"Wesley Clark 'moving on'"
Submitted by mad4clark on July 5, 2008 - 8:41am.
Wes Clark | Democratic politics
Wesley Clark 'moving on'By: David Paul Kuhn
July 5, 2008 09:00 AM ESTFour days after his controversial “Face the Nation” appearance, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark is taking a break from the presidential campaign — but many Democratic insiders think he has already been crossed off the list of Barack Obama’s potential running mates.
[...]
At first, Clark moved aggressively to defend his remarks, scheduling additional press appearances and even updating his Facebook status to “Wes Clark knows that John McCain is largely untested and untried when it comes to matters of national security.”
But now Clark is looking to put the remarks behind him. The former NATO supreme allied commander and 2004 Democratic primary candidate is “moving on,” said a close aide, who added that Clark can now “devote his time to the business affairs which pay the bills.”
The aide nonetheless revisited the remarks, saying that Clark was “asking tough questions and moving beyond sacred cows” and that Clark was “not auditioning for a post in anyone’s administration.” He added that Clark “doesn’t need anyone’s permission to stand up for this country or to challenge John McCain's fitness to be commander in chief.”
Presidential campaigns have been re-litigating the Vietnam War since, well, the Vietnam War, in which Clark served as an infantry commander while McCain was a Navy fighter pilot. Both were men molded by the baby boomer culture wars, and both the grunt and the flyboy returned to a nation in upheaval over the war and social changes.
Obama’s campaign has sought to transcend those culture wars, which have long been a losing issue for Democrats. McCain seized on the Clark comment to draw Obama into that same losing fight.
“It’s up to Sen. Obama now to not only repudiate him but to cut him loose,” McCain told reporters aboard his plane en route to Colombia.
Obama, however, has not gone that far. He said Monday it was “very clear” Clark’s “remarks don’t reflect my beliefs.” He took a less tough approach Tuesday, calling the remarks “inartful,” a word the candidate has often employed to step back from gaffes. His reluctance to go further may stem in part from Clark’s support on the party’s left, which dates back to his 2004 presidential run. MoveOn launched a petition Tuesday demanding the media “stop distorting Gen. Clark’s words.”
[...]
Now that the fallout is clear, he’s moving away from them, though still not apologizing.
Read the rest, which includes the usual strategist's BS, at Politico
We need to move on. I just cannot be a part of a party that is more of a Mob, then a Democratic Party. Sure isn't the party of the people anymore!! What they once stood for, party of middle america, no longer exists!!! Sad :(
I can not stand by while they skewer Wes. I don't know how many watched the Australian video that Phoebe linked to. I took the opportunity to watch it multiple times and the one thing that stood out to me was that not ONCE did he mention O. He made two references to the democrats and that was it. Go read the transcript if you have a mind too.
I also think that this lack of spine in the democratic party has hurt him very deeply. I have no doubt in my mind had he chosen the republican party from the get go that he would be on his way to the WH today. He will forever be defending himself if he stays with the dems. The democrats should be hanging their heads in shame for this. They may have lost the BEST damn defender they EVER had.
If you are a fan of Senator Obama just skip this post.
Spineless?? If Obama grew some gonads he would have responded to McCain's insistence on letting Wes go by announcing he was on the VP short list.
Clark's line of attack is not one Obama needs or wants to engage in, simple as that.
That doesn't mean Clark wasn't right, it's just politics. The goal is to get Obama elected; making a big issue of defending Clark would not help the Obama campaign.
Just the way it is. Politics.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Whoever said it, it's true.
Let's do the political thing and buy into the McCain meme, not the morally right thing to do.
Oh, I forgot. Obama has no moral compass, just a political one.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
A show of strength is what Obama needed, and backing a war hero who supports him would have shown backbone. He got credit for standing by Rev Jeremiah Wright initially, until Wright decided to put on a big flamboyant show in front of the National Press Club.
Obama is developing a reputation, it seems, of "throwing people under the bus." I never heard or read that phrase so much until the past few months.
How could Obama and Clark (with a quote badly taken out of context) lose against McCain, Lieberman, and a recycled Swiftboater?
I seriously think Obama missed an opportunity to not only do the right thing, but to make a move that really would have helped him and the Democratic party in the long run. No objective viewer would take what Clark said as an attack on McCain's patriotism or service, and Obama was in a position to kill that story by before it grew.
Clark's whole argument (and Obama's too, by the way) is that Obama is running on his superior judgement, not just his resume... that's a political winner only if Obama's not making mistakes.
Now that Obama has effectively neutered Clark, he came out looking weak (bowing to McCain and the swiftboat guy) and lost a very effective surrogate in the process.
And if he folds like this when his best supporters are being maligned, it's going to be easy for the so-called Truth Squad of swiftboaters to tar and feather his "superior judgement."
One thing that struck me when General Clark was on Abrams defending himself. The B-Roll was all that pathetic video of McCain when he was in hospital as a POW. I thought that kind of coverage could have made some sympathy votes for McCain.
But I think the real problem in all this was timing. Even the perception of blasting a POW, and that perception was certainly being manufactured, during 4th of July week was not going to provide for an optimal outcome if Obama and his people chose to go after McCain on their tactic.
I'm going to go ahead and bet that the Swiftboaters were hoping and waiting for any of Obama's surrogates and supporters to come even close to talking down to McCain on military matters, his experience or otherwise, because the manufactured controversy got legs pretty quick.
The other timing problem was the event Obama had planned, and in the speech he talked about honoring vets and such.
So, after that, the real problem is the "Rejection" of the comments and the failure to even minimally stand up for General Clark's sacrifice and service.
I'll always wonder how this all would have played out if this had happened two weeks from now, when the entire country wouldn't be sitting at parades end of week watching POW flags and vets march up each hometown USA. And I'm still wondering if this has in fact played out fully.
I'm convinced he's a very political guy, and he has to realize he's not helping his cause. He wants to move to the "center", but he's alienating his natural base right now (voicing support for the SCOTUS decision just like McCain, voting for FISA, making a statement about staying longer in Iraq... which, incidentally he said the media had "overblown" his comments.... Ahh, the irony!)
His patriotism has been attacked through his pastor and an "inartful" comment by his wife. He has to realize that backing someone with General Clark's bona fides will help insulate him against the patriotism thing, and it will help him reach into those red and swing states. We'll see how smart he is soon enough.
And no doubt he's surrounded by people who see everything solely as political in nature.
Honestly I don't think they're sweating it. It sucks to say it, but I don't think they're putting much stock into the political weight that General Clark brings.
Their mistake is on policy, because when National Security issues arise where General Clark is clearly the best person to discuss the facts and examine and explain situations, the talking head media person will put an asterisk on General Clark when that time comes.. "General Clark.. who came under some fire for questioning the value of John McCain's service.. etc. etc."
And so they should be thinking about it, because otherwise they'll have some substandard person out there to talk about these things, and the impact will be less than desirable. McPeak comes to mind.
I did get a chuckle when I saw this item in the news today:
He [Obama] said he didn't misspeak in his comments earlier in the week and suggested the media and critics read unintended significance into the remarks.
"I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured," Obama said. "I wasn't saying anything that I hadn't said before."
Just wait until those swiftboaters start taking quotes out of context from his books! He might wish he made this defense of Clark earlier, because some might think he sounds like a whiner if he acts like only his remarks get overblown....
I understand where Obama is coming from on this, and have gotten beyond my initial anger.
It's really all about perspective. Obama doesn't want to spend any time on this, and I can understand why.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Whoever said it, it's true.
We can agree to disagree, but I think Obama showed weakness that will be exploited further as the campaign wears on.
He can't be so risk-averse, I don't think he has the luxury of running out the clock.
...(and that's a mighty broad brush you're painting with), but I'd bet the farm that with the people who sport yellow "support the troops" magnets, care about it, and the McCain camp is unlikely to let them forget it.
Likewise I'm pretty sure that the majority of people here at CCN care that Obama denigrated Clark by his failure to support Clark and his total silence about Clark's own service.
So you might want to define "people."
Politicians, like everyone, act from the core of their real values--and those may or may not be the ones they talk about. Obama acted from his--or lack there of--and painted himself into a corner. No wonder he doesn't want to spend time on this. He can only wish "people" didn't care about it.
Somehow, "I'm ____, and I'm from the liberal wing of the Republican Party," just doesn't seem like much of a ticket to the Republican Party nomination, even for a guy as talented as Wes.
Otherwise, I agree that the Democratic Party, and particularly it's leadership, really should be ashamed of the way they have thus far mishandled this matter.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Wes has stated how he felt, in his gut, what kind of treatment he'd receive from both parties and frankly, he nailed it then.
Many years ago, before Wes announced, he was a guest on Buchanan and Press (Aug 03) (starts at 3:05)
Here is the conversation:
GENERAL CLARK: "I think if I were to run as a repubican, I would be welcomed, respected and accepted.
I think if I were to run as a democrat, I think there would be a huge issue with this and I can't tell you why, accept that in my gut I believe that the armed forces shouldn't belong to any political party and yet it seems that they do, it seems that they're the property of the republican party. I don't get it."
Upon completing this statement, Buchanan chimes in:
BUCHANAN: "General Clark. Can I tell you something please? As a life long democrat, you will be, would be welcome in the democratic party if you ran as a General with your record. Seriously. Everybody respects what you've done for your country and we love the military."
Sadly, Wes' prediction was correct and Buchanan and the rest of the dems have done him a disservice. Again, I believe that he would be where McCain is today. He would have his chance to straighten out this mess because for some reason the republicans do welcome, accept and respect them.
Buchanan is a Republican. Press is the Democrat.
So there's something wrong here. However, I
agree that the Democratic Party is anti-military.
And weenies to boot. Heh.
the show. Gen Barry McAlliffe (sp) and I thought the other guy on the show was buchanan.......so, it must have been press. If you can watch the video, you can tell me and I would edit it, but now I can't since you replied.......lol.
So, which ever one is the life long dem on Buchanan and Press is the one that is in the video and said that.
Thanks Phyl.
Wes was and is respected in the Democratic Party. However, "everybody" is incorrect. Furthermore, there is a small slice of the party that is against all things military, including political candidates who have served. Many of them, however, are Democrats who rarely vote for the Democratic Party nominee, instead voting for third party candidates.
Yes, Wes would have been "welcomed, respected, and accepted" in the Republican Party. However, his positions on matters of policy are so progressive that there is little chance he would ever have secured the nomination of the Republican Party. Perhaps they would have selected him to become our Ambassador to the UN, so long as he followed his marching orders. However, I see little chance that they would have actually nominated him for the Presidency.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Anything can still happen.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Dems love people who served in the military, as long as they didn't make a habit of the military. They don't like lifers.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
is from the right. Bill Press is from the left.
Wes also said once if he had joined the Republican Party he would have been the lonliest Democrat in the Republican Party (or there's about). And I believe this to be true.
Everything I've ever seen, heard and read from General Wes over the past 10 years (since I watched him on teevee during the war in Kosovo) always told me he held Democratic core beliefs and values. This is evident by what is both inside personally and on the outside professionally. The biggest hurdle all along was teaching Democrats...particularly on the left....who Wes was and what he believed in....to look past the uniform. Many of us worked hard at that all these years across the internet and elsewhere. That work was not fornaught...as evidenced by the outpouring of support General Wes received recently.
The Democratic Party appears to be in a transition. A wrongheaded transition, in my view. But...there are enuff in the "leadership" who want it and enuff of the spineless who will follow along, apparently. If you really look at the numbers....most Democrats....people who consider themselves Democrats did the right thing these past few months. They voted their core beliefs. How it all turns out down the road is yet to be seen because they are holding out. They don't seem to be up for this transition.
I've been a Democrat all my life. Perhaps for Independents it is hard to understand how difficult it is for some of us lifelong Democrats to watch this unfold. To watch the core values slip away from this party. You can't just say, "well...if I can't get what I want done here....I'll try to do it over here". I believe being true to yourself or true to a party comes from inside. You can't just turn it on and off or switch it back and forth. You can't just take out a name and plug in another either. The pieces are not interchangeable.
Looking at the core beliefs over the years of both parties and their platforms, I would have been very surprised if Wes ever became a Republican. It just didn't fit.
"speaking for myself only" and I hope this made some kind of sense.
I'm done.
"Just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back, up front there ought to be a Man In Black."
-Johnny Cash
Cave, appease, collapse, distance, disavow and
in general see who can be more spineless seems
to now be the primary characteristic of so-called
"leading" Democrats, as well as the Dem pundits
and consultants. This is getting ridiculous, and
guarantees low respect and losing elections.
Shameful and disgusting.
We have to do our best to send folks to DC that will vote the will of the people. If they don't, then under the bus they go. I know, it's probably not possible.......the country is too far gone.
...careful about that too. Got burned by Claire McCaskil who ran as a Dem then backed every damn one of GWB's positions. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing.
So far Eric is the only one I KNOW for sure tha won't become a GOP apologist.....even, and especially, for lobbyist's money.
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
is what these people have to do and say in order to get re-elected. They may win in a repub district on a strong surge against the repubs, (2006) then have to kiss some behinds in order to get elected again. And, let's face it, most politicians are primarilty egotists and they're main purpose in life is to get re-elected in order to keep feeding at the public trough. Very few are in it for the public service; they forget they work for us, not vice versa. O is the epitome of this kind of politician; changing views to fit the wind and the crowd he's speaking to. Tell me, somebody, somewhere, what this guy really stands for concerning any public policy or personal principle. So far, he has shown if you take away his clothes, there will be nothing there.
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
The balance of powers has been thrown out of whack and it can only be restored by a stronger Congress. That's why I didn't support Biden's campaign for president. There were others who have his foreign policy expertise who were running (e.g. Bill Richardson) but no one else who could take over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That Committee has to be strengthened to take the role it has to in foreign policy, whether the president is Republican or Democrat. Check this out.
about for the veep slot. If that happens, what a slap in the face to Hillary.
The fact that Wes' chances of being offered the job are so slim now makes me very sad for all of us!
I, too , am ready for a third party - but one that is lead by Wes.
I just looove this:
He added that Clark “doesn’t need anyone’s permission to stand up for this country or to challenge John McCain's fitness to be commander in chief.”
Damn straight he doesn't.
The silence from everyone he helped, as a candidate or politician in 2006 and now, is abslutely deafening! I'll never forgive them for that.
The Foreign Minister quoted in the Atlantic Eye article is correct - it shows a disturbing lack of character in the Dem party for not standing up immediately to defend him.
One's reputation, honor and integrity are not political footballs to be punted around because those who should be defending you are too afraid the other team might tackle them. The damage doesn't just stay in the political sphere.
About the only one who gets a pass is Darcy Burner - she was a little pre-occupied with a house burning to the ground. What was everyone else's excuse?
"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
If Obama won't stand up straighter for this, how's he going to stand up when they go after him? It's true he didn't attack or disavow Clark, the way the Republicans demanded, but he didn't exactly stand up for him either.
Dan Juma, this is what Wes's spokesperson said
"for the record
Submitted by cagrunden on July 3, 2008 - 5:00pm.
General Clark appeared on face the nation on
his own. Nothing was coordinated with the Obama
campaign. Clearly from the Obama spokespeople it
is clear they disagree and disavow General
Clark's remarks. You guys know I don't post
often but I wanted to say that."
Now, maybe you think Obama's spokespeople do
not speak for him when they "disagree and
disavow." Or maybe you think cagrunden is
mistaken. However, I think that Obama's people
were speaking for him, and I am certain that
cagrunden is not mistaken. This is why I have
said that you are repeating a falsehood when
you say Obama did not "disavow" General Clark.
And why I said repeating a lie does not make
it true.
General Clark will still be campaigning for Democrats all across the US. Stay tuned because we're all going to have the opportunity to get Dems elected this year.
(and maybe Obama) - but not from all politics.
And personally - while I may not forgive those who didn't defend him, I'll always help Wes do anything he asks...including helping the 2008 Congressional candidates.
"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
;-)
"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
“devote his time to the business affairs which pay the bills.”
sounds like, at least for a while, he will be keeping a lower profile. Which I think it unfortunate.
and Kay Barnes who is running for Sam Graves seat in MO, that we don't need another imperial presidency no matter who gets the job in the oval office. No more rubberstamp congress of either party. BTW, Kay Barnes has a shot at winning that seat. My congressman needs to hold his seat as does Nancy Boyda. My congressman looks really really tired. He says as bad as we think it is from here, it's much worse being in the center of it in DC.
Saying this was not outrageous at one time:
[Fox's Mort Kondracke said] "It does not qualify you to be the commander in chief of all the Armed Forces because you were a Swift boat commander." And Kathleen Parker: "[M]ilitary service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office."This year it is. Read Jamison Foser's whole post. Get a feel for what political cowards Dems are and what they take from the Media and the GOP.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/5/12356/91388
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
On June 30th he wrote:
A Twofer:
Wes Clark, MoveOn under the Bus.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryld=6686
---snip---
First (Obama)he has just gone after one of the top surrogates for Congressional Democrats in 2006, in the country, in Wes Clark...
Was Stoller an
Obama supporter? He does not sound happy.
If anyone here at CCN wants to cut and paste more of Stoller's diary, (I am technically unable to do this), feel free...
"Sorry!
We were unable to locate that page."
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
Severe thunder storms approaching here where I live.
I f you google...
Matt Stoller Twofer Wes Clark bus
you can find it.
Must go --thunder
and lightening are getting bad.
Is his ultimate goal. That's why he had to
discredit Wes. Obama wants complete control.
Wes is always his own man.
By the way, you know what they say power does.
Well, Obama is well on his way. Power=Corruption.
I think that Clark has done Obama a big favor. He's making everyone look at the "national security" credentials of McCain. This just might make Obama more elecable....too bad he can't see that nor can the multitude of critics.
He is more than ever a true hero to me. So why do I feel so sad?????
I don't think we'll be hearing from the General for quite awhile. I hope I'm wrong. All this has really left me feeling very disappointed that so few Democrats defended him. It would have been nice to hear Bill and Hillary speak out in Wes's favor.
I'm waiting to see what will happen at the Convention. The Democratic one, that is.
Public confidence in the integrity of the Government is indispensable to faith in democracy; and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost faith in everything we fight and spend for.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
Hired gun, volunteer surrogate, or just running point man-- whichever it may have been, Wes Clark was out there on CBS that morning gunning for one man and one man only, when he had that discussion with Bob Schieffer about John McCain. Lest we forget:
Barack Obama.
His comparison and analysis was not furthering the careers or advancing the positions of Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi for that matter.
But of one man: Barack Obama, John McCain's presumptive opponent for President of the United States.
This disturbing trend I've noticed lately -- to carry the "Blame Clinton" game even deeper... and all the way into this sordid trashing of General Clark - needs to be stopped in its tracks.
Please recognize that while, yes, it would be "nice" if Bill Clinton or Hillary or Biden or Richardson or Kerry or Edwards or David Axelrod or Oprah or Mike Gravel for that matter would have stepped forward and offered a public defense of Wes Clark, National Treasure, while he was being defamed and defiled on national airwaves .... it was not their responsibility to do so. It was not in their name that the General stuck his neck out to make a comparison of any of their records, or suitability as Commander in Chief. alongside John McCain's.
It was to favor Barack Obama.
If we're looking for someone to defend Wes Clark we needn't really look to the entire Democratic party.... although... it would have been nice had someone in a leadership position stood up for him. It's not surprising that instead we heard from fellow veterans, and a few die hard journalists obviously fatigued beyond repair at what this kind of Rovian handiwork has done to our nation.
Here is a repost from Kat's blog that demonstrates what a no -brainer this would have been for Obama:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's what Obama should've said in defense of Clark:
"I stand behind Gen. Wesley Clark and agree that while my opponent's military record is indeed honorable and courageous, it does not in and of itself qualify him to be president of the United States or commander-in-chief. The right-wing's attempt to distort the General's very clear point is just another example of the Republican Party's desperate need, at any cost, to distract Americans from the harsh truths about the war, the economy and the fact that voters overwhelmingly are signaling they they want change in Washington come November."
==============================
Now how hard is that? ^^
What incalculable risk lies inherent in a SIMPLE statement such as the above...? One that any intelligent and conscionable person, let alone a noted orator, could readily draft and deliver in but a few brief moments. It's even short enough to memorize. Fits into any busy schedule and shows respect, class and recognition and appreciation for those who are fending for you.
How hard is that?
It has been talked about so much that it must be true. The Clintons are behind anything bad that happens to any democrat who they feel might be a threat to their domination of the party. And we also know that all of the good things that they claim they did for the country, well, er, that was just nothing but plain luck and coincidences. Those surpluses and all, the economy would have done it in any case.
the British government instead of merely ordering a ceasefire if Bill Clinton had gone along with John Major and refused to issue Gerry Adams a visa to speak in the USA, etc., etc., etc... Damn those awful Clintons for their war mongering failures in international relations.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
My remarks were in no way meant to blame the Clintons. I am sorry if they were taken thus.
Me too. I'm moving on too. Just filled out my change of registration. In a few days, I will no longer be a Democrat. Good riddance.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.