home

You Think Wes Clark Might Be a Good Surrogate Right Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:16:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Wes Clark is promising to not go away:

A little over a month ago, following my appearance on Face the Nation, the right wing freak machine took me out of context, attacked me, and just wanted me to "hit the road."

Well, I'm here to tell you: I'm not going away.

Contribute to WesPAC's "Hit The Road Fund!" Help us raise $25,000 by this Friday. . . . Contirbute to Wes.

You think the former Suprene Allied Commander of NATO who won the Kosovo Conflict might be an effective Democratic surrogate just about now? Think he can speak to the issues in an authoritative way? You think he would be a strong voice for discussing the Democratic position on the Russia-Georgia conflict? You think Dems NEED him? I do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< More On The Russia-Georgia Conflict | Monday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    You Think Wes Clark Might Be a Good Surrogate Right Now? | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Too bad he got Obama'ed (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    (thrown under the bus)

    Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by tek on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    he's not the candidate, or the veep.  Clinton/Clark--now that has a ring to it!

    Parent
    Speaking of good surrogates and a Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:12:00 AM EST
    I missed, initially, Howard Fineman's article the other day on  how Obama "still needs Bill Clinton."  Fineman quotes a Hillary fundraiser who
    pleaded with the senator to spend quality time with a wounded and therefore potentially disruptive Bill Clinton. "I told Barack, 'Have dinner. Clear the air. Win him over'." Obama didn't seem eager, but he did make a brief call a month later.

    The bundler pressed him to do more. "Barack told me it was hard to find the time, and I said, 'You'd better!' " Last week* Obama called a second time, and the result was a deal for Clinton to speak at the convention in Denver. Still, there are no plans for them to sit down alone.

     * [after the infamous 'ready to be president' quote]

    Fineman also mentions that Hillary "has continued to push for the convention to include a roll call of her delegate support."

     Well, Jake Tapper pointed out the other day that no roll-call has been avoided (meaning leaving no official record of opposition) since the mid 60s when the main candidate ran unopposed.  Yet they want Clinton not to have one.

    Obama should ask himself just what kind of example he wants for his daughters, to -- himself -- make her the first Dem candidate to be denied a roll-call since the early 60s.

    And then there is the Unifier promise that people would really like to see in action.

    The last paragraph says it all:

    To see Bill now is to see a melancholy political animal: still brilliant,
    but clouded by his own resentments. At the Aspen Institute Ideas Conference recently, he held forth effortlessly on ethanol and electricity grids, education and rural poverty. A tentful of academics, business leaders, journos and, yes, bundlers, sat in rapt silence. I knew what they were thinking: the guy is flawed (as are we all), but what a once-in-a-generation talent. Obama sure could use him.


    Parent
    I always liked that ticket best (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    Oh well. Obama/Clark would do too.

    Parent
    Here's an example (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:21:16 PM EST
    Link

    Barack Obama: In his role as commander on the ground, not surprisingly, he wants to retain as much flexibility as possible in terms of accomplishing that goal. And what I emphasized to him was you know if I was, i-if I were in his shoes, I'd probably feel the same way. But my job as a candidate for President and a potential Commander in Chief extends beyond Iraq.

    (end tape)

    Joe Scarborough: Alright. With us now, we've got MSNBC analyst retired General Wesley Clark. General, thanks so much for being with us.

    GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Joe.

    Mika Brzezinski: Nice to see you.

    GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Good to be here. Hi, Mika.

    Joe Scarborough: I'm a little confused by that statement. He s-said that of, of General Petraeus, 'Hey, if I were in your position, I would be saying the same thing.' It sort of made General Petraeus sound more like a lobbyist than a commander in the field who's really turned things around in Iraq. Explain what Barack Obama was getting at there.

    GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think what he was saying was exactly right. If you're the Commander in Chief, you've got respo- worldwide responsibilities. And so, you've got to balance off the demands from one theater with the demands for another. And so, the commander on the ground says, 'Here's the risk. I want to minimize the risk by keeping more forces and keeping my timetable flexible." And the Commander in Chief says, 'I understand your concerns, but the risk, I'll take the risk, because I've got to balance it off with demands from another theater.' That's perfectly legitimate. That's exactly the way it's supposed to work, and I think Barack Obama had it just right.
    No one explains WORM better (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:43:35 PM EST
    I don't even care if Obama is learning it by watching Clark's appearances, as long as he learns it.

    Parent
    Not me (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:22:37 PM EST
    Personally, I am eager to find out what Evan Bayh and Kathleen Sebelius think about the situation.

    As is the rest of America, I assume.

    You think Clark (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:28:42 PM EST
    would NOT be a good surrogate for Democrats right now? Really?

    Well Steve, you show poor judgment now and again. This is one of them.

    Parent

    You didn't get the snark? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:29:33 PM EST
    Maybe it was unintentially snark?

    Parent
    Evan Bayh (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    could be the VP.

    Frankly, I think we SHOULD know what he thinks.

    But I see it was snark. Missed the mark for me because Bayh is a leading contender for VP, and he will be asked about this.

    Frankly, to the degree Kaine and Sebelius were still on the list, this should put them out for good.

    Parent

    Eh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    Bayh has the foreign policy chops in an it's-on-the-resume sense.

    But when General Clark talks about foreign policy, I listen and learn.  Someone like Bayh, while he's not ignorant, is just another politician with a position.

    Actually, one of the problems with having Clark as a surrogate right now is that the correct foreign policy recommendation (whatever that may be) isn't necessarily going to be the most effective political message for Obama.  To the extent that should matter, of course.

    Parent

    When Clark says it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:39:51 PM EST
    it will make it right politically imo.

    I think Biden is who he should choose among those he is willing to pick.

    Bayh is terrible imo.

    Parent

    Bayh gets it wrong everytime (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donna Z on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:13:17 PM EST
    That man needs to be kept away from power.

    Hey...Maybe Biden could dream up one of his terrific partitioning ideas.  (That is most definitely snark.) Biden isn't all he's cracked up to be.

    I want to see someone get this right; therefore, I want to hear from Clark. I would imagine since he is officially "persona non grata" to Team Obama, we will have to wait to hear from Clark on his own time. Although we missed out on hearing from Clark on Pakistan because noone asked.

    Think about this: a key member of Clinton's foreign policy team, Lee Feinstein is now advising Obama. God help us. Team Uber-hawk is gearing up.

    I did read one blip from Clark...he said that Russia is exercising its authority, and with Russian planes in the air, if NATO were to enter it would surely bring on a confrontation. Not good.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:22:35 PM EST
    I know that Hillary is seen as a hawk, but Bayh is a hawk now, on Iran.  It doesn't seem to bode well for Obama's new foreign policy to have a VP who is a very traditional hawk (as opposed to Hillary, who, "obliterate" aside, had many interesting ideas about foreign policy and controlling the region during the primaries).  

    Parent
    Clark was having an influence on her (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by NCarolinawoman on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:24:26 PM EST
    as time went on. I could hear it some of her speeches and in her townhall discussions. What Clark said about McCain on Face the Nation, he had said repeatedly when he was a Hillary surrogate. She never seemed uncomfortable with it.

    I am afraid  a very important voice has been sidelined now. Obama is such a neophyte, he is probably clueless as to which  which one of his 300 foreign policy advisers he should actually listen to.    

    Parent

    Kathleen Sibelius (none / 0) (#93)
    by jsj20002 on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    I met the Governor of Kansas a few weeks ago at an Obama fundraiser in Leland, Michigan.  Besides her obvious executive and speaking capabilities, she has connections to other states that add to her strengths.  She was raised in Ohio. Her father, Jim Gilligan, was the Governor of Ohio from 1971 to 1975.  Her family had, and still has, a summer cottage in Northern Michigan where Kathleen has spent time every summer of her life.  

    Parent
    Oh BTD (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST
    While I don't deny the point about poor judgment, I believe the snark was fairly obvious in this case.

    Parent
    My slow bad (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:35:06 PM EST
    The problem is Bayh is on the short list.

    Sebelius is now completely off, as is Kaine.

    It is down to Bayh and Biden I think.

    Parent

    Kaine and Seblius off the list? (none / 0) (#74)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:47:12 PM EST
    How do we know that?  

    I wish we had better choices than Bayh and Biden.  Of those two, Bayh is the a better choice, but neither of them excite me in the least.  Oh well, VP's don't really matter.  

    Parent

    I disagree. I'm more comfy with Clark there (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:37:55 AM EST
    And so will some independents and military-minded conservatives who are paying attention to McCain's "I know how to win a war!  I know how to do that" (based on nothing) and are hoping for something sane (and experienced).

    Parent
    Wow, when you put it that way (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:37:53 PM EST
    ...deflating....

    Parent
    Too honorable (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Mike H on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:27:57 PM EST
    Wes Clark strikes me as one of those men who is actually too honorable to be a good politician, especially the way politics is carried out now.

    Jimmy Carter is another, in a different way, of course.

    I think so (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Dave B on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:29:51 PM EST
    But what I think doesn't matter.  When it comes to politics, I always seem to be on the losing end.  In fact, maybe like George on Seinfled, I should always do the opposite...

    I think they need Clark too (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:31:10 PM EST
    in fact he probably is the only person that Bill Clinton could genuinely introduce as the VP and the Dem's would carry ARK. again.

    Picking a VP (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:39:49 PM EST
    that Bill can enthusiastically campaign for would be a very good idea.

    Parent
    Maybe it's me, but it sure seems like (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:38:37 PM EST
    Obama "needs" a whole lot of people to shore up his weaknesses and it's making it more obvious than it ought to be that what he brings to the table on his own is lacking.

    More troubling is that he doesn't seem to see that - what does that mean should he be elected?  To how he would govern?  This is a man who says he never has any doubts - something I find pretty scary.

    Yes, and accompanying the "Never!" was (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:40:37 AM EST
    a smile that went from 0 to 100.  That whole thing scared me.

    Parent
    Dems may need Wes Clark, but... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:51:33 PM EST
    they're collectively too stupid to know it, and even if they did they wouldn't know how to use him effectively.

    Think this might cause camp Obama (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:54:18 PM EST
    to rethink their VP choice?

    After all, no one knows who it is yet!

    You didn't get your text yet? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:04:37 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:05:36 PM EST
    I need to be on a junk text list like I need a hole in my head.

    Parent
    Wes Clark is really the only dem w/gravitas (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Exeter on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:55:17 PM EST
    on foreign and military affairs.  

    That's exactly why Obama (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    will distance himself from him and the same way he wants to distance himself from Hillary. Clark is way too strong. Obama will want someone like Bayh that he can handle.

    Biden (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:54:23 PM EST
    Are we going to hear replays of how Biden said of Obama: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

    Then, add to that the whole Anita Hill thing - no way, I think.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    Are the Republicans seriously going to argue that Obama picked a racist for VP?  I'm not sure the world could possibly get that topsy-turvy.

    Parent
    Mmmm (none / 0) (#91)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 06:24:06 AM EST
    I don't think it will be the Republicans having to make that argument - the media will replay that clip a thousand times. :)

    Parent
    Biden talks too much (none / 0) (#75)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    He'll blurt out something dumb, like his ''joke'' about all 7-11 owners being Indian.  

    The first duty of a VP candidate is to do no harm to the campaign.  I do not think we can count on Biden for that.  

    Where's the most dangerous place in Washington DC?  

    Between Joe Biden and camera.  

    Parent

    Honestly, one minute he's great (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    and the next minute he drives me up the wall. He would not be a good choice.

    Parent
    We may need Clark Kent soon (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:29:03 PM EST
    Can we get Wes fitted for tights?

    Ruffian here, reporting for duty (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM EST
    can I have that job?

    Parent
    I could get into Clark (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Lil on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST
    I think he's the only one after Clinton who could help Obama by speaking his mind.

    One other thing (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donna Z on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    According to Steve Clemons, Clark knows lots about China...they attended the same conference there. And I think that Clark is as good as most on the Gulf Region. He's a quick study, Northern Iraq was part of his patch at one time, and he's spent time there.

    However, Georgia and Russia and the rest of E. Europe are Clark's specialty. When Clark was 37, he was considered one of the world's experts on the region.

    We all need Clark on this one.  

    And a BIG plus (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by miriam on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:00:14 PM EST
    is that Clark speaks Russian.  Does Obama? <snark>

    Parent
    If Obama isn't going to pick Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM EST
    then Clark is the next best by far.  

    I should have known this would be his (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:45:39 AM EST
    next move.  Once a warrior always a warrior I suppose.  An Army of One is a bad slogan to attempt to apply to every American but sure fits him well. That crazy dude just goes indy on the frontlines when his allies lose their own hearts and minds :)  He really believes in this nation and he knows that until we are all pushing up daisies there is work to do and that the work is part of our lives - not something to overcome and then never have to do again.  He fears nothing but real bullets and then I suppose it isn't an all out fear but more a calculated fear.  He's such a Babe too!

    I really wonder if he will be speaking on Wed at (none / 0) (#4)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:23:16 PM EST
    the convention.

    I like Wes Clark... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    ...I think he'd be a great VP choice.

    But given your rationale for him being an "strong voice," well, I don't know. Given the circumstances and the general POV of much of the lefty blogosphere -- the consistency of his statements on Georgia and Kosovo might be judged harshly.

    I say that just as a devil's advocate for the fact that the two situations -- though different as all different situations are -- are similar enough to cause problems. Separatists, looking to a big brother figure for freedom, attacked by their own country in an attempt to quash secession. Not that Clark would be wrong in his analysis, but wouldn't he HAVE to say something in defense of the Kosovo War that would piss off the newly-minted pro-Ossetian folks?

    Easily defensible (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:30:48 PM EST
    Four letters - N-A-T-O.

    And suppose the call is restraint.

    The guy who fought and WON the war in Kosovo can call for restraint because he went to war already, and won.

    Parent

    I honestly don't think that will be good enough... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:55:29 PM EST
    ...against, I trust Clark to -- as long as politics don't intrude -- deftly explain himself here. But when those stories about him that end:

    Clark's orders were never carried out. "I'm not going to start World War III for you," Jackson is quoted in Newsweek as telling Clark after the incident.

    ...are floating around, I'm not sure if NATO is defense enough. Especially considering I'm talking about a crowd that has bashed NATO nonstop this week, and certainly seems willing to backdate their existential dislike of it.

    Parent

    The story of Pristina airport? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Donna Z on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    I really don't want to have to go into that here. However, Clark was correct to want to block the landing strips rather than have the Russian planes bring in their troops. They were trying to poke NATO in the eye. Jackson was out of order. The plan was executed successfully the following day and the Russians failed to securing Pristina for Milosevic.

    BTW, you and everyone else would never have known about that if Gen. Clark hadn't told. Strangely enough, although Washington had approved the plan along with all the other NATO heads of state, they back down without telling Clark.

    Parent

    Yes, I know. But there's no bearing on my point... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    ...about the way it is inevitability going to be used by newly-minted anti-NATO folks and the media. And this discussion is about Clark's use as a surrogate. So.

    Parent
    That quote helps Clark imo (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:01:01 PM EST
    Particularly with McCain going Dr. Strangelove.

    Parent
    You do understand... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:03:22 PM EST
    ...that Clark was the one issuing the allegedly apocalyptic order, right?

    Parent
    OF course (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:10:26 PM EST
    That was my point.

    Hard to call the guy ready to start WWIII (according to the insanely stupid Jackson) to much of a peacenik.

    Parent

    Ok... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:14:38 PM EST
    ...I wasn't sure which way you were going with that.

    And, to that argument, I'd say it insulates him against the right but not the group I was talking about.

    But, true enough. Depending on what is strategically necessary for a good surrogate, it could indeed be a buffer against accusation of peacenikism.

    However, that would require an attentive, thoughful media, I think. Which may be where the bottom falls out. The focus of the media would be on the "inconsistency" instead of Clark's history of standing up to Russia when necessary.

    You know that's true.

    Parent

    Bush's recent comments (none / 0) (#38)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    demanding a Russian ceasefire following Cheney's comments that we cannot just sit back and do nothing I find very disturbing. I wonder if Bush & Cheney really think entering Georgia will serve as an excuse to take troops out of Iraq?

    Parent
    Read that Israel has troops fighting (none / 0) (#55)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    the Russians in Georgia.  That could get very bad and quickly.

    Parent
    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#63)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    for that? I'd like to read it.

    Parent
    Unfortunately no (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 10:51:56 PM EST
    and I can't remember now where I read it.  It could be complete crap but it sounded reasonable at the time, this afternoon.

    Parent
    Some members of the IDF (none / 0) (#80)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:16:47 PM EST
    went to Georgia at the behest of Galilee Div. commander Brig.-Gen. Gal Hirsch, who founded the Homat Magen company so that it was done by a private company rather than by the Israeli government itself. At least this is my understanding. I could be wrong. Someone else may have more information on this than I.

    Parent
    The theme of the night the VP speaks (none / 0) (#14)
    by indy in sc on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    at the Dem convention is apparently named after a Clark PAC.  Could we be looking at an Obama/Clark ticket?

    No chance (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:36:02 PM EST


    Parent
    I disagree. I think he has a reasonable chance (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Angel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:03:44 PM EST
    even considering the "under the bus" thing.    His experience is precisely why I think that way.  Plus he could carry Arkansas.  Electoral votes, that's where it's at.  

    Also, it's just what my gut says.  

    Parent

    Just curious, why do you say no chance? (none / 0) (#21)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:39:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Cuz Obama's camp (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    is scared to make a mistake.

    They think Clark on McCain could blow up on them.

    Parent

    Of course, if Hillary were (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by dk on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    the VP pick, you also get Clark, since Clark was a big Hillary supporter.

    Parent
    She would bring (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:14:08 PM EST
    a lot of good people with her. I can't help worrying who Obama's going to bring with him.

    Parent
    Well Obama picked a bad time (none / 0) (#25)
    by jb64 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:51:59 PM EST
    to go on vacation. Clark probably won't be VP, but he will have a spot in the cabinet methinks, or possibly as NSA.

    Yep, I've now heard about Obama golfing (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:26:44 PM EST
    while Gori (sp?) in Georgia burns.  Heard it several times on a few news networks today.  Of course, always put as a pointed but innocent-sounding question:  "Do you think Obama ought to get off the golf course and come back?" blah blah blah.

    Parent
    Well, he will be very irritated (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    if anyone suggests he isn't entitled to this quiet time with his family.

    I was actually surprised he was even encouraged out in public to make a statement about the conflict.

    FORE!!

    Parent

    Lou Dobbs had an "interesting" report (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:11:08 PM EST
    on the situation. He did the timeline of what was happening in Georgia and photos of what Bush was doing at the Olympics. And of course it then became McCain's comments with mispronouncing the Georgian President's name 3Xs and Obama golfing. One thing that was interesting was that he also referred to and showed Hillary's 3AM commercial in the middle of the story . . . .

    Parent
    They cannot stop (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    with the Hillary bashing today. One article announces "Report says Adviser told Hillary Rodham Clinton to cast Obama as un-American" but then you get into the article and it admits that Hillary rejected this advice. So... what makes this a news worthy story. The basis of the article is that Hillary was short tempered and fought with her staff over how to carry on the campaign.

    Her campaign is over. Why is this continuing? It makes no sense to me.

    Parent

    Lou wasn't bashing (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:58:59 PM EST
    it was more like how she did the ad and with what's going on internationally. A lead in to McCain and Obama segments.

    I can't figure out why they are trying to make negative news out of the fact she didn't want to portray Obama as not American etc. They need to give it up already. Exactly how is it supposed to sound? "OMG! Do you hear they wanted  Hillary to slam Obama and she didn't?! That B!TCH!" Is that how we are supposed to react to this crap? Methinks they need to concentrate on the crap candidates we ended up with.

    Parent

    They're still afraid of her and her 18 mil clout (none / 0) (#88)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:45:29 AM EST
    Josh Green was on some cable news show and he looked as if he could kill her.  I did not like his aspect at all, righteous and snarly.  And then later it came out that this Atlantic article was his.  Figures.

    Parent
    I know everyone here (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    agreed with Clark on kyl lieberman.

    I did! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    I mean, what progressive wouldn't trust the founder of www.stopiranwar.com on something like the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment?

    Parent
    maybe the same kind of progressive (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:13:39 PM EST
    who thinks bush did exactly what dems thought was right in Iraq.

    Parent
    What I noticed (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donna Z on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:27:43 PM EST
    Neither Clark nor Joe Wilson came out to support Hillary on K-L until she signed on to Webb's Amendment which restricted bush's ability to go to war in Iran.

    When Clark wrote about her vote, he stressed the Webb Amendment and not the resolution. Hillary signed the Webb Amendment in the middle of night without notifiying Webb.

    That was a weird moment.

    Parent

    that's not what I noticed at all (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:35:35 PM EST
    I didn't bring up Clinton anyway.

    I did notice one candidate couldn't be bothered to vote but then wanted everyone to believe how passionate he was to reject it.

    Parent

    He was too busy campaigning, but (none / 0) (#89)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:46:57 AM EST
    strange how the other presidential candidates were able to make the vote.  Yes, I know the story given out.

    Parent
    OK I understand you are a big leaguer and see the (none / 0) (#30)
    by mogal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    whole picture, that's why this is my favorite site. Thank you for your response.

    Surrogate for what exactly? (none / 0) (#40)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:12:55 PM EST
    The last I heard, when Clark made the perfectly coherent statement that a good war record does not necessarily mean that a candidate is qualified for the presidency, Obama disowned him.

    Why do we need "surrogates"?

    Why do we need surrogates? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    Really?

    Parent
    Really. (2.00 / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    "Surrogate" means a substitute.

    Why does the Obama campaign require a substitute?

    Has it come to this?

    Parent

    Only for the past ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:01:56 PM EST
    ...232 years of the United States.

    To suggest that surrogates are necessary only because Obama is such an allegedly weak man is frankly stretching the bounds of credibility. Don't let your dislike of Obama confuse you. Even Hillary used surrogates.

    Parent

    I am not confused. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    Clark is going on the road.
    He will be selling Obama.

    It seems nutty to me since, as I mentioned, Obama joined the right-wingers in condemning Clark's simply stated and easy to understand comment about military records not necessarily indicating a capacity to govern as president. Obama reacted all huffy and shocked and started waving the flag. Phooey.

    I do think that Obama is a weak candidate.

    Parent

    Surrogates exist to be discarded... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 09:45:07 PM EST
    ...another constant of American political life.

    Parent
    Obama later denied he was referring to Clark (none / 0) (#90)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 05:48:42 AM EST
    of course.

      I think he used the phrase 'inartful' though.  That's fairly mild.  As an afterthought and correction.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#92)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 06:35:14 AM EST
    This is what Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said,

    "Sen. Obama honors and respects Sen. McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."

    Parent

    He doesn't care if Obama disowned him (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 10:47:30 AM EST
    Obama is a dude, not the nation we all live in.

    Parent
    Wes Clark is one of my favorites (none / 0) (#47)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 08:23:23 PM EST
    I will say, though, that I find myself a bit tense waiting to hear what he might say these days. The McCain comment was not well thought out, and the quote about referencing "right wing freak machine" is less than dignified for a truly classy, and admirable man. I think he might want to lose the name calling when he's being a democratic surrogate.
    You Think Wes Clark Might Be a Good Surrogate Right Now? | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment