Who's Missing in the Obama Administration and Why?
Submitted by Vigilante on January 28, 2010 - 1:52am.
Wesley Clark
In the near future, I am planning a column on my site, The Vigil, in which I will ask the question,
What went wrong with Barack Obama and his 60-Vote Democratic Congressional Majority?
Of course, as we know, it was almost 60 votes, but that's beside the point. The question is really prompted by my sense that further progress on the Progressive agenda promised by Candidate Obama is irrevocably stalled under President Obama, after only one year. Am I right?
If my sense is inaccurate and wrong-minded, I claim that I have lots of company sharing this view.
So, I ask, how can this be? How can this have happened?
In my professional work, I never like asking a question when I don't know what the answer is going to be. In this case, I'm going to go out on a limb.
Because I really like the choice I made to support Barack Obama very early his campaign. My signs promoting his bid for the Presidency went up in my front yard in February, 2008, right after the Iowa Primary. I still, to this day, think he was the best choice I and my fellow Americans could have made at this juncture in history.
So, I come back to the question: What went wrong?
I've been wondering for some time if the part of the answer hasn't got to do with the people Barack Obama ended up surrounded with in his innermost circle of advisors. And that's the consideration I want to address here and now. Who should be on Obama's shortest list of advisors who is not now?
Well, the first person who comes to mind, and who's always been on my mind, is General Wesley Clark.
I have long championed General Clark as a visionary leader, strategic thinker and decisive executive. I have always argued that Wes Clark's unique skill set was what was most lacking in the Obama crowd.
I just want to cite a few examples.
I promoted Wes Clark for Vice President when I wrote on June 6, 2008, Discussing Barack's Vice-President: Points of Agreement
On June 30, 2008, I amplified What General Wesley Clark Said About Senator John McCain, and argued that Obama needed a truth-teller as a wing-man.
On July 13, 2008 I posted Results for Our Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) straw vote where, with 243 readers, General Clark came in 4th place as the Democratic Party's candidate for VPOTUS .
On July 29, 2008, I posted Second Thoughts about the Second Spot, where I mentioned Wes Clark because Obama needed to "choose an authentic vice-president rather than merely a running mate".
On August 3, 2008 in Meat, The Press, I condemned John Kerry for not coming to Clark's defense when Wes was attacked on Meet the Press (the General was not present) for telling the truth about McCain.
On August 6, 2008, I called for Re-Thinking Barack Obama's Vice-President Choice and plugged again Wes Clark.
On August 13, 2008, I described how McCain was the natural heir to Bush and required the election of Barack Obama - Wesley Clark American Restoration Team to undo the damage,
And then on August 17, 2008 I expressed my amazement: Wes Clark 'Not Welcome' at the D.N.C. ??? Tell us "It ain't so," Barack!?I wrote,
I'm not feeling what I'm hearing . . . . Steve Clemons of the Huffington Post and Jay McDonough of the Progressive Politics Examiner are telling their readers that the Barack Obama team has de-selected Wes Clark for the vice-presidential spot on the 2008 ticket. In fact, they have stiffed Clark to the extent that his presence is not even welcome at the Democratic National Convention.
On August 18, 2008 in an open appeal to 'Barry', I complained that Obama's team couldn't "They can't or won't show their toughness against their own adversaries across the aisle. Because they're not tough enough to call George Bush out, (like Howard Dean could) or call John McCain out (like a vice-president Wes Clark could).
And finally, on November 15, 2008, I called for Obama to Nominate Wes Clark for Secretary of State.
I mention this litany for two reasons. First to document my enduring belief that General Clark was the best candidate for positions of Vice-President or Secretary of State. Secondly, to motivate someone on this site to explain to me why General Clark and President-Elect Obama did not get connected up together.
Why? Did they just not hit it off together personally? Was Obama frightened by baggage the 'negative press' brought to bear on General Clark? Was Obama aware that Republicans had some secret dirt they were ready to throw if Clark was selected to the Obama team? What was it?
Can someone answer me? Please?
Krugman agrees: "There was a lot of delusion among progressives who convinced themselves, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that Obama was a strong champion of their values. He wasn’t and isn’t.
That doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between the parties, that everything would have been the same if McCain had won. But progressives are in the process of losing a big chance to change the narrative, and that’s largely because they have a leader who never had any inclination to do so."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/same-as-he-ever-was/
The answer is two main reasons that I plan to do a post about to credibly document soon:
1) Obama cannot seriously compete with Rush Limbaugh, his talk radio media empire, FOX News, and with Matt Drudge when it comes to message warfare. Obama has no clue or concept about how to deal with them and some of his top people are making amateur mistakes with them. They are defining Obama and the news to the country for the most part instead of Obama defining himself and the news to the country. Obama has about as much of a chance of beating Rush Limbaugh at message warfare as he does of beating Michael Jordan in a one-on-one basketball game when the game is being played on a level playing field and on even terms:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17836
ANALYSIS: Why Obama is losing the health care message war to the other side
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 13, 2009 - 6:28am.
Polls show "Democrats losing health care PR fight" and Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/1-2-cross-missouri-democratic.html?wprss=thefix
Polling shows Democrats losing health care PR fight
"1. Democrats are losing the public relations fight over the health care overhaul currently being debated in Congress, according to data in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll..."
By Chris Cillizza | December 16, 2009; 5:29 AM ET
Rush Limbaugh has known about this and he has boasted about it for years. Unfortunately all of the evidence that I have seen so far shows that he is right:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184342,00.html
Transcript: Rush Limbaugh on 'Your World'
Thursday, February 09, 2006
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: "Neil, there is a new media out there today that doesn't let the left get away with defining the news, defining the circumstances, defining personalities and so forth.
And they haven't learned how to deal with it. They haven't learned how to deal with people like me, the problems they think FOX News causes, and everybody else. They are still in their 30-year-old playbook, in which they think they still — all they have to do is, you know, portray somebody they want to portray them, and the American people will see it, swallow it, and like it..."
When Obama won the 2008 election, it was NOT on even terms and on a level playing field. The economic crisis, Bush's unpopularity, much of the mainstream media being in the tank for him, and several other lucky political breaks that Obama got helped him to win:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16930
ANALYSIS: Why John McCain lost the 2008 election and how he may have done better
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 6, 2008 - 11:03pm.
This was easy to see for a long time and I tried as hard as I could to warn people about all of these things many times going back to September of 2007:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16555
Mark Halperin explained why Obama is having problems with GOP attacks right now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 10:58am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16555#comment-328296
Obama not understanding the GOP attack machine & how to fight it...
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 11:05am.
The credible documentation in the link right above goes back to September of 2007.
2) Obama will get very few if any Republican votes on ANY of his major legislation when Republican ideologues have control of most of the GOP right now, when these ideologues have absolutely no interest in working with Obama, when it is NOT possible to seriously negotiate or reason with them because they are openly rooting for Obama to fail, and when their leader Rush Limbaugh is feared by so many elected Republicans. Most Republicans in Congress fear Rush Limbaugh too much and know that they will risk being primaried if they do or say anything to upset Limbaugh:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17338
ANALYSIS: Why Bipartisanship is NOT possible with far right wing GOP ideologues!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 17, 2009 - 6:21pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17327
Rush Limbaugh saying "I Hope the Stimulus Package Fails" should be nationalized!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 14, 2009 - 8:37am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y
Sen. Jim DeMint calls defeating Obama like Waterloo (0:14)
wmj08kms
July 20, 2009
"If we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him and we will show that we can, along with the American people, begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17860
GOP strategist John Feehery on why Republicans fear voting for the public option
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 22, 2009 - 3:33am.
The aides to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (the highest ranking elected Republican in the entire country right now) are literally calling Limbaugh to explain to him what McConnell is doing to obstruct Obama's agenda:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18215
Mitch McConnell's aides called Rush Limbaugh "to explain their tactics" to him!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 16, 2009 - 5:08am.
The DCCC has a list of many prominent Republicans who have apologized to Rush Limbaugh when they said something that got Limbaugh upset with them:
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
I'm Sorry, Rush
"Republicans who've dared to criticize Rush only to beg for his forgiveness..."
The main reason for this is because "Republicans are no longer in control of their base:"
http://www.politico.com/huddle/1109/huddle405.html
Conservative coup
By: MARTIN KADY II on November 2, 2009 @ 7:13 AM
"The conservative coup in upstate New York over the weekend has revealed an ugly truth: Republicans are no longer in control of their base..."
Republicans in Congress are not going to seriously work with Obama as long as they fear Limbaugh so much and keep on apologizing to him. The reason why they fear Limbaugh so much is because they know that he just has to give the word to his 20 million followers and they will be primaried the next time that they are on the ballot!
Republicans in Congress saw what happened to Arlen Specter after he voted for the economic stimulus package, they see Charlie Crist getting primaried right now because he stood on a stage with Obama to accept economic stimulus money, and they see this going on all over the country right now (even John McCain has former Rep. J.D. Hayworth as a serious primary challenger right now because the Limbaugh wing of the GOP does not consider him to be "pure" enough)!
If Obama keeps on losing the message war and if he can only get very few if any Republican votes on any of his major agenda where Democrats cannot break a GOP filibuster to pass their legislation, then many people in November will think that Obama cannot effectively govern when he has such large majorities in Congress. It will be VERY hard for Obama to try and explain to the entire country that he could not pass anything big because of Senate rules where he could not get 60 votes. Most of the public will NOT buy that as a legitimate excuse even though it is true.
Unfortunately it really is this serious with the Obama Administration. Here are five reasons credibly documenting why Obama will probably have a lot of political problems in 2010:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18265
ANALYSIS: Why Obama will probably have a lot of political problems in 2010
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 4, 2010 - 7:39am.
To end on a more positive note, here is what I think that Obama can do in both the short term and in the long term to try and solve these problems and have the best possible chance of success (the first two points are at the end of the post right above). I really wish there was a way that I could give this information to Obama or to any of his top aides to think about and consider:
1) In the short term, all Republicans in Congress should definitely be forced to vote "Yes" or "No" as to whether the many high profile Republicans who apologized to Rush Limbaugh were right or if their initial criticisms of Limbaugh were correct:
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
I'm Sorry, Rush
"Republicans who've dared to criticize Rush only to beg for his forgiveness..."
If the Republicans in Congress vote against their hard core activist base (which includes Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann, and the Tea Party-goers), then they will risk being primaried and losing the support of their base. If the Republicans vote in favor of this fringe base, then they will risk losing the moderate and Independent voters who they represent. This is a clear lose/lose situation for them!
2) In the long term, Obama needs to try and force through a back door version of The Fairness Doctrine while he probably still has the votes that he needs in Congress to do it (it could probably be put in a bill that funds the troops which would make it very hard for the Republicans to vote against). A back door version of The Fairness Doctrine is the one thing that Rush Limbaugh and his followers really and truly fear and it is how Obama may be able to help liberate enough Republicans in Congress from their fear of Limbaugh so that he can seriously work with them:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10583
Limbaugh & Hannity react to Democrats trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 2:51pm.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508978035028163.html
OPINION / FEBRUARY 20, 2009.
Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free
As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.
By RUSH LIMBAUGH
Dear President Obama:
"I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17308
Call Sen. Debbie Stabenow at 202-224-4822 to help her Fairness Doctrine efforts!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2009 - 2:52pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16851#comment-333782
Bringing back The Fairness Doctrine would help to restore...
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 28, 2008 - 1:04pm.
Even if a back door version of The Fairness Doctrine cannot be passed at the end of the day, it will still take a lot of time, money, and effort for Rush Limbaugh and his wing of the Republican Party to try and stop it from happening while that issue is tied up in the courts for a long time. Every minute and every dollar that Limbaugh and his followers spend trying to fight a back door version of The Fairness Doctrine in the courts (which they will have to put first in order for Limbaugh's radio program and many others to survive) is a minute and a dollar that they are NOT able to use to interfere with Obama and his agenda!
3) Obama can also take a very big risk by pulling the Republican leadership in Congress behind closed doors and give them a bottom line ultimatum to either voluntarily work with him where he will give them a seat at the table while they will have to vote for some Democratic agenda or else Obama can tell them that if they refuse his sincere offer, then he will cram as much of his agenda that he can right down their throats by using the budget reconciliation process (Obama would have to be VERY sure that he has 50 very solid Democratic Senate votes and 218 very solid Democratic House votes already lined up if he makes this threat to the Republican leadership but I see no reason why he cannot get those votes even if he may have to do some Democratic arm twisting behind closed doors to get them just like how LBJ did):
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17957
ANALYSIS: The benefits and risks if health care is passed using reconciliation
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 23, 2009 - 7:28am.
The main benefits to this are that people will probably get some form of health care along with some other things that Obama promised and Obama will be able to show the country that he could get something done.
The main risks to this are that Obama and Democrats will completely own EVERYTHING that they pass using this process so they will take all of the blame if anything goes wrong and the Republicans will claim a lack of bipartisanship to the country.
If Obama decides to use the budget reconciliation process to pass as much of his agenda that he can, then he had better think everything out far ahead of time in order to make sure that he gets it right and he had better be able to credibly explain to the country why he had to do it which could be a very difficult thing to do.
But Obama has got to get tough (I think that he needs to have another "I won and you lost" moment) and he has to pass some big things that have some real some teeth in them because Democrats will probably lose a lot of seats in Congress in November, Obama will probably not be re-elected in 2012, and the entire country will suffer IF the status quo continues the way that it has been going so far!
I appreciate the succinct responses from Susan Cleveland and Stan4Clark. Shame on me for being fooled (the first time!) with Hope-I-Could-Believe-In. But I still have to resume my interrogation:
What happened between President-Elect Barack Obama and General Wesley Clark that prevented them from working together?
I want to move on; (part of my 12-step program).
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
The most obvious answers are (1) Clark's early strong support for Hillary Clinton in the primaries; and (2) Clark's alleged but wrongly reported and overhyped dissing of John McCain's war service. Clark became "radioactive," according to one camp in the Obama apparatus, according to one Colorado source who told me that privately.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
Yessir, Stan, we have certainly heard that one, haven't we? The newly-elected POTUS showed, early on, than he didn't like taking heat, huh? That what you're saying?
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
Obama doesn't like anyone who may distract the media's attentions from Obama's message. Whether that specifically means Obama or means his inner circle, or both, is up for interpretation.
"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
That's closer to home. However in retrospect, IMO, that's one big thing Obama's missing right now. Drama. I could be wrong. Bush had drama but couldn't speak. Obama - once he was elected - no longer has the drama. He just has the golden words.
I have another idea. Does anyone cotton to the concept of "Trumanesque"? I think General Clark exhibited in his life the qualities of coolness and decisiveness and truthfulness. And Truman's cussedness. He could call a spade a spade, play his cards. I'm saying, I guess, I'm thinking that Obama just didn't want to start off making the Republicans mad at him.
Is there any agreement on that point?
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
"Obama doesn't like anyone who may distract the media's attention"?
So he picks Biden? (No, I don't think that works!)
Although Biden has proved that he can be schooled, of late.
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
and has been, effectively muzzeled. Wes can't. I wouldn't want to be the one to try to force Wes to do something he doesn't want to do, or to keep his mouth shut when he doesn't think he should or doesn't want to. I doubt it would work out well.
"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
My opinion on why Obama never included Wes Clark: First, he supported Hillary and campaigned for her. Second, he is a strong and credible leader - something that might make Obama look a tad weak in several areas. Obama didn't want anyone who could show him up.
I'm ever so grateful that Wes was never given the VP bid and, while he would have been an outstanding SoS, it's better that he's not intimately involved with this administration. He can come and go as he pleases, getting involved with whichever project he deems worthy and important, and he doesn't have to kowtow to Obama, Axelrod and Emanuel.
But later he came across with a ringing and eloquent endorsement of Mr. Obama. I don't think Obama's big tent mythology squares with this anti-Clinton theory of yours.
However I can't be as dismissive of your idea that Barry was hesitant to have, maybe, a smarter man in the cabinet room. Wes Clark is not your run-of-the-mill, boot-licking, sucking-up career general. (Not to be disrespectful, of course; I'm jes sayin'.)
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
Wes wasn't part of the Washington "in" crowd that was bought and paid for by the big corps, lobbyists, etc. Plus, he wouldn't be afraid to speak his mind in public. (Loose cannon to all shady politicos.)(Plus, I have more than a sneaking suspicion that Wes never liked nor trusted the great 0.)
"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff
That thought occurred to me, of course. But my take on Clark's career is that he had a ton of history of working under commanders of widely different types. And, I think Clark was every bit as power-lusting [I mean that in a positive sense] as any one else considered for the top administrative spots. He liked pressure. (If he'd have been a major league shortstop, his mantra would be 'hit the ball to me'.) He had self-composure to work under anyone and the self-confidence to accept any assignment.)
But I agree with you: he was not afraid to speak his mind. But it was just the 'spin' that he was a loose cannon. Look at what a team player he's been in retirement! Not much drama there.
But you put your finger on another possibility: maybe he was judged by others Obama wanted on his clique not to be a good team player.
Hmmmm..... I'll have to think about that.
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
That's a strong possibility. One of the writers about Clark (was it Col. Hackworth?) wrote that Clark didn't suffer fools easily. He and others said that he almost always thought he was the smartest man in the room, and that that was almost always demonstrably true. Clark also wrote in "A Time for Leadership" about competence and performance. I suspect that he saw through Obama from the outset and had to force himself to talk him up as the lesser of evils.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."
None of us know. That's the answer. Further, none of us are likely to know. There may have been a specific something, there may have been nothing. It may have been nothing more than Obama clicked with Biden more than anyone else and it was a personal choice.
Because campaign staffers/insiders or pundits intimate something doesn't make it fact. It might be, but it might not.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is - it no longer matters. It can't be changed. Feel free to move on.
"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
Kaflinn, I've met Wes Clark and heard him speak. You cannot look into the man's eyes and see dull glazed eyes. The man is electric with energy. I don't believe he clicked with Biden. Look how long he took to make the choice. Biden happened because he had to work through the Clinton problem first. No, Obama didn't want Clark for a reason. And I don't think it was inconsequential. I submit that Obama's not taking what strengths the General offered the role of SOS or VPOTUS is symptomatic of something deep - perhaps buried - in Barry's soul.
I bet Wes Clark has an idea, but I also bet he's not sharing it for another decade or so.
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
I don't quite understand why this particular issue is so important to you, especially this far after the election.
Whatever the reason for Obama's choice, it was his choice to make, for any reason he chose. Would I have prefered Wes to Biden? If that's what Wes wanted, sure. But, I like Biden. In fact, Biden is the only reason I could convince myself to vote for Obama rather than not vote at all for President.
Which brings up another possiblility for you to ponder: maybe Wes didn't want the job. (No, I have no evidence, gossip, inside info, or Chris-Mathews-tingling-feeling-up-my-leg about that, either).
So, as I suggested earlier - feel free to move on. All of this is moot and frankly, and about as usefull as hanger-flying.
"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
I agree with all of your positive comments about Gen. Clark and I agree with Kelly Flinn's point that "it no longer matters. It can't be changed. Feel free to move on."
I also agree with Kelly Flinn that "None of us know" but I can give you some kind of a tangible answer to your question that could POSSIBLY be a reason why which hopefully can help you to move on.
Obama and his campaign VERY wrongly threw Gen. Clark under the bus during the summer of 2008 after Obama clinched the nomination because it was politically convenient for them to do at the time when they should have defended him because Gen. Clark did NOTHING wrong. Here is full documentation of that terrible incident:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15941
CNN is now reporting that Obama "rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 30, 2008 - 1:36pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15996
VIDEO: Linda Douglass of the Obama campaign threw Gen. Clark under the bus!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 3, 2008 - 12:02pm.
Solid proof that Obama and his campaign wrongly threw Gen. Clark under the bus because it was politically convenient for them to do at the time is that former Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson said the exact same thing about John McCain that Gen. Clark did when he spoke at the 2008 Republican National Convention and he got cheers from the audience when he said it:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16453
Fred Thompson on McCain: "being a POW doesn't qualify anyone to be president..."
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 3, 2008 - 3:55am.
After this incident where Obama and his campaign did such a terrible and an unfair thing to Gen. Clark when they should have defended him, it is hard for me to see Obama putting Gen. Clark on the ticket because of how difficult that it would have been for Obama to explain to the country and to the national media so shortly after throwing him under the bus.
That would especially the case in my opinion when MANY in the national media backed Obama when he unfairly threw Gen. Clark under the bus and when MANY in the national media have treated Gen. Clark very unfairly on several other occasions:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15872
The biased media that did a hit job on Hillary also did a hit job on Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 24, 2008 - 2:38am.
While this is a POSSIBLE tangible answer to your question, it is still an opinion only on my part because as Kelly Flinn correctly said, "None of us know."
You can also ask yourself that if you were Gen. Clark and you went through everything that I documented above, would you want to be on the ticket with Obama where you would have to constantly defend him for the rest of the campaign and then have to take orders from him for the next 4 to 8 years if he won? That is just a serious question to think about and consider.
I think that it is time to move on right now because we cannot go back in time and change what happened in the past and because the national media who were deep in the tank for Obama during the 2008 election and who backed Obama when he threw Gen. Clark under the bus are getting the punishment that they deserve right now for their irresponsibly giving Obama a near free ride to both the nomination and to The White House without vetting him and without asking him the tough questions when it really counted in my opinion:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17709
Keith Olbermann and many others in the media CANNOT complain about Obama now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 22, 2009 - 1:42pm.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728
The Obama Love Shack: That's Where It's At (04:28)
Submitted By: DannyG
Uploaded: 2 years ago
Date Aired: July 22, 2008
"The press has been in bed with Barack Obama since he gave the keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Relive the "Obamedia's" public displays of affection in this video love story."
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728
This is a very entertaining video that I think makes some good points about the national media and will give you a few laughs!
The media's complaints about Obama now are the tough questions that they should have asked him over 2 years ago instead of being cheerleaders for him!
Even after all of this, Gen. Clark was able to move on and support Obama:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16272
Heading to Denver
Submitted by Wes Clark on August 27, 2008 - 4:50pm.
"I'm in Munich right now, but I can't tell you how ready I am to head to Denver and join my fellow Democrats.
The Democratic Party is ready to lead and address the many challenges ahead, and Barack Obama is the leader we need for our country and to help humanity meet today's global challenges.
We're a party loaded with talent. Like many of you, I've been thrilled by the speeches at the Democratic National Convention so far. Hillary Clinton was great last night. Her strength, her character, her call for unity. Her speech just proves once again that she is a great American and has many years of distinguished public service ahead of her..."
Gen. Clark is real a class act!
Finally, your saying "I don't believe he clicked with Biden" could be true BUT it cannot be tangibly proven. That is an opinion as opposed to a fact unless you were a fly on the wall listening to everything that Obama, Biden, and their inner circle of advisors said to each other behind closed doors!
I am aware of this sordid history and hit it hard on my site at the time. Your links are very valuable for my follow-up. It was ugly. Under stress and attack, Obama showed the his first impulse is to accommodate, and that's the opposite impulse for Clark. Very convincing. Another thing: Obama the rookie, was not yet aware when he had a winning hand (vis-vis McCain). I think Clark would never give when he held just a playable hand.
I think this represents the nub of the problem. A historical crossroads.
Do you think a POTUS-Elect Hillary would have picked General Clark for SOS? Do you think?
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
...Hillary would not have chosen Wes as SoS since she already would have chosen him as her running mate (and the question was what POTUS-elect Hillary would do, which would therefore have made Wes VPOTUS-elect and not an option for Hillary to choose as SoS
Wes would have played an important role in a Hillary Clinton administration, and that's what ultimately made her palatable to me. (I was not a Hillary fan, but circumstances made her my default choice by March 2008.)
First, thank you for all of your nice comments, I really appreciate them!
Again, unless you were a fly on the wall listening to everything that Hillary and Gen. Clark said to each other behind closed doors, we will never know what what said or if they even would have had that kind of a conversation.
As far as what I think about "Do you think a POTUS-Elect Hillary would have picked General Clark for SOS?," I think that Gen. Clark could have been on the ticket, he could have been Secretary of State, or he would have at least got some kind of a high level cabinet position such as National Security Advisor. I think that VP or Secretary of State would have been the two most likely positions that Gen. Clark would have been offered. However everything that I am saying in this paragraph is MY OPINION ONLY because I do not know what Gen. Clark did or did not want to do and what Hillary would or would not have offered him.
Your guess and opinion about that question is as good as mine!
Thank you all for drilling down on these questions of mine! Seldom, if ever, have I found myself in an Internet discussion which was more focused and more informative!
I might be close to being able to move on, except I have one more question(!):
From what people read of Clark's public positions leading up to the point when Obama was elected, What was General Clark's general perspective on AfPak? Did he want to escalate, de-escalate or other? I mean, what do you think would have been his counsel to Nominee Clinton or Nominee Obama? Did he make his feelings public? To put this another way, did he consider Bush's footprint in Afghanistan "too large to 'fail'"? What could have been his approach to AfPak that might have made him unacceptable to Obama or Clinton as a Secretary of State?
Does anyone want to make a guess?
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
I am not sure what "General Clark's general perspective on AfPak" is. I would have to try and look that up. If I do not know something, I will always be honest and admit it.
Here is what I can tell you where Gen. Clark has had foreign policy differences with Obama:
1) Gen. Clark opposed setting a timetable to leave Iraq which Obama (and nearly all of the other announced Presidential candidates at the time) were in favor of:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html
Next move in Iraq?
Americans want a new approach. Withdrawal? A bad idea. Partitioning? Won't work. The right approach is one that addresses U.S. interests in the entire region.
By Wesley Clark
Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, November 21, 2006
Timetables a bad idea
"What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.
The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.
Here is how to do this..."
2) Gen. Clark also has had differences with Obama about his Afghanistan policy:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/18/clark-tells-congress-to-plan-exit-strategy-in-afgh/
Clark tells Congress to plan exit strategy in Afghanistan
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
By Tom LoBianco
"Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark urged members of Congress Tuesday to adopt an exit strategy for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Speaking to the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, Gen. Clark said American leaders should strengthen the partnership with Pakistan - including sharing intelligence on al Qaeda operations - and promote economic development in Afghanistan to undercut the drug trade that's fueled by poppy harvesting.
Gen. Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate, praised President Obama for taking his time in developing an Afghanistan strategy and said that any troop increase should wait until a firm endgame has been established for U.S. involvement in the country.
"The legacy of Vietnam really looms over these discussions," said Gen. Clark, reflecting on his experience in Vietnam and the arc of one of the nation's most painful wars.
"It's particularly painful for me to see where we are in Afghanistan," he said.
U.S. forces commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal has requested up to 60,000 more American troops to support international forces. Pressure has built over the past three months on Mr. Obama to decide whether to support that call..."
Here is the 22 second audio link of Gen. Clark saying that it is important for the Obama administration to “get the strategy exactly right” when formulating their plans for Afghanistan:
Retired General Wesley Clark Says Obama Administration Must Get Afghanistan Strategy “Exactly Right”
Posted by University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service on November 17, 2009 | ShareThis
Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) said Tuesday that it is important for the Obama administration to “get the strategy exactly right” when formulating their plans for Afghanistan.
“Figure out where you’re going. How do we get out of here? Because our presence long term there is not a good thing. We’re playing into the hands of people who don’t like foreigners in a country that’s not tolerant of diversity. And that’s not going to change,” Clark said. (0:22)
Standard Podcast [0:22m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download
If there was any smoking gun of Obama-Clark incompatibility in AfPak policy options, you would have uncovered it.
You all have been very generous in your contributions, time, and column inches. But before I consign my lingering curiosity to future historians and biographers, I will review the great wealth of materials and links in this thread.
"Moving on" is so hard for me to do.....
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
I have always emphasized the importance of history because "it may help to positively influence what happens in the future if people know about it and learn a lesson from it:"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15872#comment-312340
Re: Looking back won't help / It may not help BUT it's necessary
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 26, 2008 - 12:45am.
"in my opinion!
I really appreciate the good things that you had to say about Gen. Clark but in my opinion history has to accurately record what happened in the media to both Gen. Clark and to Hillary so that people will know to take these biased media pundits with a grain of salt when they watch them and so that hopefully one day these media pundits will be held accountable for their unprofessional behavior!
I agree with you that looking back won't change the past BUT it may help to positively influence what happens in the future if people know about it and learn a lesson from it!..."
I have also made the point about history that "Even though what happened cannot be changed now, hopefully people will learn a valuable lesson from this important piece of history and will do a better job of holding the media accountable for what they do and say in the future..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15872#comment-312349
Re: History is Valuable / Good point on the lead up to the war!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 26, 2008 - 2:27am.
Here is the post that I based this comment on:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15694
The media did NOT do their jobs in the run-up to the Iraq war AND vetting Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 5, 2008 - 2:12am.
I definitely want Obama to succeed because failure for Obama means that the country (and possibly even the world) would fail along with him. Because of that point alone, no sane person in my opinion should ever want to see Obama fail regardless of anything that happened in the past which we thought was wrong or unfair!
However I am glad to see that the media are getting the punishment that they deserve right now and more importantly I really hope that this teaches them a good lesson to be objective and to ask EVERY serious Presidential candidate the tough questions in future Presidential elections:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17709
Keith Olbermann and many others in the media CANNOT complain about Obama now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 22, 2009 - 1:42pm.
I laugh at people like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Jack Cafferty, and others in the media who were in the tank for Obama when I hear them complaining about him right now because everything that they are complaining about now are the tough questions that they should have asked Obama BEFORE he was nominated and elected!
I really do hope that the media has learned some kind of a valuable lesson from this which is a main reason why I think that history is VERY important to record and talk about. Nobody should ever want to see past mistakes repeated in the future because the right lessons were not learned from what happened in the past!
My curiosity rises again to the surface. My pre-election perceptions of Clark and Obama led me to think the two were a perfect match. Why they didn't relate to each other only Wes, Barack and maybe Wes' son know. You're telling me the media fed me fantasies? I don't know about that. But I will always feel bewildered about this.
And I echo your desire for Obama to be successful, of course....
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
Mitch, look at this story, speculating on Obama buddying up with General Petreaus as VPOTUS, replacing Biden in 2012 on the Democratic ticket. What would Petreaus offer Obama that Clark didn't or couldn't?
I reserve the right to refine and extend my remarks upon my return to The Vigil.
What went wrong? That's easy. Those of us who listened with clear ears instead of through the foggy mist of hope and change never heard a progressive agenda promised...that is, to the extent he promised an agenda at all. All we heard was hope and change, but not an implementable agenda. He warned us that he was not going to satisfy the progressive agenda, because bipartisanship was the overarching theme.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."