I could not have said it better mad4clark. Good Luck and Godspeed General Clark. You will always be my President, but I cannot follow you down this road.

I have to call bullshit on anyone who troll rates a Hillary supporter today and tomorrow. We have spent the last 6 months or so following the General's lead and doing what we can to help him and Hillary.

Now that it's not meant to be, please allow those who went down this path with Wes to grieve a little. It's the right thing to do and you know it.

Wes Clark Democrats...let the Clinton campaign know who sent you

the party's nominee.

If Gen. Clark does not support Obama right now, then that would make him far less effective in his campaigning for the many Democratic candidates who he has endorsed for Congress this year.

I completely understand the position where Gen. Clark is coming from. How can he effectively campaign for numerous House and Senate Democratic candidates in 2008 or run for President again in 2012 if Obama loses if he is seen as not backing the party's nominee right now?

My feelings about Obama have not changed but since Gen. Clark is backing him now, I will mainly be focusing my time on providing credible commentary, trying to help keep the media honest, and helping WesPAC endorsed candidates.

My suggestion is that even if you do not care for Obama (I still do not think that he is qualified to be President and I think that he won for all of the wrong reasons), it would not be a good idea to bash Obama on this blog since this is Gen. Clark's blog and he has just announced his support for him. I think that is a proper way how to show respect for Gen. Clark!

Nobody has a gun being put to their head to support Obama so one can refuse to support him and still be an active part of this blog by supporting Gen. Clark and the candidates who he has endorsed!

If somehow Gen. Clark is on the ticket with Obama which I think is a long shot, then I would be FULLY supporting "Clark for Vice President" as opposed to "Obama for President."

Even after this election is over and regardless of who wins, I am sure that Gen. Clark will still be here and he will be doing things that everybody will be able to unite behind!

Again, please do not be upset with Gen. Clark for backing Obama if you disagree with his decision to back him. Being practical, my opinion is that he had no choice but to do so if he is going to effectively campaign for the many Democratic candidates who he has endorsed this year and if he wants to run for President again in 2012 if Obama loses!

it would not be a good idea to bash Obama on this blog since this is Gen. Clark's blog and he has just announced his support for him. I think that is a proper way to show respect for Gen. Clark!

But please be assured, none of us are upset at Wes for backing Obama. We knew this was coming and we understand the politics behind it.

But you're right.

When Obama supporters slammed Hillary here, it was bad taste and it goes the same for us.

With that..

I bid y'all adieu

“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872

Hi mad4clark:

Your comments are right on target in my opinion and I really appreciate your very sound judgment about this matter!

Mitch

I devoutly hope that your "adieu" means "Good night, I'll see you tomorrow."

I do not expect that this community of ours will instantly become active Obama supporters. I do very much hope that it stays together for the other work that remains: increasing Democratic influence in Congress.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

Clinton made a Historical Speech today. She drove me to tears. I completely agree that Clinton bashing is in bad taste. As a matter of fact, if you think about it (as a woman myself) most people say Hillary, while others say Obama. I refuse to do that. I always say Clinton. It's as if there is a tiered system here. (Why would you call me by my first name and my opponent by his last name?) I think it shows a lack of respect.

Clinton has groomed Obama to go on. She has made him what he is today -- the best candidate to go on to reclaim our country. She is an integral part of this process. Without her, even from the begginning, we cannot win.

As an Obama supporter, I respect and admire Clinton. I thank her for the work she has done.

I'm another Obama supporter, but that does not mean I would not have supported Hillary. Preferring one flavor of Democrat (say "ambrosia")over another does not mean that I would MUCH prefer either one over something "Republican" like "liver" (which I HATE!). I would personally love to see Hillary become the Lioness of the Senate. But that is beyond our ken at the moment.

Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark

of a candidate

The fact of the matter is that the General is 100% right in his endorsement of Obama.

As far as the things that are being said about Obama in response... well, I can only offer that all too often, threads on this site became echo chambers of hatred that were truly hysterical. Day in and day out, dozens of things would be written about Barack around here that were just laughably untrue. And each statement would then be confirmed by hearty rounds of "harumphs." And if anyone didn't fall in line, it was "Hey, I didn't get a harumph outta that guy... Give the Governor harumph!"

In Realityland, there was a huge, huge percentage of criticisms of Obama that were stated around here that became truth-by-repetition despite the fact that they were patently false. There were entire threads, day after day after day, that were housed entirely in fiction.

I would hate Obama too if even a fraction of it all had been true. But for those of us who kept our objective distance, it was much easier to see the bitter partisanship for what it was.

And throughout the primary season, we saw Wes stay above all of that. We didn't see him echo such sentiments. We didn't see him buy into the hysteria. We saw him do what he's done his whole life, which was appeal to our better angels, be slow to anger, and keep his eye on a broader vision. And now we see him acknowledging what many of us knew all along, that we had two great candidates.

It's really time for some decompression.

By attacking it. Sort of like burning the village to save it?

I can't see how anyone who made a home at daily Kos can talk about "echo chambers of hatred" at CCN.

If you want to make accusation like that against those of us who stuck with General Clark instead of abandoning him and his efforts, I suggest you give us some specific quotes. I don't remember seeing much about Obama here that didn't turn out to be true.

But if you can't back up your assertion with specifics, STFU.

A) I'm not making an attempt to do anything but advocate truth.

B) I'm not referring to "the community". I'm referring to a handful of overzealous apples. The overwhelming majority of the community is excluded here.

3) Your language. Come on.

4) I'm dead on.

No specifics. Because it's not true. It may be what you believe, but don't you think just MAYBE it's because YOU have been living in an "echo chamber of hatred"?

But whatever. You sure aren't going to win back any friends with that attitude.

I always thought the winners were supposed to be gracious enough to let the losers work thru their feelings of loss.

I understand the feeling of the loss. I was a Bradley volunteer in 2000. And I was a huge Clark advocate in 2004. I genuinely feel for the sensation of the loss. (Although, I certainly didn't ever go around trashing the victorious Gore or Kerry as a result.)

But what you don't understand is that I'm not addressing this entire community. I'm addressing mainly 5 or 6 specific people. I feel no need to name them, and to quote them would be to single them out. There has been a desire by a handful of people to trash Obama in a way that is unfair, untruthful, and out of line. Calling him a mysoginist, a liar, a criminal, a Republican-sympathizer, a black nationalist, an election stealer, a Vote Vets opposer, etc.

What I am doing is raising a completely fair and valid point- that there has been some level of inaccurate information written. And for the sake of truth and intellectual curiosity, it is important to acknowledge that in order that we might find room for reconsideration.

Most of this community has held and continues to hold my deep respect. I feel a genuine bond with fellow Clarkies.

But at the same time, I think that it is much easier (quite easy even) to support Obama if we use truth as our standard of judgment.

addressing even 5 or 6 people. It isn't the time. They will stop on their own soon enough. Let it be.

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

What you aren't hearing are the voices of a HUGE number of Clarkies who never supported Hillary and who haven't been around this site since the fall because they've felt excluded.

I have heard those voices. I've heard them on sites like Kos and Huffington Post, and I've heard them time and again in person. I've heard them. And it sure as heck is the time to address this. Because this is a much richer (and far, far more populous) community when those people feel welcomed back.

And a thread like this one trashing Obama (despite Wes' enthusiastic endorsement) isn't the way to start.

Luckily, I don't really care about taking heat. So I'm happy to do my small part to blaze a return trail.

You want these people back. And trashing Obama in the wake of a Clark endorsement isn't how it's done.

If you drive the Clarkies that stayed here away. Which is what you're trying to do. "Knuckle under to us or go away" is your message.

No one here ever told any Clarkies to leave. They all left on their own accord. If they FELT excluded, it was because THEY refused to respect General Clark's endorsement of Hillary by not attacking her and not promoting Obama.

What it really boiled down to is they didn't want to associate with the rest of us. I suspect you don't really want to now, which is why you're being so obnoxious.

I took a leave of absence from this board because I respected the General and his choice.

And it was in part because that respect that I always did my best to keep a civil attitude towards Sen. Clinton. Not engage in the mindless attacks the more rabid followers on BOTH sides did. Indeed, the criticism I did show was towards those people rather than Sen. Clinton - and at times I took Sen. Obama's supporters to task.

After the primaries I came back. Nor am I the only one. Because we're Clark democrats together.

You can't be a REAL supporter of Clark and not have supported HRC for POTUS! It's impossible!

an attempt at humor.

You were joking, right?

It sounded very much like a joke.

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

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

I speak for so, so many.

Perhaps enough to ensure election?

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

how many of you jumped ship and deplored Wes's judgment when he endorsed Hillary, (and more than a few started dissing Wes and Hillary at other sites) but suddenly he's the greatest guy in the world since he's had to "endorse" Obama. What hypocrites! If you want to see the problem of a divided dem party, look in the mirror.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

Donjo,

I have to give it to you; you can misrepresent with the best of 'em.

The fact of the matter is that I've been here all along. I've been here since the Draft Clark days of 2003. I've been here longer than you and more actively.

And despite the fact that I have been rudely and often viciously insulted every time I've come on here for the last nine months- no matter how complimentary I remained of Hillary- I still stuck around. And I stuck around because I saw the arguments here and the insults I received as beneath the reasons why I support the General. The guy's a godsend for the Democratic Party. And I wasn't going to let a litany of petty insults dissuade me from supporting that.

It's true though. Others didn't stick around. But I can't say that I blame them.

You want your convictions tested? Try being an Obama supporter around here for the last nine months. My convictions won't be questioned. Not by you.

You only came here to hawk Obama and that's all you contributed to the conversation. And it wasn't welcome. Big surprise.

Ok, on this one, I have to ask those of you who know me to debunk this. In good conscience, you'd all have to. You all know this isn't true.

You know that my message on this site for the last nine months has been that we had two great candidates. That's been my repeated mantra beginning with the day that I saw Wes speak about Hillary (among other things) at UCLA in October of 2007.

That alone- my position that we had two great candidates (not just one)- was enough to bring upon myself a flood of vilification from the overzealous few.

You owe me an apology, hf jai. You just made up what you said about me out of whole cloth. And plenty of others will confirm this. Or ought to.

For all the good it will do you.

"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

Thanks.

Like you have any credibility.

You people act like we don't know the url to Kos.

Or possible. Your own words are EASY to find, and anyone can look them up and judge for his or herself.

I'd invite anyone to click on your user name, hit the "track" tab, and look at your posts for the last 6 months or so. I didn't read all of them just now, of course, but I checked the last dozen blogs or so, just to refresh my memory. With a VERY few neutral exceptions, your posts either spin Obama propaganda or lecture the people here at CCN. There is not one that's positive about Hillary.

We know what you write at Kos too. It ain't pretty.

a rare, powerful and eloquent voice of reason.

I can't begin to tell you how much your words have been appreciated.

Right now I fear it may only serve to anger and frustrate some who have demonized Barack Obama and who are in a place that Clark peeps understand only too well, having been through ti when General Clark dropped out in 2004, and again when Senator Edwards was chosen as his running mate, and again with General Clark's decision to not run.

Tomorrow is another day.

and, while yes, you're correct, that not everyone on this blog was always supportive of Senator Obamaor, - sometimes quite forcefully not supportive - and sometimes Obama supporters who also support General Clark, wern't always treated with the degree of politeness they thought they should have been - this all cuts both ways, particularly on Kos.

No - you didn't trash General Clark on Kos, but may others did and for many months. A number of members here were also personally kicked on Kos, if for no other reason than because they defended General Clark as often as possible. You took a few hits too, as I recall.

Did Senator Obama get taken to task here? Of course he did. No one's denying that. So did Hillary Clinton early on - before people had, some of us kicking and screaming the whole way - learned more about her. That's normal. That's what happens, particularly when people try to find a candidate out of a pool that doesn't include the man they most wanted.

Yes - some of your posts here have been neutral, and complimentary to both candidates - less so the more recent ones. Personally - I'm sorry anyone felt run off, ok?.

But bear in mind - what pissed off a lot of those who stayed wasn't that you and others support Obama - but that some chose to be, uh, shall I say, less than polite and respectful about General Clark's chosen candidate on his blog. What did you expect?

CCN was not neutral territory. It was either for Wes Clark as a potential candidate, or Senator Clinton as his chosen candidate.

You think it was tough for Obama supporters here? I'd suggest it was supposed to be. And, by the way - it was hardly a picnic for either Clinton or Clark supporters in too many other places, incl. Kos, MyDD, DU, and several other blogs.

OK - today that changes, but don't expect those changes to be instantaneous. Give people a little time, please. This isn't like last time - there's no down time for the Clark blog where no one's looking for a few months, while we re-tool.

This is still a very public place, and it is still General Clark's blog first and foremost.

No doubt some who have come back, and I'm glad you're all back, are itching for a little payback. To a degree - understandable. Please don't engage in it. If you want to fight this particular battle - please do it in email. Here's mine - wail away! kellyflinn at securingamerica dot com.

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

But I will ask that we all try to emulate Wes and avoid bad mouthing any Democrat?
Criticizing position, policies and statement and votes- all fair game if done with some civility.
Wes himself (o matter how much others tried to twist his statements) NEVER bad-mouthed any of the democratic candidates.
I'll admit on other places on the net I may not have always lived up to Clark's standard but I've tried to keep things above the belt. I understand some will never be able to support Obama just like some weren't able to support Clinton or Kerry last time around. I think all anyone is asking is that everyone be respectful here.

What has John McCain done for veterans?

n/t

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

both before and after Wes endorsed her.

That was disappointing.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I apologize to both Sen. Clinton and her supporters here.

A time will come for the airing of grievances on both sides but it's too soon for that I think.

What has John McCain done for veterans?

I tried to never diss Clinton, too, but sometimes I got pissed off, just like you are now. Human nature. Wes did what he needed to do, and I did what I needed to do. Wesley Clark would never fault me for following my conscience. Anyone who knows him knows this, and those of us who worked his phones and his computers know him.

Wes stood for transparency in government -- like Obama.

Wes stood for no PAC money -- like Obama.

Wes -- Obama

How could I go in any other direction? The basics were the same. I know because I was there.

I don't expect people to be happy and giggly over all this. I expect to get slapped down here and there. But I know Wes wouldn't slap me down for doing what I did.

falls about 10 miles short on a 9 mile runway. Every one of your comparisons is baloney. Check out the actual facts.
i.e. Transparency in Government: Obama won't release his papers and records from his IL state senate terms.

PAC money doesn't fit with prez primaries; Obama uses his to buy off superdelegates; His ties to lobbyist companies and how he gets their donations has been well documented.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

Your response is far from something Obama would make. Those of us that support Obama (and are Clarkies) know how hard it was when Wes lost in 2004. I came back home after Wes sent his email out encouraging support of Obama the other day. Did I think I was just going to climb back in the fold without paying a price? No.

My fellow Clarkies that stood with his decision have a right to be hurting right now. I remember... I can only hope those digging around for the negative material on Obama (that I can't believe what I'm seeing and further can't believe people are dragging off of a blogspot.com website like it's a true pundit) will see the parallels between Clark and Obama. This is why I chose Obama -- and this is why I could not follow Clark's candidate. I chose to follow Clark's ideals.

I can only hope my fellow Clarkies will heal and join me in supporting a candidate who is most like Clark himself. And I can only hope my fellow Clarkies will forgive me for following those ideals.

You're just digging deeper.

Let me tell you something that you don't understand. You may be talking about "5 or 6 specific people," but almost everyone here agreed with them. We just didn't have the courage or cussedness or energy or whatever to take it to Kos and fight with you people. But we know what you said and what posts were recommended by whom. They were about General Clark and CCN as a whole and we KNOW that the entire community here was under attack, regardless of what you say now.

And all those things you said we said about Obama -- we believe them all to be true to at least some extent. This isn't the time or place to go over the evidence, but WE believe that you don't believe them because you have heard nothing but Obama propaganda, spin, and LIES for the last year. You can call us liars and haters, but I don't know what you hope to accomplish by that.

By your own admission above, you'd hate him too if you believed what we believe. So don't you think it might be better to leave just well enough alone?

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to.

Because I'm not going away.

Dead wrong more like it.

Touché.

I too understand why Wes has to do what he has to do. Hillary as well.

But I am NOT READY TO MAKE NICE for a man who is essentially George W. Bush with better teeth and a better tan.

The last few months have been surreally awful to observe. I keep thinking it's a nightmare from which I will surely awaken, but instead it just keeps getting worse.

And I'm still a Democrat, as I have been all my life, but I'm hanging on by my fingernails. These days I consider myself a ClarkieClintonistaDemoPUMAcrat, and like Riverdaughter and a host of others, I am soooo ready to sink my fangs into some fat necks--metaphorically speaking, of course.

And Old Mexico is looking better and better all the time.

I love it.

I'm simply a WesClarkDemocrat. One of the things a WesClarkDemocrat believes in is transparency in government.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

"I too understand why Wes has to do what he has to do. Hillary as well.
But I am NOT READY TO MAKE NICE for a man who is essentially George W. Bush with better teeth and a better tan."

No no, no closet racism here.
Sheesh...

Obama opposed Iraq and saw it for what it was, just like Wes. Wes's testimony and Obama's speech were right on point and guess what, Obama even specifically pointed out Wolfowitz, Perle and the other hacks for exactly what before most of us even knew who they were. Again, just like Wes.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

And thank god Wes and Hillary have now endorsed Obama because now I can freely point out all that is good about Obama.

We had two great candidates, that is why this election was so close. And that is the reason Wes and Hillary have endorsed Obama, Wes would never endorse another Bush and to imply that he is doing this because of politics is an insult. I won't rant against you for that, judgment is all too easy and forgivness is hard.

I too had my doubts about an endorsement, about Hillary and questioned Wes's endorsement. But I want to say for the record, I was wrong. I don't doubt my support for Obama, I did and do beleive in his message.

What was wrong was questioning Wes's motives. And I am deeply ashamed that I would have ever thought even for an instant that politics or loyalty to the Clinton's was ever part of the calculation behind Wes's endorsement, it was deeply wrong.

As this campaign has continued I learned more about Hillary and I can see now why Wes would have endorsed her. Before I merely knew her as one of those Democratic Senators who voted yes to the IWR. Now, I know a good deal more about her. And I was wrong, about her, and about Wes's reasoning. I would ask you, beg you even, don't make my mistake.

Give Obama the fairer chance I should have given Hillary.

Is NOT Wes.

Just because some of us decided not to follow General Clark on his endorsement of Sen. Clinton, doesn't mean we were "abandoning him and his efforts". I fully supported his efforts in other areas, and never once abandoned him.

General Clark himself realized that some of his supporters supported Sen. Obama as well. He doesn't seem to see that as "abandonment" You may want to temper that statement a bit

I suspect we've all been where we have felt comfortable.

Right now I'm cheering for Big Brown!! (Yeah, I know, not nearly as important as politics which has life-and-death consequences.)

Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark

It is true that BO and team used the RACECARD on Hillary - falsely. That is a scum move - period.

As one example.

When Hillary praised MLK for all his efforts and sacrifices for Civil Rights and how he pushed for the Civil Rights Act/Bill to be passed...she then pointed out that LBJ deserved some credit for his end to get that bill passed.

Obama was "surprised that Hillary would use the RACECARD." Once that was reported - his surrogates were slamming Hillary for using the RACECARD by lessening the impact MLK had. It was utter BS. Hillary was making a valid point that LBJ had an important part of getting that bill passed. She was also making the point that presidents have to know how to work with the network of people that govern our Nation. She is much more qualified to do that. There was zero racism in her remarks yet she got slammed by Obama and Co.

because you asked for an example. Unless asked for specific examples, I won't be posting anymore truths about Obama now that General Clark has publicly stated he is supporting him.

Obama was the first to play the race card (Phillie Inquirer)

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

I was hoping someone would post that article.

We can't be posting true stuff about O! here anymore. I prolly can't be here anymore because it will kill me to remain silent when I see the Corpress oft-repeated lies told. But it's now the mission here to get O! elected. We have to respect General Clark's wishes. Please email me, k?

jmdifeo at yahoo dot com

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

Back to Kos with you, please.

it's only umm let's see...the most popular political website in the world. Averaging 600,000 visits a day.

and this is just from today...

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/06/andrews_says_he_heard_racist_s.html

does not make a "camp." Political b.s.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

There sure are a lot of people that are trying to lessen the power of the Clintons. They are trying to hit them when they are down. The accusations are like the tabloid Inquirer.

I bet Bill and Hillary had no problem telling superdelegates how they (superdelegates) turned their backs on Hillary because there was pressure to do so. I also bet Bill and Hillary used tough words. They would have no problem "saying it like it is."

It also wouldn't surprise me in everyone's campaign to have someone who devises their own little plan to demean another candidate, but to think Hillary had something to do with this Jewish/BO relationship is ridiculous. Tabloid BS.

With the "Racecard" thrown at Hillary continously it was an orchestrated tactic to slime her. Every network had the talking points going on. It was and is a disgrace.

Obama supporters need to take the blinders off and realize that BO is no substance and all fluff. He tries to act like he's super clean and have a "new type of politics." It is completely opposite. Many say that Hillary wasn't ready for Obama's campaign. I sort of agree with that...how could she even imagine how BO's team would use the Racecard to the degree that they did.

especially when talking about how she resonates bunch better with "hard-working white americans."
Or when Bill dismissed Obama's SC victory by saying, "well even Jesse Jackson won SC!"

This year, myself included.

The important thing is not what Barack said about the LBJ comment, or what Hillary said about hard working white Americans. What is important is going forward, I know both sides have suffered a lot. I was harrased here by one particuraly nasty troll who said some very ugly and disgusting things about me and someone else who is very near and dear to me. I know there are hurt feelings.

But pointing fingers serves no purpose. Hillary gave an incredible endorsement today and threw her full heart felt support behind Barack. There is no need to re hash all of this.

What is important is focusing on what is important now, the fight to secure the presidency and give Obama a Congress he can work with. We need to remember we won this primary, the onus is on us I beleive to forgive the natural pain of the other side who came so close to victory.

We know how painful it was to see Wes fall short in 04. I'm going to take a week off starting on Monday from all of this and come back in a week. I think there is every right for some to be disappointed and we should overlook some still being upset.

But we need to keep our eye on the ball and not drive good democrats to McCain. Now is the time to be gracious, as we should be.

We had a lot longer to heal and unite behind Kerry in 04. Clintonista's must really feel they are getting pushed into his because of the tight time table. I know the stakes are high this year, but let us not expect too much too quickly, endorsement or not. Let us show the courtesy we would wish to have been shown should we have been the runners up.

When exit polling is done they break down the votes all the time. It's nothing new to find out how the elderly/young; Black/White; Catholics/Protestants/Evangelicals; etc voted. Hillary was stating FACTS!

I believe the #1 swing vote in the big swing states are the white blue collar worker that also is an outdoorsman/outdoorswoman. Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia especially. She was giving the demographics of the exit polling. It's true. The union/outdoorswoman (or man) could easily swing either way. Hillary was doing GREAT WITH THOSE VOTERS! She was pointing out how she is definitley able to win PA, Ohio, and WVA in November. I'll be shocked if BO wins those states in the general election. Hillary was pointing out that she is not only more qualified, but more electable than BO because of how the electoral votes work in the GE.

As far as Bill - the reporter was asking him questions about Obama winning SC and a whole mess of other questions. Bill answered by saying that Obama did do a good job in SC, but he also won votes (numbers & areas) that Jesse Jackson won in the 1980s. He was admiting that Obama did well and just stated the similarities to Jesse Jackson's victory there in the 1980s. Jesse won SC, but didn't do as well later. There's nothing racial about that at all. Yes, I believe he was trying to sugarcoat a victory by an opponent. It was his way of trying to downplay the victory. There's NOTHING racial about it. He was trying to be a smooth talker. His little spin. I can't believe anyone would think that was a racist remark. Obama's team did their best to smear the Clintons and to make people think the Clintons were playing the Racecard. It's was disgusting.

I agree, there's plenty of blame to go around...both sides. But folks like Tega on this site...and there are plenty of 'em, have this absolutist opinion about HRC & Obama.
That's my whole point.

That speaking out against the Iraq war in 2002 was "fluff". Obama laid out exactly why it was a mistake to invade, and exactly what we should have been doing instead. His words, like Wes's seem almost prophetic now.

I know there is the urge to point the finger of blame for the media circus squarely at Barack Obama. But really Barack got his fair share, months of Rev. Wright coverage with GD America playing on a loop and pundits speculating as to whether Obama shared Wright's views. It was pretty ugly from where we were sitting. Hillary didn't keep the Rev. Wright story alive, and I don't blame her for it.

The Corp press have been beating up on Barack and Hillary for the past 3 months in one way or another.

The people to blame here are the corp press themselves, they are in the tank for McCain. The radical Republicans like Rove who love nothing more than a divided democratic party. And I think the 'progressive' blogshpere made a mockery of itself this year. Not that this would be a first, we Clarkies know all too well the excesses that can occur at the big oranage place during a primary campaign...

At the end of the day Hillary got it far, far worse than Barack, but it wasn't like Barack was out there selling Hillary Nut Crackers or playing up the crying in NH, or saying that the Clinton's were pimping out Chelesa to superdelegates. The dispicable corp press did that.

Obama fired quite a few people for saying bad things about Hillary, even someone as respected as Samantha Power was not exempt.

Was Obama not perfect, sure. Could have he done more, yes. Does that make him a misogynist thug, no. Both campaigns could have done better in many ways, but I don't hold the things said about Obama by the likes of Mark Penn against Hillary. I hope that you won't let the comments of some Obama strategists turn you off to joining us in getting a great Democrat in office.

Obama has said he will seek Bill Clinton's consuel, he likely appoint many people from the Clinton Administraition. If we all have anything to say about it, Wes may well be one of those people if he is interested in such a position, I know I'd feeler safer at night with Wes back in government.

If John McCain is president, look to Perle and his ilk getting into government posts. We need and deserve better than that.

He was just in the state legislature. He wasn't given the intelligence that Hillary and other congressional leaders were given when they had to vote in the US Senate. There would have been no responsibility thrown his way.

It was a lot easier to say "vote against it" when he wasn't given all the information and when people wouldn't be holding him accountable if we were attacked again. The safety of our Nation did not rest on him. Once he was in the US Senate he voted like Hillary.

Neither was Wes. He wasn't in the U.S. Senate, does that fact exclude him for getting credit for taking a stand against the IWR?

Also as I recall Wes wasn't exactly privy to the Senate intel either... admitedly he probably knew far more than Barack having contacts in the military and having had a lot of information during the 90s as SACEUR.

But still, to imply that Barack's judgment on the IWR isn't worth looking at as part of his resume for POTUS is just being unfair and biased. It's not just that he said "vote no" it is that he explained exactly why we shouldn't go to war in Iraq, he laid out in clear no uncertain terms what would happen if we did.

And I think that deserves some credit, particuraly from people who somehow veiw Barack as being somehow unqualified for office, he had good judgment on Iraq and that is exactly the same kind of judgment he will bring to the White House on January 20 2009.

Well, James, I opposed the war before it began, and that's how I discovered Wes Clark. I used many of the reasons both Wes and Obama did. So I guess that gives me good judgment, also. But that doesn't qualify me to be President.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

He is far from being a perfect candidate. I know he isn't Wes, we really blew it as party in 2004 and everyone here knows it.

Obama isn't Hillary either, and the fact of the matter is for those who supported Clinton, Barack will probably never fill her shoes. Nor would I expect that people who supported her to feel that Barack is equally well suited for the job.

What is true however is that "qualification" does not always mean that someone would be good at their job. Dick Cheney is a perfect example, very well qualified, but he has had very bad judgment and entirely the wrong vision. I'm not going to say Barack doesn't need to surround himself with good people, he does, he knows it too. But he does have the right vision, the right strategic principles and he has gotten some things done in the Senate, and he saw Iraq for what it was and said many of the same things Wes did at the time.

He brings his own unique skill set to the table, just as Hillary did, just as Wes did. Wes was a brilliant leader and would have made a supurb CINC, but even he admits that as a politician on the campaign trail his skills at winning votes and handling the press were lacking.

McCain may be more "qualified" than Barack in the sense that he has more years in government and knows the wheels and gears of government better. However, McCain does not have the right strategic vision for the country and because of the people he surrounds himself with, he cannot be our president. His cheif Economic Adviser is Phil Gramm, who led the charge for the gutting of mortage industry regulation. We all know where that led... 

McCain is equally inept in the stance he takes on foreign policy. When Obama talks about our role in the Middle East, I see someone Wes or Webb can relate to. When McCain talks about the Middle East all I can think is "McSame as Bush" and that is who he sounds like, George Bush and Dick Cheney.

It isn't really just qualification as important as it may be. It is also the basic guiding strategic principles that makes a good president. Wes had judgment, experience and vision all packaged together, all he lacked was an ability to deal with the press and give flowry rhetorical speech's, which does serve a purpose, irrelevant though it may seem, the best policy props in the world mean nothing if one cannot get elected or convince peopel that it is a good idea, a president really has to do a lot of salesmanship.

Obama may not have that much 'experience' per say, which is one of the critera for selecting a good president. But he does have two of the important criteria, good judgment and the right vision for our country. Furthermore, he handles the press with skill and he knows how to give speeches and draw big crowds. McCain's judgment and vision however are... lacking to say the least.

If you look at McCain's statements at the time of the war you will see a man locked in the Bush/Cheney line of thinking. And he is right there with them today on the issue of direct diplomacy with Iran, on torture and on a whole slew of other issues. We stand a lot better chance of moving our country forward with someone who is at least pointed in the right direction like Obama, he'll need to select his advisers wisely given his lack of experience in the nuts and bolts of government. But compared to the hurdles we would have to overcome for McCain to work out as president, Obama is the obvious choice.

Really Stan, I'd honestly trust someone like you who was pointed in the right general direction as CINC surrounded with good advisers over an idealouge like McCain surrounded by people who have been consistently wrong about almost everything. An inexperienced leader trying to do the right thing 'can' screw up, an idealouge without fail will screw up, usually in catastrophic fashion.

There are things I really like in Obama and areas in which I find him lacking, I know he isn't Wes, but I still think he could turn out to be a great president. Think about how much "experience" Abraham Lincoln had. He didn't turn out too badly.

This is what I think. I think Obama deserves less credit for having opposed the war with Iraq because I think Obama would have opposed any use of military force, anywhere, anytime. I don't give Russ Feingold as much credit for opposing the war as I give Wes either. I don't think either one of them sees national security as a top priority. I don't mean to be insulting when I say that. I just think they are a step behind where Wes and the Clintons are on this.

(Don't get me wrong... Hillary's vote on the IWR was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and I think it was politically expedient and I will never forgive her for it, but that doesn't mean that I think she would do a bad job if she were President, and that is what I based my primary support and vote upon, but I digress...)

I want someone in the Oval Office who understands that the world is flat now and that as much as we'd like for everyone to get along, it's not happening in our lifetimes, so we need a strong military, not to USE it, but to HAVE it, so we don't HAVE to USE it. I know that Wes and Hillary both understand this. In my opinion, Obama really hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he does.

So, I see Wes's opposition of the Iraq War as coming from the position of "while we need a strong national security, we shouldn't be using it this way" where I see Obama's opposition coming from the position of "what the heck do we have bombs for anyway"? And that carries a lot less weight.

Obama's going to have to do a lot of work (and I think a lot of growing) to get to the point of understanding that we need strong national security SO THAT we never have to use it. I don't have a lot of confidence that he'll ever get there. I just don't.

That said, given the choice between "why do we have bombs anyway" and "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran," I'll take "why do we have bombs anyway" hands down.

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

I really think that is a misconception of where Obama really stands on issues of national security.

Obama favors expanding the Army and Marines, and refocusing our efforts from the mess in Iraq on finishing the fight in Afghanistan. Webb was on TV yesterday and he was basically making the case for the kind of strategy Obama has advocated with regard to redeployment from Iraq.

Obama so much as said in his speech against the IWR that he didn't oppose all wars, just dumb wars. He really did in my mind lay out the case at the time for why it was a bad idea.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

I really just don't see Obama as a peacenik, opposed any use of military force, anywhere, anytime. I see him in a lot of ways coming from the same national security mindset as Wes, albeit with far less experience in the specific mechanics. Obama really got hammered for saying that as President he would act against high level Al Qeada targets in Pakistan if Musarruf would not take action and we had quality actionable intelligence of where and when high level Al Qeada targets would meet. He was lampooned for that as a war monger.

So, the general line of thinking on the use of force and maintaining strategic dominance seems to mesh up pretty well with Wes, they agree on the same basic strategic principles. Agressive sustained diplomacy first using all options at our disposal, and well planned force only as a last, last, last resort with preparations for what happens afterward.

That is where Obama stands, will he need good advisers, yep, even he admits it, but so did Bill Clinton when he came to office. The mark of a good leader is knowing ones own limitations and finding effective ways to deal with it.

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

I've been wrong before. So I really hope I am making the right choice here.

QUALIFICATIONS
The candidate must be:
A. A natural-born citizen of the United States
B. At least 35 years of age, and
C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years.
U.S. Constitution, Art. II, §1(5)

Reasonable people can disagree on what it takes to be a successful or good President but the qualifications are fairly straight forward. It's a minor nit-pick but if the community is ever going to come together we'll have to drop the exaggerations and hyperbole.

What has John McCain done for veterans?

...and that's how we got GWB.

Most Americans want more than that.

“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872

I'm gonna change the language a little. Obama is eligible, but he's not qualified to be President. Hell, *I*'m eligible to be President according to the Constituttion, but there's no way I'm qualifed. The word quality is related to the word qualified.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark

Who do you plan to vote for? I don't think he's as bad as you say, but even if I did, what other option would I have?

"I know this is something you HAVE to do, and I feel for you."

Good grief. And so what will you have made of Gen. Clark, if by some miracle Obama picks him, or of Hillary if by some miracle Obama picks her? Unprincipled opportunists? Now that would be interesting. You've all lost your good senses, along with your civility.

"When you can do good, you should do it."

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872

I haven't even been on my own blog much. I did explain it there, a little. It wasn't the whole story that I was depressed about Clark not running and the infighting among Democrats, but when I did get enough time to come back here briefly I decided to wait until we had a nominee so the fighting would stop. Please say it's stopped. I didn't support either Hillary or Barack, I hope Clark becomes VP, but I will support the nominees, whoever they are.

BTW, You guys still want more background articles on Islam?

What I really want to know is how can I contribute to getting Democrats elected, from the top of the ticket to the bottom, but especially the Senate. I sure want to keep Joe Biden as chairperson of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Does anyone really think Bush will catch bin Ladin?