Wesley Clark endorses Hillary Clinton

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Saturday by Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general whose early criticism of the Iraq war fueled a high-profile but short-lived run for the party's nomination in 2004.

"Senator Clinton has the experience, good judgment and the battle tested character to face the challenges ahead," Clark told The Associated Press.

Clark, who joined the Democratic field four years ago largely due to an active online draft movement, planned to discuss his endorsement on a conference call with bloggers later Saturday.

A decorated career Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point, Clark served as NATO's supreme allied commander and led the Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo war under President Clinton.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070915/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_clark_endorsement

Should be interesting...

He'd be a great VP or Sec Of State...

the top candidates. Thats always been my opinion.

and Wes will get behind whomever we nominate. He's a loyal Democrat, no matter how much crap he took to the contrary in '04.

I said a little about this below. If Clark had been a committed Hillary supporter he would have endorsed her a long time ago. He would never have given serious thought to running against her and it is obvious to all but the blind that he did give serious thought to running against her. Those who always see a Clinton conspiracy behind Clark's every move would have seen one if he had entered the race for the nomination also; they would have said "he's trying to derail Obama" or "he's trying to derail Edwards" by getting into the race and splitting the anti-Hillary vote.

In my writings both at DU and elsewhere I have been saying for several months that only Al Gore or Wes Clark could stop Hillary Clinton from winning the nomination. She is pulling away from the field becasue love her, hate her or somewhere in between, she projects more depth of competence and gravitas than either Obama or Gore. Wes Clark held out for a long time, trying to put together the pieces behind the scene to have a winning campaign for President, against Hillary and the rest of the field. He couldn't get the support he needed. My bet is that he knows that Gore isn't running either. Wes Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton because she will lead a competent team in foreign affairs but beyond that, becauase she is going to be our nominee. It is a pragmatic move for Wes Clark to make and I understand it. He now will retain some influence withing her inner circle of advisors. Other wise he wouldn't. Given that Clark does probably believe that Hillary Clinton can make a competent President, and given that he expects her to win, it is a sane decision for him to make.

Like Wes Clark, I will get behind our Democratic nominee when we have one, and I expect that to be Hillary. Unlike Wes Clark I don't have the option of retaining personal influence within her circle of advisors, so I have no need to endorse her or anyone else right now. Of course something could happen to deny Hillary the nomination. Something could have happened to deny Kerry the nomination also when Clark dropped out and endorsed him in 2004 also, but I think it is nearly as unlikely that Hillary will be stopped now as it was that Kerry would have been stopped then.

and how that may have factored into his thinking. There have been scores of reports of how the Clintons are brow-beating people into choosing sides now before the bus leaves the station. I'm sure Wes got treated with more respect than that, but the message is in the air anyway.

If she wins, I'm sure he'll be rewarded, which is good. And I do think it's a sane decision on his part, not least because of the nature of the people he's dealing with here.

my word for it, his resume speaks for itself. If he chooses to support Hillary he has made a choice based on a lot more than what it does for him.

It would not be against his integrity however for Clark to factor in his future effectiveness in helping our nation remain secure free from further war in determining who to now support for President. Wes never puts himself first, he puts his mission first, and his life long mission has always been to effectively serve our nation.

"rose colored glasses" and how it can be fatal for those in the military to ever put them on. When defeat is looming look for your best option, but never deny reality. What you refer to is all a part of that reality. Wes Clark is an incredibly honest man in his public statements. What you see, what you hear, is not political spin. Clark wanted to run for President this year and he knew that doing so would involve running against Hillary and he was more than willing to do that if he felt he could mount a campaign with a strong chance of winning the nomination. Looking at reality without rosey glasses Clark determined that he couldn't; that part of the story is not speculation, Clark has been very open about his attempt to enter the race and the status of it. You can safely bet that Wes Clark fully believes that it is unlikely that anyone out there is in a position to deny Hillary Clinton the Cemocratic nomination in 2008, and his decision making flows from that assessment accordingly.

I stopped supporting Wes's PAC over the last couple of years as he began endorsing various DLC/Blue Dog/Bush Dog candidates, and making addresses for the Third Way, so I hoped it wouldn't come to this, but it has.

And with that, I'm out. I still love all the friends I made, but I am obviously a VERY different person than I was when I supported Wes in 2003/4. So, maybe it's really I who have changed, and not him, so I can't assign any blame.

Best of luck to HRC. Even if she chooses Wes for her VP, she'll have to win without my vote.

TC

How's that work?

I know how that works already.

It's why I won't be voting for Hillary either, no matter what.

Keep it up.

I still don't see how that works...

If you won't vote for the Democratic candidate, you are supporting the Republicans. There's no ambiguity in what you said. You even repeated it in your next post.

That worldview sounds vaguely familiar...

That's not a worldview, that's math.

Hell, you could write in a fictional character, or even not vote. Are libertarians Republicans? No, they are libertarians. Are Greens Republicans? No, they are Greens. Are fictional characters Republicans? No, they don't exist. Is not voting for someone voting for a Republican? No, it is not casting a vote at all.

In order to make what you are saying true, you have to assume that one political party (in this case, the Democratic party) has a pre-ordained right to the votes of all the people who don't want to vote Republican, and therefore if those people don't vote Democratic, they are depriving the Democrats of something they otherwise would have had. This is an undemocratic, and unjustified assumption to make, and that is why it is a worldview, and moreover, it is related to the worldview of a certain commander-in-chief. An overly simplistic, rigid, black-and-white worldview.

You vote for a different candidate, you've supported the Republicans. Vote how you want, but don't complain when the Republicans win. You helped, if you stick to your plan.

candidate's loss? Why not blame the candidate for failing to appeal to the people who didn't vote for him/her? Why not blame the people who nominated the candidate for nominating someone who would fail in that way?

Is it because it wouldn't be as easy or as satisfying as shoving the blame off on people you can't pressure into toeing the party line?

Mrs. Clinton will have to go it alone without me.

TC

I don't see either Kennedy or Gore getting in at this late date, so my support goes to Kucinich.

TC

If she wins the nomination, I mean. But you still won't vote for her in the general, you say.

Most likely I'll sit election day out for the first time in my life, should she get the nom.

Thanks for being so concerned about me, though. I can't tell you how sweet that was.

TC

whether directly or by proxie, if you vote against the only chance to defeat the Republicans. I don't give a rat's ass about you. I'm just sick of this war. Apparently you want it to continue.

I don't question his decision; I believe he would do due diligence before making such a move.

I'm disappointed that I may need to take a second look based on this. While personal appeal (who would you want to have a beer with) should not be a factor, I'm greedy. I want to choose someone based on positions and qualifications, and I want to like them TOO! I like Clark; I like Edwards; I like Biden; I like Gore... Hillary? not so much It's just a personality thing, and should not be a major factor, but, well, there it is.

I am deeply disappointed in the General for this endorsement. He is a smart man and must be able to see what we all know.

I'm out of his camp too TC!

I still like General Clark. I pretty much knew he wouldn't run this time around. If he was going to endorse someone, it's not surprising it's Hillary Clinton.

My primary choice continues to be Obama.

I do not believe it is because of his so called "special reltionship" with the Clinton's. He would have fallen in behind a long time ago had that been the case. Clark endorsed Hillary for the same reason that he endorsed John Kerry as soon as he knew he could not win the nomination himself. Hillary will be our nomminee, of that I have had no doubt for awhile now unless either Clark or Gore had gotten into the race. I have been posting along these lines here at DU for awhile now. I believed that neither Edwards nor Obama would be able to win. Clark knows that Hillary Clinton will be professional about America's foreign policy; she will have a top notch team gathered around her. Back in 2004 Clark trusted Kerry could pull off being President in a dangerous time and he trusts that Hillary can also. That is Clark's number one priority, and he is a realist about what is politically possible, which reflects the same hard nosed quality about him that kept Clark from declaring this year even though we all knew that he wanted to. He didn't see a path to victory open for himself, and now he doesn't see one open for anyone other than Hillary.

Like 2004, when Clark would rather have become the Democratic nominee himself rather than back Kerry, as soon as the handwriting was on the wall Clark reads it and understands the implications. Clark was not going to become the nominee and he knew no other Democrat would deny Hillary that distinction. As one of those who endorsed Hillary, this keeps Wes Clark in the policy making loop. Of that at least I am glad.

The Kerry endorsement came in February when the nominee was clear. This is four months before a vote is even cast..not remotely the same thing, Tom.

I agree he's wagering that Hillary will be the nominee and, right now, that's a smart wager. However, I also think we're seeing a bit of personal calculation on Wes' part, which is only human (the man is not as pure as the driven snow high-minded "number one priorities" notwithstanding). The earlier he shows his loyalty to the Clintons, the better he'll be treated if she wins. Simple.

Like most extremely competent life long high achievers, Clark waited as long as realistically possible before he wrote off his own chances to be the nominee. This time Clark did the same in a sense, but he did so by holding off as long as possible before ruling out running for President again himself. Of course there are calculations involved, and of course you are right; the earlier one alligns themselves with a candidate usually the more influence you will have with that candidate. Clark most certainly believes in himself. He believes that the counsel that he has to offer on matters of national security is valuable, and he wants it listened too by those in a position to act on it. If he can't be President, than someone else will be and Clark believes that someone else will be Hillary.

So unlike me, if and when Clark endorses Hillary had real reprecussions for his own influence on policy issues, and I think that is what moved him to make his endorsement now. Having said all of that, I think Clark is reading political reality well. I think Hillary will be our nominee. When I went to Yearly Kos I went to the candidate break out session that Obama gave. He impressed me greatly, but I have not doubted for about five months now that only Wes Clark or Al Gore could defeat Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and I've written about that here before. Wes Clark could be wrong. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I will go to my grave thinking many progressives made a critical strategic error in not uniting behind a Wes Clark candidacy early, when he was actively considering running.

I don't like going negative on Democratic message boards, so I have not been biting in my critiques of Obama and Edward's chances to defeat Hillary. I still find myself holding back now, but Wes Clark in my opinion was our best shot for electing a progressive Democrat President in 2008, and he was for over a year before he finally ruled out running himself. Now when push comes to shove I believe we will have to chose between Hillary, a Republican, going third party, or sitting 2008 out.

I'm not a former Kerrycrat just because he's not running.

eom

Hillary Leads on Presidential Qualifications and Outpaces ALL Rivals

CLINTON OUTPACES all rivals on presidential qualifications.

Some 46% of Americans express confidence in her "skills and ability necessary to be president," compared with 36% who say that about Giuliani.

"Democrats by 3 to 1 call her more electable than Obama."


Republicans divide more evenly: 39% call Giuliani most electable, while 26% name Thompson. Huckabee campaign cites "significant uptick" in donations after second-place straw-poll showing, as he moves to 4% from 1% in July among Republicans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118974187531227505.html.html

You know the Pugs are going to have two chickenhawks on their ticket and Wes Clark on the Democratic ticket would highlight that...

It will also the negate the "Friday The Thirteenth" campaign the Pugs are sure to run...

Would make a formidable ticket, but his endorsement kind of stuns me. Didn't see that coming.

HE would be a great asset to the new democratic president.I would certainly welcome him
in any top position!

I have thought for some time he might be high on Hillary's list. It was the Clintons who encouraged Clark to get into the political game in the first place (Remember Bill's comment well before Clark entered the race in 2004 : "there are two stars in the Democratic party--Hillary and Wesley Clark"). Add to this Clark's cryptic comments all this year about 'running in 2008.' Of course, other considerations could take over, but I see him providing a lot of benefits to her: not in Congress, strong national defense and foreign policy credentials, macho guy to offset "girl" stuff for the sexist amongst us, not too tall to overpower her. Works for me.

I'd forgotten Bill's "two stars" comment. Good point.

Against it would be the fact that Clinton would be focusing her campaign image almost exclusively on Iraq and foreign policy with that choice, which might turn off her core voters, and he's seen by some Dems as a conservative.

But for it--he's not a senator or politician; he would add strong foreign policy credentials, which might attract those independents who are still afraid of the Democrats on security issues, he would strengthen the Arkansas connection, which could help split the South for the Dems (they would have strong shot at Louisiana, too), and he's got the charisma/personality factor. He has the gravitas to match Clinton. And he might help overcome the mistaken impression some people have that Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq.

I better shut up now. I'm talking myself into it. :)

military VP, but I could live with him on the ticket.

I've never been thrilled with Clark. He was not as consistently anti-war as his supporters claim, and he is not as liberal as they want to believe. And his conversion to the Democratic Party is rather recent, and seems more personal than ideological.

But I could live with him as VP, for what he would bring to the ticket. Same reason I supported Edwards and Lieberman, despite feeling that both of them were too conservative, too. Edwards seems to have moved more left. Lieberman... well, you know.

hesitant in voting for a woman. I have confidence in the Clinton group

They know what they are doing :applause:

I can show you quotes he made early in 2005 that IF he ran for President again, he would do so knowing that he had a clear plan for victory, that he had the support he needed to win, and that he had the money he needed to wage a winning campaign. At the time he sounded confident he would be able to reach those goals, but I think the media and public fascination with Obama is ultimately what stopped Clark from reaching those prerequisites. Hillary Clinton locked up much of the insider game, while Obamba became the new face in politics appealing to ordinary voters across the nation. If you look at all the comments Clark made this year about needing to achieve his preconditions for running, the most detailed of which he made on the Charlie Rose show, you will see that he kept struggling to put together the pieces to launch a campaign that he believed would win. He was unable to do so. Ultimately it is as simple as that.

Let's see what happens....

Frankly, I could happily support all of the Democratic candidates. And I love your attitude! :yourock:

Love that picture.

:thumbsup:

Maybe this will help put to rest the lie that Clinton was a war supporter? One can hope.

I knew from 2004 that he was close to Hillary (and Bill). All year I have thought he might be one of her top contenders for VP.

:bounce:

grand coup for a straight up and down example of the no nonsense Clinton campaign.

I couldn't be happier! :hi:

he compliments her...

but now - you folks don't even have to switch parties because the DLC has turned water to wine, i.e., moderate republicans to centrist democrats. :cry:

You still have Jasime Guy!

:cry:

In the military, where real lives hang on every decision, rose colored glasses are deadly. In war, you can't afford to hope for some unexpected miracle, you have to initiate an orderly retreat as soon as defeat seems likely if one has any hope of living to fight another day.

On this board, in my journal and elsewhere, I urged both Wes Clark and Al Gore to run for President, because it has long been my opinion that neither Barack Obama, or John Edwards, or any of the other Democrats running would be able to defeat Hillary Clinton for the nomination. The only lingering doubt that I had was resolved for me when I saw Hillary running a very tight disciplined and shrewd campaign. In other words I realized that she would not self destruct, someone would have to beat her to the finish on their own steam. I honestly didn't see either Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Bill Richardson being able to do that. For me that solidified my thinking reflected in things that I wrote in my journal here, that our only realistic hope for electing a real progressive President in 2008 was if either Wes Clark or Al Gore entered the race. For the last two months I have been very skeptical that Al Gore would run, and Clark obviously determined that he would be put together the resourses he needed to run and win.

Like I said elsewhere on this thread, in Chicago at Yearly Kos I went to the session hosted by Barack Obama. I really liked him AT, but that didn't make me put on rose colored glasses. When push comes to shove, Obama is running too soon in my opinion, and seemingly in the opinion of a majority of potential Democratic voters. I never have wavored in that appraisal of him, and from what I can see his campaign is playing out the way I thought it will. He will emerge from this without the nomination but highly respected by many in the Democratic Party. It will not hurt his career, it will enhance it. The problem for me is that while I wish Obama and his career well, I wanted to elect a progressive Democrat President in 2008. I think we would have had Clark gotten more support from many, both in the netroots and in the Democratic Party establishment, who instead chose Obama to back as their anti-Hillary candidate.

Water over the bridge now. Unless Al Gore shocks me and still enters the race I am sure Hillary will win unless she makes some terrible blunder between now and the primaries, which I doubt. Strip away Obama's glamor, and obvious potential, and you are left with a man who was serving in a State legislature the last time Democrats nominated someone for Pesident. In my opinion that simply was too far a journey for anyone to make; from the State Senate to the Oval Office in four years. Hillary Clinton has run a very sure footed campaign, Obama's only real hope was if she shot herself in the foot. She hasn't, instead she is pulling away from the field.

Clark into the running for VP or a cabinet position, something he richly deserves - and I fully support that. My dream of Gore running is fading, and that also is disappointing.

I'm still hanging my hat on Obama, though. The national polls don't reflect the state by state battle where this nomination will be fought over tooth and nail and where other contenders have a shot of sinking the SS Clinton. The polls are shifting dramatically, more juicy endorsements are on the way, and anything could happen. In other words, I don't believe in the absolute inevitably of the nod going to Hillary and fully admit that may be sheer stubborn resistance on my part; time will tell.

And mostly I hold nothing against Wes Clark for his endorsement of Hillary. He's one of the good guys.

would respond "Wes, who?" if given this news. I suspect only political junkies know who he is. No disrespect intended, just a little reality check.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't think that the general population really know much about Gen Wesley Clark. :shrug: I think people into politics know him of course, but your regular Joe Blow wouldn't.

Not to slam Clark, I very much admire him.

most Democrats who read/watch the news. If we are talking about people who only watch American Idol etc, thats different of course.

That's why I said regular Joe Blow. :)

I support Hillary, I also supported Clark in the last Primary. Your reasoning really boggles the mind.

It's a shame that so many moderate democrats, especially our political leaders are sadly out of touch with their populace. :shrug:

This really isn't a shocker.

:(

Who are you supporting?

TC

I'm going to go with DK. Early on, I sent money to Obama, but he's no better than the rest of the Corporatists running for President.

I know that DK cannot win but I refuse to vote for a WAR-MONGER who is beholden to the mega-corporations that are a part of the Military Industrial Complex.

That's what this horrific Occupation boils down to: F**king WAR PROFITEERING - Billions perhaps trillions to be made off of OUR BACKS and the sacrifice of OUR CHILDREN.

God Bless Dennis Kucinich - I'm going with him All the way! Airborne!

Well, that's two of us for Dennis!

TC

What a shame ... a tragedy felt all around the world. :cry:

But we won't quit - God hates a quitter. :wow:

Keep the faith baby! PEACE OUT! :hippie: :hi:

of elected...

Our Democratic Representatives are too concerned about their own personal political careers and that of "the party" to stop the killing and dying of our soldiers in Iraq.

Even if the odds are against Dennis Kucinich, I will support him in the Primary, and if I must, write his name in for the General Elections.

Sometimes, like during an illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign country, voters must put the welfare of "their country" above all else. Yes, <shriek of disbelief> even that of The Democratic Party.

This life was never meant to be easy, but I believe how I vote reflects my morals and I can't vote for either a WAR enabler nor WAR monger. :shrug:

I will not vote for the "lesser EVIL" choice when it comes to the lives of our soldiers. :(

but it was, in large part, all the bashing she has gotten from many here that have made me (perhaps as a woman?) feel much warmer toward her -- so now I am actually almost her supporter, and Clark's endorsement does not hurt that either. She has done things I am not 100% happy with but every time I see her on TV, she is smart, forceful, charming, awfully quick on her feet (like her hubby), and I believe now that she is actually quite electable, esp. since the GOP field is, quite frankly, not. I am still not committed, right now, because I want to see what she does next week with Iraq, but I do know that I will be quite happy, thank you, if she is president. To say, like some do here, that they will not vote for her even if she is a nominee astounds me. This is the old Nader crap that there is no difference between a Dem and a Rep. I would hope that 8 years of Bush would have taught us differently...

Sorry hope you don't mind if I highlight your on point comments.

after their names. How's that? :shrug:

"There's no difference between them".

and destruction. If our country MUST be destroyed by corporatists, I'd rather that they not have a D after their name. I'm with Dennis Kucinich all the way this time. I sucked-it-up and voted for Clinton, TWICE! No mas. :thumbsdown:

Wow!

Clinton/Clark?

I sure hope this means Clinton/Clark for '08. I was already leaning Clinton and waiting for Clark to decide. It looks like he has. I really can't believe I'm probably going to end up a Clinton supporter. I assumed that she would energize the pubbies as Elizabeth Edwards said. I despised her for capitalizing on name recognition -- too similar to Bush Jr. in that respect.

Now I'm starting to see that this seemingly illegitimate, seemingly doomed candidacy has a method in its madness. Another Clinton White House. A woman president to give our daughters someone to look up to besides Paris Hilton. Clark replacing Cheney...

I've been holding out for Clark but now that he's obviously not running AND endorsing someone I do NOT want to be our nominee, I've changed my avatar. GObama!

No question. I remain a 110% Clark supporter. No question. But this wasn't his year to run, for many reasons. So he endorsed the best candidate, for many reasons. Good.

this early, but I'm not disappointed in his choice, only in the fact that he isn't running himself. I'm not even close to deciding who I'm going to back yet, but I've never had a problem with Clinton, except for her IWR vote. If Obama shows me that he can fight back as hard as she does, I'll probably side with him. I don't know, there's still plenty of time to decide.

I will not endorse Sen Clinton in the primaries, though. Sorry.

I respect Wes, but lets be reasonable here. Of course he was going to go with Hillary. This is supposed to be a shock?

Hillary will meet the same fate as Clark. No nomination for her!!!!!!!!

Wesley Clark

to go along with Bush on the war until the issue turned into political poison.

What is a blind surprise is the blind hatred to wards Hillary.

Flame me if you want but after reading some threads on DU today after Wes Clark's announcement, some people around here have no business whatsoever dabbling in politics. You just don't get it.

If Gravel or DK will still be on the ballot by the time primaries get to irrelevant NYC, I'll vote for one of them. Bout really, there was little doubt in my mind that in the actual uninspiring field, Hillary will lock the nomination.

I was hoping he would run. Hillary is not my top choice. I would love a female President but is she it?
He has his reasons for supporting Hillary. I trust him. Doesn't mean I agree. I respect him and I believe
he is one of the most honorable, and intelligent leaders of today. I still support Gravel.

Makes me very happy, and of course I believe he made t he right choice here!!!

Congratulations to the Clinton campaign...a well deserved endorsement!!!

be doing, at the very least. I've been disappointed with some of his maneuverings lately and this was/is the crowning achievement.
I'm betting she may pick him as VP.

to all the Clark supporters who got really pissie when I just mentioned ... Clark seemed to be a supporter of Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3382045#3382694