges I believe to be in some cases over blown, Tony Rezko for example, some patently absurd such as charges that Sen. Obama shares the worst views of Rev. Wright, Ayers and the others from right wing talking points, names that are now repeated in a mantra to define the evilness of Obama.
In other cases simply untrue such as rumors and insinuations here that team Obama had cut a deal with Diebold INC to hack the elections, such insinuations were made after the Virginia primary which I personally take a grave insult to the commonwealth of Virginia and on several other occasions when Obama won large victories. Worse still has been the generalized slander directed at Obama that I find all too similar to typical smears directed at Gen. Clark about Iraq and the conduct of the war in Kosovo by over zealous Gore supporters on Daily Kos.
On the other hand there have been periods where I have sat on the side lines and waited for this to all blow over. However, I find it vital to lay out this case regardless of what ever ridicule I have in store as a result as these facts must be stated clearly and on no uncertain terms. My Karma rating is shot, and I'm troll rated as if I were a freeper so If I am to lose my account here it might was well be for something worthwhile if it is going to happen anyway.
Today is the day the question of Florida and Michigan will be resolved in some form or another. Sen. Clinton will accept nothing less than a full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations as she wants them. Rumor has it Florida will be seated in the way Hillary wants it to be, it may be a violation of an agreement Senator Clinton signed last summer but it will be done if the rumors are correct. Michigan is another question all together, rumor has it that there will be elected delegates awarded to Obama from the uncommitted vote which seems to be unacceptable to the Clinton campaign.
However let us set aside the issue of the elected delegates, we all know that it is now mathematically impossible for Obama to lose among elected delegates even if Florida and Michigan are seated in exactly the fashion Sen. Clinton wants them to be. Furthermore, for the sake of argument we shall ignore the fact that never in the entire history of the Democratic Party has the candidate who lost the elected delegates ever been elected President. The Clinton Campaign has taken the position that the popular vote should be the deciding metric, a fair argument as the actual popular vote is perhaps the most pure from of electoral process in a representational democracy.
The Clinton campaign and Sen. Clinton herself have claimed a lead in the popular vote, however the accounting of the Clinton campaign seems a little… fuzzy to put it nicely. Florida nets Clinton nearly 300,000 votes. I and many other Obama people think it was an unfair contest based mainly on name recognition as neither side ran a full and active campaign in Florida and the only ads on the air were national campaign ads on national cable TV. But dislike it as much as we do we can accept it and Florida probably will be seated as Clinton wants it and she will get her 300,000 popular votes from the sunshine state recognized by the DNC and the Obama campaign.
However, Michigan is a different story. Obama’s name was not on the ballot, Hillary won 55% of the vote to 45% for uncommitted split largely between Obama and Edwards, of which Obama probably won a sizeable majority if polls at the time were to be believed. However, if Michigan is seated as Clinton wants it seated it will be as if no one in the entire state of Michigan wanted to vote for Barack Obama, obviously it is totally absurd. Hillary would get a nearly 330,000 popular vote free ride and those who voted uncommitted will simply be ignored in the process. This is important as the case Clinton is making to the Superdelegates *who will ultimately decide the nomination* is that the popular vote, not the elected delegates should be the determining factor in who the nominee is. Thus a fair and accurate reflection of the popular vote is important, even vital.
If some of the popular vote among uncommitted is not credited to Obama and Hillary takes those nearly 330,000 popular votes to the Superdelegates it will be ignoring the will of the people who gave a loud and resounding no to Hillary Clinton by casting their ballots as uncommitted. For Hillary to waltz away from Michigan with nearly 330,000 popular votes and Obama with zero and that fact gave her the edge in the popular vote it would be a crime against democracy. Uncommitted received 238,168 votes, assuming Obama would have received 150,000 of those votes that would reduce Clinton’s popular vote lead from an impressive 162,553 to a mere 12,553 out of roughly 34 million votes cast.
Next in the accounting issues is that fact that the popular vote from four caucus states is not included in the Clinton campaign’s total. Those states being Iowa, Nevada, Washington State and Maine. RealClearPolitics.com estimates that there are roughly 110,000 net popular votes for Obama from the four states, it is a estimate but it is the best thing we have to go by as those four states did not release popular vote totals. Add in the popular votes from those states and you get a reflection of where the actual fair popular vote count stands, Obama up by roughly 97,000 popular votes among roughly 35.2 million votes cast.
It is not an impossible lead, if Hillary wins Puerto Rico by a wide enough margin or turn out is high enough there or if Obama under-performs in Montana and/or South Dakota it is possible that Sen. Clinton could still legitimately narrowly win the popular vote. A win no matter how narrow is still a win. However, any fair calculation of the popular vote must not give Sen. Clinton a free meal ticket for Michigan that gives her 330,000 popular votes and Obama 0, or ignore the votes cast in the four caucus states listed above. To do so would be a subversion of democracy equal to simply ignoring the votes cast Florida and Michigan outright.
Beyond the popular vote argument there is a credentials argument that while a valid debate has crossed the lines from a debate on the merits into the kind of slander that I remember all to well from the 04 campaign at Kos. General Clark sir if you are reading this though I seriously doubt that you are, from 2003 when you got into the race until it became clear that you would not seek the nomination in 08 you were slandered on Daily Kos about Iraq repeatedly and consistently as you probably know all too well. Your position in opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning was trivialized both by overzealous bloggers for various candidates and pseudo-candidates; mainly advocates for Dean, Feingold and Gore. Your opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning was also trivialized by the media and your opponents in the 04 nomination, particularly Sen. Lieberman. The smear campaign on Kos was so rampant that many of us Clarkies had organized a collection of all past smears used against you and debunked them on Kos repeatedly.
It was wrong, it was wrong that you were smeared then and it is still wrong today. However, the diminishing of your opposition to the IWR was not the only smear job conducted. Much to my disappointment and dismay many of the Clarkies who I worked with on Kos to debunk the smears directed against you have actively partaken in smearing Sen. Obama in the way overzealous Kossacks and your opponents in 04 smeared you. I won’t name any names, they know who they are and they should quite honestly be embarrassed by their conduct. They have insinuated that Obama waffled on his position on Iraq out of political expediency in 04 and showed no real courage by opposing it in the first place.
This has been done without any major vocal opposition from other Pro-Clinton Clarkies who now dominate CCN almost exclusively. The insinuation is that Obama as an Illinois state senator showed no political courage in making his speech against the Iraq war outlining many of the same things you did at the time. Worse still the notion is that that only as an elected official in the U.S. Senate could have Obama shown true courage. Of course such insinuations ignore the fact that you sir were not an elected official when you testified before Congress in 2002 about Iraq. You took no political risk in making that testimony either but that did not diminish the courage nor the importance of what you did. Further it ignores the fact that many democrats at the time supported the war, opposing it was serious risk to anyone who wanted to be anything more than a state senator. Finally it ignores the post 9/11 Rovian culture of demonization rampant at the time that was applied to elected officials like Max Cleland and non elected figures such as the Wilson’s and even just people in the public spotlight opposed to the war such as the Dixie Chicks.
They further insinuate that a statement made by Sen. Obama during the convention in 04 is proof of Obama waffling on the war. Forgotten it would seem is the years we Clarkies spent battling a media sound bite taken from a September 19th 2003 interview with you just as you announced your campaign. The same insinuations made about you and Iraq then by Kossacks using that quote are now being used here to insinuate the very same things about Sen. Obama because he made a similar slip up and now some of your supporters are playing the exact same game of gotcha that angry Kossacks, and the media played on you in 2004.
I won’t even get into the ugly and divisive insinuations made by some here with little or no object about whites who vote for Obama, pinning it all on the convenient demon of “white liberal guilt“. I won’t go into detail about the despicable accusations that Obama was hacking the vote. I will try not to go into every single comment like "F Pelosi" that has become all too common here. I would however beseech you General Clark if you are listening, or anyone else who cares about the image of this website that the time has come to stop the divisiveness, the petty name calling and the ridiculous slander.
If you are listening I want to say for the record that I respect the way you have conducted yourself throughout this campaign. Your have shown a much higher level of dignity than many other surrogates on both sides. Furthermore I understand the desire that Florida and Michigan be given proper full representation and the will of the voters not be ignored over some “technicality” as you described it last night on MSNBC. I understand the desire that every vote be counted and to have every vote count. Unlike myself and many others in our country however you served 34 years in uniform and risked your life to protect that.
I respect and deeply appreciate that your sacrifice and the sacrifices of all men and women in uniform protect the rights of humble citizens such as myself who have never served to have an equal voice. My concern is not as some here may perceive and others may allege to ensure that Barack Obama is the nominee regardless of the outcome of the voting. I care just as much about democracy as your supporters who back Clinton do. But I do have deep and abiding concerns that misrepresenting the popular vote results in Michigan and ignoring the popular votes cast in IA, NV, WA and ME would also be just a gross subversion of the democracy as ignoring Florida and Michigan entirely and that would indeed be just as grave a disservice to the democracy that you and thousands like you have fought and sacrificed to defend.
I can only hope that tomorrow the rules committee seats the delegations fully and that the actual popular vote is recognized and that on Wednesday morning we can wake up and finally have a fairly selected and fully recognized nominee. I hope sir that when the time comes you would do for Sen. Obama what you did for Sen. Kerry should Clinton not be the nominee, and if not I look forward to fight for our party against John McCain this fall with Hillary Clinton as our nominee. Regardless the slander must end.
Things to consider.
In 2002 two men (Obama and Clark) opposed the looming Iraq war for identical reasons regarding the likely outcome. Both were proved to have made correct assessments. Why now do so many of you here regard one (Clark) as a hero and the other (Obama) as a vile creature? Identical judgment, identically sound. The problem seems to lie with second guessing motives. Yet the two men are remarkably alike. Puzzling.
And these two men were not alone. Sen. Bryd of West Virginia (as shown on Moyer's Journal last night) passionately pleaded with his fellow senators to reconsider and stop the vote. That was his reason given as to why he endorsed Obama. If Clark had been running (and the reason that we did not have him as a candidate was primarily because of Hillary) Senator Byrd undoubtedly would have endorsed him. But then again this is not entirely fair because I am second guessing both Clark and Bryd.
Faulty reasoning by comparing the situation of Michigan and Florida to any other states. UT, ID, KS, ND were not sanctioned and no candidate agreed not to campaign in those states. Obama campaigned in all of them and organized thoroughly in all of them. Clinton chose not to possibly because she thought they were not important, or she didn't have the money to do so (second guessing again), but nothing prohibited her from doing so.
All the Clintons campaigned hard in WY, but were soundly thrashed. Word from local Wyoming political pundits was that Wyoming women held it against Hillary that she did not stand up for herself when Bill cheated on her. Not my words but I saw that several times in the Wyoming newspapers. Independent lot those western women, apparently.
Chelsea went to Hawaii. Obama was born there and had an advantage there in the way that Hillary did in New York and Arkansas. Even though she was born in Illinois, that state became another home state for Obama.
I certainly do agree about the slander. My following of General Clark predates the start of his run for president in 2004. I often read CCN blog back then because it was filled with vibrant people chock full of vibrant ideas. People came daily with new data about vast ranging ideas sometimes political but always important. I seldom posted, but read often and was greatly enriched and informed in many areas.
The bloggers were generally positive and uplifting (a little internal bickering at times-family like) with their support of General Clark being the glue that held them all toether.
It is fine for a site to support one candidate. But it is much better to promote that candidate rather than tear down their opponent. That's how it used to be when this site supported the Clark candidacy. It would be much more respected by outsiders if it still followed those tactics.
"Yet the two men are remarkably alike." This comment is the most patently absurd thing I've seen written in my life. There is no way in the world that anyone with a grain of sense or awareness claim that Wes Clark and Barack Obama are remarkably alike.
The only thing that Obama and Clark are alike on. Is the run up to the war in Iraq. Otherwise there is nothing more there to see.
Based on knowledge, experience and integrity. Wes had that.
O had pandering in mind, and had to go so far as to check with Axlerod to see how it would hurt or enhance his political future.
Wes' position is taken from his strengths and unlike Obama, not from a novice and uninformed viewpoint calculated to advance his political career. Obama made a speech after checking to see if what he was going to say was ok with Axelrod. Wes checked with no one because he knew he was right and it was the right thing to do.
Two sides to this coin. One side states Obama's 2002 speech was political posturing. Other side states that Hillary Clinton's vote for war was political posturing in order to show she was tough when she ran for president.
What is the truth? Who really knows? Both sides make inferences based on this and that and the other thing.
Does it really matter at this point? Seems to me that it now falls into the petty category and there are more important matters to be dealt with.
Quite truthfully, I lot of what I read on this blog falls into the petty category.
My point in my post was comparing Wes Clark's position on the war before it started and Barack Obama's position on the war. This comparison was begun by someone else by saying they are basically just alike. This wasn't a commentary of Clinton-Obama.
It was not a commentary on Clinton-Obama. My intention was to point out that there are usually two sides to every issue and neither are likely definitive or completely accurate.
"O" and our Wes are alike is that they are both males. Given that, there is an entire ocean of difference between them. In his dreams "O" could only hope to EVER be on a level with Wesley Clark! He's got a lot of work to do to accomplish that.
Comparing a man who served his country for 34 years with one who only served himself, is an insult to our General.
"But this is the landscape we occupy now. Up is down. Paul Krugman is evil and deranged. Andrew Sullivan is wise and progressive. Counting votes is bad. Not counting them is good." BTD
and certainly not equally qualified, and if it had been a choice between Obama and Clark I think there would not be any division here about who the nominee should be.
But it is not, it is a contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are equal to Gen. Clark, they both have their virute and their flaws.
However I object to the insinuation that Obama has "only served himself".
Your diary, however, really rambles. I think the first couple paragraphs and the last are what you mean to say - the rest is just going to continue the tit-for-tat discussion that has been so prevalent here.
Perhaps you want to edit your post to say what you really mean and leave out the superfluous?
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
I did want to state that I don't like the tone of the debate and lay out that case. I feel there is a need to point out of what I see as hypocrisy. Obama has been the victim of much of the same treatment as Wes was subjected in 04. But that is my opinion. You do have a point.
I feel you express your opinions well and politely.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
In this diary, CCN Clarkies have been accused of lying, slander, and smearing and have been labeled as embarrassing, ugly, absurd, divisive, and despicable.
Which part of this "politeness" am I missing here?
I have said that some of the insinuations made about Sen. Barack Obama by some, perhaps even a plurality of posting CCN Clarkies have been ugly, divisive, absurd, and yes quite frankly some of those assertions are embarrassing and dispicable.
Furthermore, calling Keith Olbermann "ogremann" is smearing, not to mention petty. Saying "f pelosi" is embarrassing, particuraly given the fact Wes has worked with her on many issues regarding our troops and national security.
Also, the insinuations about Barack Obama voters and white liberal guilt is slander. I will not deny kossacks have made ugly remarks too, but the ugliness of one group does not excuse bad behavior in another.
Further, many of the assertions about the popular vote are simply bunk and I am going to call a lie what it is; a lie. The creative accounting of Terry Mac disenfranchises voters in IA, NV, WA, ME and all those Barack Obama voters in Michigan who cast their ballots as uncommitted as instructed by the Obama campaign.
As of right now she leads thanks to yesterday's vote in Puerto Rico. However, due to historically low turnout during yesterday's vote in Puerto Rico it is possible, even likely that the vote on Tuesday will put Obama with the final popular vote lead. It will be close, no denying it, it could be as little as a few hundred votes. It is possible Hillary could win the popular vote, she leads right now, but this assertion that she is ahead by this impossible margin in the popular vote is absurd, and yes, it is a lie.
Gen. Clark still deals with Pelosi on many issues, try to keep that in mind... I would further point out that someone using that same kind of langauge directed at Sen. Clinton would very quickly earn the misogynist label.
If such langauge would receive that treatment if directed at one woman: Sen. Clinton; it should be no more acceptable when being directed at another woman: Speaker Pelosi. And that if such standards are to be upheld with Sen. Clinton and not with Speaker Pelosi then that sir is a position of hypocrisy.
As for "stealing" of elections. I think Harold Ickes was correct about the importance of fair reflection and I think that those 4 delegates should be given back, 4 delegates are not worth all this controversy and it is a perversion of our democratic values and the charter of the party.
However, I would submit to you sir that Terry Mac flat out ignoring roughly 150,000 Obama voters in Michigan and telling the super delelgates Hillary won the popular vote because of that is in fact "stealing an election.
Furthermore, I would submit that discounting the will of the voters of Iowa, Nevada, Washington State and Maine and on account of that creative accounting of Terry Mac and thus telling the super delegates that your campaign "won" the popular vote and winning the nomination based on discounting those voters is in fact stealing an election.
More lecturing. I love this part.
Into the rafts, no pushing. Someone ask the band to give us a jaunty tune. Make sure they crank up the volume, so we don't have to hear the preacher on the deck telling us about our 'mortal' sins and all that.
I've got granola, fresh water, life vests and a whole lotta real progressive ideas in my Hillary / Wes raft. Anyone's welcome, hop on in for sunnier shores!
and his supporters can KISS MY GRITS! I ain't drinkin' the Kool-aid.
James, I'm not going to go into refuting the content of your blog. That could go on for weeks. I do, however, want to compliment you on your writing. I can't imagine how much time you spent writing it.
I do wonder about your timing. In a maximum of about twelve or thirteen weeks, and possibly as few as one or two, all this will be over. If your objective was to salute WesPAC and Wes Clark, fine, but I wonder why you felt the need to repeat the litany of talking points for Obama's case. Combining the two thrusts weakened both of them.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
First of all thank you for the compliment on my writing.
As for the timing, the choice of the timing was important and vital. The ruling by the rules committee today is important, vital in my opinion. If there was a day to say this, today was it.
I am making a case today not only for Obama, but also for voters in IA, NV, WA and ME who are not going to be counted. I am making a a case for the people in Michigan that wanted to vote for Barack Obama and voted uncommitted. the 330,000 popular vote free ride that Howard Wolfson outlined on MSNBC is not Democratic or fair. I doubt anyone here is so caught up in partisanship for Clinton as to say that absolutaly no popular votes should be counted for Obama from the state of Michigan.
Those people voted uncommited in opposition to Hillary Clinton, if they wanted Hillary Clinton to be the choice of the delegates they were selecting then they would have cast their votes for Hillary Clinton.
I could wait till Denver as you suggest, I could. But I should not. If this goes to Denver, if we stay at each others throats for the next twelve or thirteen weeks, if we ignore the Obama voters in Michigan and ignore the popular vote result of NV, IA, WA and ME we risk not only a crippled nominee regardless of who it may be, but we risk dividing the party. The way Terry Mac adds up the math for Clinton disenfranchises voters in the same way completely ignoring Florida and Michigan would. The real math puts Obama up by roughly 97,000 votes.
It won't be decided tonight, but when the voters of South Dakota and Montana vote Tuesday night and the final contest of the people is over we need to count all the votes and all the voters.
I don't know if I am going to sway anyone's opinion, I probably won't at least at first. But my hope is that I will at least plant the seed of thought in peoples minds that the way Terry Mac is adding up the math in the popular vote is simply wrong.
Hogwash!
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
Obama is a 43 year old former state senator, a part-time job of 8 years, from Illinois.
Clark on the other hand is a 60+ retired 4-Star General, Rhode Scholar, who is one of the most highly decorated living officers with a resume and list of accomplishment that is hard to rival.
Obama is a nearly blank canvas that some people have chosen to fill in to their own liking.
The fact that Clark and Obama both opposed this war does not make Obama qualified or electble to the the top spot.
Obama may not share Rev. Wright and companies views, but I believe that there is a blatant anti-white ant-semetic bias in that Chicago community. I also beleive the agreement and applause we saw on the video of Pflger the other is common place in that church. If he and his wife could sit there for 20 years and not walk away, or speak out, it is part of what defines them. They also appear to garner support from that community because of that association.
If for example Hillary had attended a church for 20 years where the congregation heard and applauded race based hatred, and embraced idea from a guy like David Duke,
I would not vote for her either. I can aslo guarantee that the press would not have been running cover for her on the issue. She never would have made it out of the starting gate.
Bill Clinton was charged with playing the race card on the campaign trail back in that SC primary and it completely scuttled Hillary campaign among the black community.
If you can, tell me where and how he did that off the top of your head? Was this real or manufactured by Axlerod and Obma's surrogates, and then widely spoken of by the press?
The fact that hiearchy of the party and network ilke MSNBC have been blatantantly biased toward Obama depsite Hillary having garnered more the half of the vote has really ploarized this race in many people minds.
MSNBC has been about thwe worst violator of this. Chris Matthews started of by claiming Hillary would not be a Senator if her husband had not "cheated". Schuster commented that the Clinton's were "pimping out" their daughter Chelsea. Olbermann has been as vicisousely savage with Hillary as he was with Bush.
I'm a 48 year old father of 3 very bright young ladies and frankly this has really ticked me off.
Obama will not get my vote in Noivember.
He turns 47 in August--nearly as old as you.
Okay. You do a lot of rationalizing which you state in a reasonable fashion and, at this point, likely believe.
My intent in comparing Obama and Clark was solely on the issue of objecting to war because of the horrendous outcome that likely would ensue. Both set forth that scenario in very similar terms. Otherwise, they have lived quite different lives and I have no interest in trying to compare them in any other fashion. Impossible task, I am inclined to believe.
But Obama is not deficient. (Speaking here only of Obama--no comparisons to anyone) While serving as a part time state senator, he also taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (10 years) during that period of time. Undoubtedly that has been disparaged here, but the official word from the University of Chicago is that he was truly a professor and was offered a full time position on numerous occasions. And his educational background has been stellar and highly acclaimed.
It's pretty obvious to any thinking person that Obama does not share his pastor's views or this other guy either. As a community organizer and civil rights lawyer, he was attracted to the strong social programs that this church sponsored. That, too, is why he contributed his funds to the church.
That's all I will say here about Obama.
Now we come down to reality. Obama will be the nominee. You seem to recognize that by your statement of a non-vote in November. You really need to think this through a little more and consider what a shambles McCain will make of the presidency. This may take time, but you should start giving it some thought.
I remember when General Clark dropped out in 2004 and I was suddenly faced with having to like and defend John Kerry. It was really hard, but over time I was able to do it.
Just wanted to add that although General Clark was out of the race, his name was still on the ballot when my state voted. I very proudly cast my vote for General Clark anyway.
I stand corrected on his age, but that is no difference maker.
I actually lobbied hard for Kerry back in 2004, after Wes Clark dropped out. Kerry did have broad experience, both miltarily and politically and I believe would have been a good president. Though he failed to take on the sob's he was running against with enough passion.
Kerry had been one of my Senators for two decades. I have no such connection to Obama and no desire to vote for him.
It is hardly my place to lecture a 4 star general, particularly as a humble American citizen who has never worn our nation’s uniform or served under the flag.
"I and many other Obama people think it was an unfair contest based mainly on name recognition as neither side ran a full and active campaign in Florida and the only ads on the air were national campaign ads on national cable TV"
How do you account for the fact that Obama won most of the states where there was little or no campaigning (UT,ID,KS,ND,WY,HI,etc). By your reasoning these were unfair and should not count either. Also, the only ads seen in FL were run by the Obama campaign so he actually had an advantage. As has been pointed out here Obama also held press conference in FL breaking "the rules". I am sure that if it were Clinton that the MSM would be calling her to be disqualified from nomination.
"They have insinuated that Obama waffled on his position on Iraq out of political expediency in 04 and showed no real courage by opposing it in the first place."
If this the stuff of smear I hate to tell you that you ain't seen nothin' yet. BTW, opposition to the Iraq war does not make you qualified to be president. HRC supporters feel as though she has been smeared repeatedly on IWR vote - questioned endlessly for years. If Obama were in the US Senate would he give more weight to the President or a state senator from Illinois when he asked for an authorization for national security?