Does anyone else think that Clark's endorsement doesn't really help Clinton much?

Politely, she's the "centrist" of the bunch, and as such appeals to much the same type of voter in many ways, so she'd presumably get those particular votes anyway in the primaries. It would seem to me that she's already getting them in the polls, since the question isn't being asked about him.

The Clark supporters who like Clark because of the IWR issue won't immediately turn to her, if at all. Some will not even consider it.

Here's a hot one: the Clark supporters who liked him because of his crossover appeal from his military credentials--and I think that's a LOT of them--wouldn't seem to flock to her; if appealing to conservatives and centrists is their issue, they'd probably avoid her like the plague.

I don't think this effects her electability in the eyes of potential Democratic voters; those who don't think she can win a general election aren't likely to think that him as a running-mate would help her overcome those problems.

Also, not to be too dismissive, it's not like he's the great oracle for many Democrats; I don't think his opinion really matters that much either way with many.

Obama will probably get a bit of a bump from this, since the a fair number of Clark supporters who ally themselves due to the IWR vote will go to him.

There's a big antipathy toward Edwards supporters from Clark supporters on this board, but I don't know how much that translates to the general population. This probably is a bit of a wash for him, although it may hurt or help him a little.

More than anything else, it starts to focus people more, and many of the fence-sitters will start looking for some new fences. I can't imagine that Gore will run now; we're three and a half months from the voting, and the voting may well only last one month before it's basically decided.

From a cursory reading here, I'd say there's some tacit agreement, too.

What do you think?

This certainly is an interesting season, isn't it?

endorse her, first of all. Second, just a hunch, but I don't see her picking him as Veep for some reason--unless there are some unforeseen factors in terms of the R nominee and any third-party runs.

I used to think Clark would be a good VP for Dean. But he's a very uncomfortable politician and this could hurt if he needs to campaign as VP. There's time for him to improve, but he's never won an election anywhere and being on the ticket is a big task for a neophyte.

The race will be won or lost elsewhere. Mainly, on the ground in Iowa, NH, etc.

Clark's and Clinton's views on the IWR were almost identical (though revisionists try to dispute that). Maybe his endorsement, and presumed questioning on the subject, could enlighten some of the Clinton bashers on what was really going on with the IWR. If her bashers had to accept that she wasn't for the war (though she was not a leader against it, either), it would help her overcome the Newsmax/Drudge slanders.

from Clark supporters.

Clark endorsed her.

Clark supporters come in a wide array of beliefs...which is what most have always maintained when they have been attacked for "group think" and stereotyped. You might have thought that we were "Bots" as is once again revealed by your post....but that is far from the truth.

Maybe this endorsement, and you witnessing Clark supporters Not neccessarily lining up supporting Hillary en masse might end the "Clarkies idolize Wes Clark and they are all alike" mantra repeated ad nauseum by the supporters of a certain cute populist fellow.

You've convinced me.

I agree, Clarkies aren't a homogenuous group of single-issue voters, any more than any other candidate's supporters are. I wasn't really trying to imply they were in my previous post, and I know that many will not be swayed by this endorsement. Some may, but we're all Democrats, which means we really hate being told what to do, and we all have diverse reasons for supporting or opposing who we do.

I wasn't really talking about Clark supporters in my previous post, but just Dems in general who misunderstand the IWR vote. I'm still undecided, and I've got some issues with Clinton, too, so I wouldn't criticize others for their issues. I just don't like when those issues are false. If anything, the well informed Clark voter should understand the complexity of the IWR vote better than most, because Clark so obviously struggled with it. He proposed such a resolution, encouraged a "nearly unanimous" passage of such a resolution, and even on the night before the vote encouraged its passage, but he was still clearly not happy about what was passed.

I opposed the IWR, too, and I remember stating on DU in several posts that I supported those who voted against it, but grudgingly accepted why some Democrats didn't. For a while it looked like the IWR might actually head off the invasion, but it wasn't enough. So I went from disliking it to hoping it had worked to hating it. Now I'm in the weird position of defending a vote for it, not because I liked it, but because so many people misunderstand it. I suspect Clark himself has been in that position a few times, with the added burden on knowing that, unlike me, people actually cared what he thought about it. :)

You thought he gave a great speech and you thought he was good looking and you were excited that he made eye contact with your daughter.

The things that excited you about Obama are exactly the sort of things you have criticized as shallow reasons for supporting Edwards (and I saw none of the reasons that you've used to argue Clark was the best candidate).

At least, I suspect you now understand why people can get excited about a good speech, even if the candidate has only been a senator for a couple years and doesn't have any foreign policy experience.


As for being persecuted for being clark supporters, even if we conceded that that does happen, it doesn't make it less interesting that Clark is endorsing and IWR supporter, when that seemed to be such an important part of Clark's identity as his campaign moved forward in '04, and such an often-stated reason for supporting him on DU.

as to why I find him vote worthy....and it wasn't his look, or his eyes contact with my daughter, or the fact that he shook my hand. Guess that you actually didn't read my account.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3504434

"since part of governing on the executive level is to affect change by going to the people via the bully pulpit and by {sic} persuading legislators as to what should be done, he has more than what it takes to qualify in that department."

However, I'm not sure the trick is persuading legislators what to do some much as it is to persuade voters what to do so that they persuade their legislators to vote accordingly.

And this: "The gift of a gifted speaker should not be so convenienty discarded......as all of our great leaders "had" "it". In our history, the greatest of all, were gifted speakers.....people who could get you to see things their way without you feeling exploi{t}ed or put upon."

However, I'm not sure that great leaders are great because they don't make people feel "put upon" ("ask not what your country can do for you..."?). I think a great leader creates a sense a responsiblity among the people for making society and the country work.

And, I'll take on board the idea that 3 years in the senate doesn't disqualify him as a candidate:

Imagevision (1000+ posts)
44. I agree, Obama clearly stands out from the other candidates because of the way he comes across!
People say Obama is unexperienced while at the same time are forgetting collectively what the experience (70-80 years) of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld has gotten us where we are today!??

FrenchieCat (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-08-07 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Correct.......because if experience is experience at making mistakes.....
and for some realizing that only way later {ZING!}....I'm pretty sure that this is not the experience required in order for our nation to turn the corner.

If HRC is the nom, even if Wes is on the ticket, I stay home. She will never get my vote.

TC

You've just stated a postion contradictory to the stated agenda of DU. WHy are you still here?

Not voting is a choice. get over it.

Geesh.

TC

not voting out of disappointment with the party politics is a valid statement IMO.
I'm pretty close myself, and I'm on the central committee.

Why would you even participate in the primaries if you are not prepared to accept the outcome of the process?

It's like being 10 points down in the 4th quarter, then calling a Time-Out 10 seconds before the final whistle. Walking off the field and telling the press "we refuse to recognise the result of this game".

If Dennis Kucinich wins the nomination then I expect all Democrats to vote for him in the general election. Even if they supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

May I also refer you to the rules for this discussion forum:
"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

LOVES you!!!!!

but that would get thrown out.

she won't get my vote. Period.

(I don't even care if he's on the ticket with her, should she get the nom)

No way, no how.

TC

It's you HRC supporters that are riding for a fall... truth is, she doesn't care about you, either. You just don't know it yet.

TC

Clark preferred another version, which Hillary voted against.

So the IWR, in the version approved by Congress, was opposed by Clark and voted for by Hillary. The version Clark supported was voted down by Hillary.

Clark on the eve of the vote said he would encourage supporters to vote for it. He did not speak to Congress arguing against it--I have no idea where you get that from. Literally the night before the vote in the House he urged support of the IWR, but he did it in the press while campaigning for Democratic House candidates, not before Congress.

Maybe you are referring to his September 2002 speech. He spoke to the House Armed Services Committee, and clearly supported a resolution like the IWR, even calling for nearly unanimous passage. He declared that Hussein was a real threat, and that all options, even force, needed to be used to disarm him. He hoped that passing a Resolution showing our determination would be enough to force Hussein into compliance, so that the invasion would be unnecessary.

Clinton gave her speech before voting on the Resolution, and hit every point Clark had emphasized, even stating emphatically that she was trying to avoid the "rush to war" that the president and some of his supporters were preaching. She was obviously taking exactly the same position as Clark. Don't take my word, here are both speeches.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

After the vote, and after the invasion, Clark made contradictory statements. He at times admitted he had encouraged passage of the IWR, and at other times claimed he would have wanted more restrictions on Bush. That's where the myth that he wanted a different resolution, come from. He stated once that he supported "a" resolution, but not a blank check for Bush. But before the vote, Clark made no such statements. Some have used his later statements to argue he meant something different in his previous statements. If so, he kept it to himself.

Clark opposed the invasion. Clinton did not support the invasion, either, in her speeches, but made weak statements claiming that she supported the troops. She was a fierce critic of Bush's handling of the invasion, attacking him for everything from poor planning to his no-bid contracts, but any time she took such actions the media either ignored her, or they slanted her actions as if she were triangulating. I've been here a long time, I've watched as Drudge and Newsmax stories were quoted to show that Clinton was "selling out," when the facts were very different. I've watched her go from a liberal hero to what she is now, and I watched how it happened. There was a deliberate right wing smear campaign against her, and people bought it, just as they bought the ones against Gore and Kerry, just as they'll buy whatever the right wing spins against any other candidate who rises.

I have complaints against Clinton. She did not use her power to speak out against the war, she did not do what she could to stop it. I do hold that against her, and that may be the biggest reason I haven't committed to her yet. It shows a lack of courage and leadership that may affect other areas of her judgement. I'm leaning towards her, anyway, because I think her positives outweigh her negatives, and because all the other candidates have bigger negatives for me. But she was not a supporter of the war, and that was obvious to anyone paying attention to the facts instead of to Newsmax. And it was obvious to Clark, which is why he supports her. I'm hoping his endorsement of her makes that more clear.

Please read at the following as well as the additional links at the bottom of this link.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html

Look at the facts, not at what some revisionist trying to argue from Clark's ambiguous statements AFTER the fact. You can't prove an opinion with someone else's opinion.

Clark called for a resolution, he stated support for the resolution the night before the House vote, and he never said peep about supporting one amendment over the other until after the election. The evidence of that is in the articles and the links in your own post. (for instance: http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq_war_resolution_did_cl.html ) I've read all the links in that article and commented on them for years around here, as you probably know. They are based on opinions of what they want Clark to have meant, not on what he said before the vote. Clark wanted a Resolution passed, he encouraged its passage the night before the vote, without saying he only supported one or another amendment to the Resolution, and it was passed. Congress was Republican, he wasn't going to get what he wanted. He got what he asked for. Now some Clark supporters want to argue that he really meant something else. If he meant something else, he should have raised the objection beforehand.

He argued forcefully AGAINST invading Iraq.

The IWR was not a vote for war, and many people, including Clark and Clinton, who supported it were opposed to the war. Enlightenment. That's all I've been saying.

how is that telling you that he supported the Blank Check resolution again?

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

There are those who want revisionist history I guess, but his message to Congress was clear.

What I find the most revealing and disgusting is the voting down of the Levin Amendment the same day as the IWR. Hillary and Edwards, of course, voted NO on the Levin Amendment. If she had just voted Yes on the IWR, she could have had some "wiggle room". But voting NO on the Levin Amendment, which would have bought more time and required UN to do more work and a 2nd resolution by Congress, was even worse.

In spite of this...not because of this....Clark supports Hillary. To overlook their differences is pretty pathetic, but it happens. Revisionist history and all....

General Clark, from a military standpoint, is there -- is it a good thing, is it not a good thing for Congress to go ahead and move quickly on this resolution whatever the language is. and for United Nations to move quickly?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME CMDR.: Well, I think from the military perspective, the sooner the ambiguity is taken out of this the better. This gives the military a free hand in terms of planning the specific details of the campaign.

Also, the full quote that you cited:

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.

Clark doesn't think ANY IWR is bad. He thinks that it should be more specific in terms of its objectives (which, from the rest of this piece, seem to have something to do with the vision of a post-invasion Iraq, but he's not specific about what he thinks those things should be."

It was clear Congress was going to weigh in before Bush went to the UN. It was indeed about what Congress would specify.

General Clark speaks and writes extensively -- without tested, scripted, hemmed-in language -- so there's a lot on the record from him. It helps to understand the entire context of his points rather than cherry-picking and jumping to conclusions. Seems this point has been made over and over again.

that he thinks that every IWR was good...or that there could have been some form of IWR that he would not consider bad? Know what I mean? I think your statmeent can be read either way. If you mean the latter, I'd agree with that.

Thanks.

General Clark, from a military standpoint, is there -- is it a good thing, is it not a good thing for Congress to go ahead and move quickly on this resolution whatever the language is. and for United Nations to move quickly?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME CMDR.: Well, I think from the military perspective, the sooner the ambiguity is taken out of this the better. This gives the military a free hand in terms of planning the specific details of the campaign.

Also, the full quote that you cited:

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.

Clark doesn't think ANY IWR is bad. He thinks that it should be more specific in terms of its objectives (which, from the rest of this piece, seem to have something to do with the vision of a post-invasion Iraq, but he's not specific about what he thinks those things should be."

"put the specifics into the resolution" = NO BLANK CHECK

If any part of your intention about pursuing a debate about what Wes Clark's views were at the time toward the IWR that John Edwards co-sponsored is to somehow provide support to John Edwards now, I think you should consider this, it is something that I have noticed some other John Edwards do with some degree of effectiveness:

Stick to arguing that the fact that Wes Clark can endorse Hillary Clinton now despite her voting for that IWR means that IWR vote is not the end all point of debate for who now is worthy of becoming President in 2008. You can probably score some points for Edward with that one.

Your current approach begs an ongoing argument with Clark supporters over the relative roles that John Edwdards and Wes Clark played back then when the Senate was asked to decide how much confidence they had in giving George W. Bush that blank check for War. You can't win by having that debate now even if you somehow believe you will come out ahead on points. Wes Clark is not running now, John Edwards is. It is not useful to John Edwards to get us Clarkies all riled up and searching through all of our saved bookmarks to find all the quotes we have comparing how Wes Clark and John Edwards behaved back then. It is not where John Edwards wants the focus of discussion on him now to be, is that hard to understand?

Now the reason you get us all riled up is not so much an attempt to get at John Edwards, it is our sense of responsibility to defend the integrity of a man who we drafted to run for President in 2003, a man who we know did all that he could to keep the United States from invading Iraq and initiating the nightmare we all now are living through. We will not be silent when in our (very correct I might add) opinion anyone now attempts to do revisionist history regarding where Clark stood then on Iraq. So come at us over this if you feel you must but don't delude yourself into thinking you are helping John Edwards by doing so. If you insist in revisiting the history of one of John Edward's worst moments, we will go back to 2002 with you and that debate will be on, endlessly for as long as you insist on having it. We will be back to quoting from John Edwards Hardball interview defending Georg W. Bush's invasion of Iraq even after it was clear no WMD would be found there and all the rest of it, if you insist on fighting over that turf.

Let me cut to the chase. We think the facts support our view and you seem to think they don't. Bottom line though is we have Wes Clark's word on what he meant then in addition to a historic record that one can always attempt to cherry pick out of it's appropriate context, but which we believe overwhelmingly supports his integrity in this matter.

Why, you might ask, is that the bottom line? Because if you do not accept Clark's account now you are calling him a liar, but it goes beyond that. Doubts have been raised in the past by those not in love with John Edwards, not exclusively Clarkies by any stretch, that John Edwards acted the way that he did when he co-sponsored the IWR out of political expediency, trying to buff up his credentials for a Presidential run. Doubts have been raised in the past, not exclusively by Clarkies by any stretch, that John Edwards waited as long as he did to apologize for his role in passing the IWR because it took that long for a majority of the American public to turn against the IRaq war in polls. What is the best defense John Edwards has against such attacks? His own word about what his true intentions were at the time. He asks Democratic voters to accept his explanations for his past mistakes based on the integrity of his word.

You may or may not have noticed that I have never called John Edwards a liar about any of that. I do not challenge him on his word. I have questioned in the past whether errors I think that he displayed in judgement might indicate a continuing lack of sufficient relevent experience, but I never accused John Edwards of lying about what he did then to cover his political tracks. However I consider your continued efforts to refute Wes Clark's own explanation of his intentions and actions then to be exactly that; a decison by you to accuse Wes Clark of later lying to cover his political tracks. Those to me are fighting words 1932, and I am not alone in so feeling. May I remind you that those who live in glass houses should never throw stones?

I cut and pasted QUOTES. And it's not even MY evidence. That was a quote chosen by FrenchieCat to support her own argument.

Even it it contributes to your 'self-satisfaction' quotient..... it will likely cause some major flamewars.

As Edwards is struggling to keep his head above water you're likely to just lose any Clarkies that may have considered your candidate (unless that is your ultimate motive).

As I see it, you'll need every vote you can get.

politics and campaigning at this stage of the 2008 presidential election.

Right now I love reading what politicians say and understanding how their arguments reflect reality and encourage or discourage people to vote for them.

I'll make my decision about whom I will support once I have a better sense of what all these new candidates are all about, and then, maybe I'll worry about persuading people. And since I'm not committed to Edwards, I'm not going to worry so much about how what I say about Clark or anyone else influences people's feelings about Edwards.

By the way, I'm really looking forward to reading Clark's new book, as reading the last two gave me great insight into what makes him tick!

Maybe you'll get it right, finally. We'll all have our fingers crossed.

I know what your argument is about me, but what are facts supporting it?

That coupled with what I believe is an off the mark theory about what Clark wants to accomplish for America in the world. (Since I will enter this into my DU Journal let me preface that this post is written in response to a specific individual which the text reflects).

I answer you in this way because I think theories are an attempt to give life to isolated "facts" which when isolsated by themselves can never provide adaquate context. It is a fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in 1945 but that fact by itself hardly begins to describe the real three dimentsional relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union at that time. So in a sense, as much as I often am critical of you for reading meaning into Clark's words that I do not believe belongs there, I understand the lure of trying to do so. I understand and share to a large degree your desire to make sense out of both politics and politicians that you refer to in your post above.

Wes Clark would never describe himself as a revolutionary, he clearly is not one. However to a large extent he gladly accepts the mantle of being a guardian of America's revolutionary legacy, of the guiding spirit that animates the best aspects of our national identity. Clark is a student of history and he knows the American Revolution well. He knows both the transcendent aspects of some parts of our heritage and the deep shame found in others, but he consistently attempts to summon what is best about our history in service to an enlightened view of our future. For that reason rarely will you find him speak in terminology that could be remotely be mistaken as being anti-american by hardly anyone.

The other thing about Clark is that he is a brilliant engeneer more than a revolutionary theorist. As I wrote above, Clark works from idealistic blueprints but he attempts to concretely build what is currently realizable, starting at point A, advancing toward point B, while anticipating points X, Y, and Z. In that regard he will buck the established order, hard sometimes, but only to a point. That point tends to be the point at which his efforts would lose all real traction and whatever long term influence Clark could potentially muster would be disappated with hardly anything to show for it in the present and very little chance to contribute to making solid practical progress in the future. I view Wes Clark as a highly idealistic pragmatist.

There are far too many simple pragmatists in American Politics; Congress is full of them. There are far too few real idealists, Congress has a scattering of those. But there are precious few men or women with an idealistic vision and the chops to move it forward in a political and even cultural climate where idealism is soundly scoffed at, and I think Wes Clark is one of those precious few.

There is a wonderful Blog up today at Clark Community Network by CarolNYC. It's possible she has posted it at Democratic Underground also - I haven't looked yet, but in case she hasn't and even if she has I want to quote from part of it here, because to me it captures who Wes Clark is. Carol just attended an event last night in New York City where Wes Clark spoke and was interviewed. I will give the title and the link below to the full Blog, and then quote from part of it:

"Wes addresses the Oxonian Society in midtown Manhattan"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13371

"Asked if he thought terrorism could be defeated, he said yes...but you have to do it from the outside in and the bottom up....get rid of the conditions that enable the terrorists to get recruits. He talked about the wonderful people in the Middle East and how we need to respect them. If we treat people with respect, we’ll get respect back...

...They spoke of Iraq and he said a lot of the things we’ve heard him saying so many times...If only more people would listen. He said that Iran is involved heavily in the conflict in Iraq and “Why not? They got invaded by Iraq! They lost a million people! They’re not going to sit by and say hands off. No way! That’s their national security at stake.”

He stressed, as always, the need for diplomacy with Iran and Syria both. And he said it doesn’t mean we go over there and ask what will it take for you to go along with us. He likened it to how Americans would feel if the Chinese came over here and said, We’re a powerful nation. If you upstarts will play along with us, we’ll give you some money. He said we’d be outraged so why do we think the people in Iran would be any different? “You can’t buy your way....You have to win respect. To win respect, you have to give respect.”

There was a Q&A after the interview...and maybe some of what I wrote above was part of the Q&A.....but someone asked what about the possibility that diplomacy won’t work. Wes said that was certainly a possibility but the thing to remember was the trouble with using force is that you can’t predict its outcome. “It’s always better if you can not kill people....better personally, morally...”

He spoke of the incident in Kosovo where they thought they’d found a Serbian police headquarters and bombed it one night only to find that it was a prison for Albanian refugees. The police were there guarding the prisoners. They killed, I think, 80 Albanian men that night. “How do you think we felt about it? Pretty sick.” Things like that happen daily in war and that’s why you must avoid it if you in any way can.

He said Holbrooke told him during the Bosnian war “Let’s get the killing stopped.” Let the diplomats argue. It’s what they get paid for. If you can keep people from killing each other, that’s the accomplishment.

He said he’s talking to people in the most sincere way he can when he says use force only as a last resort. It’s blood on your hands, it’s blood on future generations. People never forgive you when you kill their relatives."

see into his soul? OK. I'll concede that much. But I'm still curious about which facts I got wrong. For my two sentence paraphrase above I got a lot of shit. But nobody has said I got anything wrong. And they accuse me of pattern behavior! But the pattern here seems to be accusing me of getting things wrong without anyone being able to say exactly what I've gotten wrong.

When you correctly copy a full quote it goes without saying that you are not getting the literal fact of what was said wrong. But you are doing something else as well as "not looking into his soul". You are selectively interpretting and thereby distorting the meaning of Clark's comment.

"So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution."

OK that was the Clark quote and then you go ahead and put words into Clark's mouth with your comment:

"Clark doesn't think ANY IWR is bad. He thinks that it should be more specific in terms of its objectives (which, from the rest of this piece, seem to have something to do with the vision of a post-invasion Iraq, but he's not specific about what he thinks those things should be."

You present your "read" as if it is fact, and your "read" is wrong. Sorry, but Clark does think that an IWR that is a blank check is wrong. That type of IWR is wrong. You selectively support your conclusion that he doen's think ANY IWR is bad by saying "he thinks it should be more specific in terms of it's objectives". But you leave out Clark's references to limitations, constraints and restraints. A good example of a limitation that Clark wanted was a requirement that Bush come back before Congress for final authorization to actually use force against Iraq, presenting findings about why and how all other alternatives failed. In other words, limit Bush. DON'T GIVE HIM A BLANK CHECK. Clark never said there wasn't an IWR he could support, but that is not the same as your claim: "Clark doesn't think ANY IWR is bad". Clark thought a blank check IWR was bad. IN ADDITION he thought an appropriate IWR should be more specific about objectives etc. because, as Clark said:

"What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution."

Just because Clark talked about some of the things a good IWR should include does not mean he thought simply including those elements automatically made any IWR good. Clark also felt Congress needed to impose constraints on the President's ability to unilaterally launch a war. Time and time again 1932 we have this type of dynamic, where I have to go back and say something like: "So why did you ignore this part of what Clark said when you gave your conclusion as to the meaning of his comments?" This time you glossed over Clark saying...

"Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are"

...as if it were non consequential, but of course it is. Constraints and objectives are quite different sets of concerns.

And we could do a similar exercise whereby I disagree with how you interpret Clark's words when you write "which, from the rest of this piece, seem to have something to do with the vision of a post-invasion Iraq, but he's not specific about what he thinks those things should be". You see, I don't accept that assertion by your either. Clark typically talks about a number of aspects of policy and possible outcomes and from past experience I often disagree with how you interpret the context of what Clark is saying. But having been through this type of thing several times in the past with you, and again just now with deconstructing your assertion: "Clark doesn't think ANY IWR is bad", I think I've done this more than enough already. You read things into what Clark says that are not there. Is that the same as getting "facts" wrong? Depends on semantics I suppose, but it is a problem for me.

Based on the CNN quote or anything else you want to cite from before the IWR vote, do you think I'm farther off the mark than post 46?

Post #46 was by Sparkly. It is short. She said Clark argued forcibly against invasion. What is it you are asking me to comment on exactly regarding your stance?

You do understand that a reasonable person could say the same thing about post 46?

Let's wrap this up if we can 1932, even if we don't reach full closure on it. My honest answer is, in a way yes, but on the other hand it's not quite the same thing. I dunno how to say this crisply and I really don't want to belabor this discussion any further. Call me weird, or call me overly sensitive, but post #46 is a flat out statement of opinion, there is no mistaking it for anything else, whereas there is something about the way you frame your opinions sometimes by using selected quotes immediately followed by your restatement of their content that (IMO) misrepresents the quotes you just used that sets me off.

I will not accuse you of anything underhanded, let's just say I am maddened sometimes by your style in regards to how you frame your opinions about Clark. I am really looking for a reasonable aned nuetral resting point to our discussion, honestly, I'm trying :) I think we shot past the point of diminishing returns by now.

I will be curious to see what your reactions to Clark's new book are. Take care. In the big picture I don't forget that we are on the same side.

However, trying to cite textual evidence and build an argument around that evidence is wrong, and gets criticized and attacked in a really personal and bitter way and in a way, ironically, that refuses to cite facts -- which you can see very concretely above and below. If anything should be criticized, it's that.

I do apprecitate your efforts to try to build an argument and (sort of) cite evidence. But, honestly, I do find it unconvincing. I think the thing you're trying to crtiticize is way way more prevalent in posts like #46.

(and rebuttal). See, now you are putting words into my mouth (I'm joking, relax). OK, I'm really going to stop now. See you on some other thread...

It seems you frequently present your own personal interpretations of things General Clark has said. I've debated this with you before, long ago. If you could refrain from "So Clark is saying" or "Clark thinks" or "Clark really means" etc., and JUST present the quotes, that'd be terrific.

above it.

Here it is:

"Clark doesn't think ANY IWR is bad. He thinks that it should be more specific in terms of its objectives (which, from the rest of this piece, seem to have something to do with the vision of a post-invasion Iraq, but he's not specific about what he thinks those things should be."

That's only two sentences. Which part of those two sentences do you think isn't supported by the quote above it?

If there's a pattern here it's the table turning and unwillingness to debate these statements honestly.

Which part wasn't supported? Almost all of it. Just leave the quote alone if your intention is to present Clark's words. Why interpret?

????

If you only want to present what he said, why add anything else? Why paraphrase or interpret? Why not just let the quote stand on its own, if that's your intent?

(Edit to explain: "Just post the quote" meant "Only post the quote.")

Am I not allowed to speak?

Every post here should be FACT + ARGUMENT.

ARGUMENT - FACT = USELESS (which is what you're doing by arguing that both my sentences are false without even trying to cite an facts supporting your opinion)

FACT - ARGUMENT = POINTLESS (but I'd take a lot of facts with no argument over a lot of arguments without facts, but I'd have to wonder why I am the only person not allowed to make arguments here at DU)

If you want to present your personal interpretation, then own up to the fact that it's your personal interpretation and NOT necessarily an accurate reflection of his words, thoughts, intentions, beliefs, etc.

Then we could debate General Clark's words, and not yours.

I don't think you've made the case that I haven't accurately paraphrased Clark's quote.

You have some more work to do if that's the claim you want to make. Remember: "FACT + ARGUMENT"

Yes, "I was for it before I was against" is exactly what we need to do again. :eyes:

who they support. they have no sway over voters. they mean little except to the candidate and the person publicly proclaiming they support them.
So, I don't get the fuss. Clark is supporting someone. big deal. nice for him.
voters do not vote according to some big shot saying they like this person or that person.
I don't understand this big fuss.

that comes along. I'm really not trying to be rude, but such a blatantly misleading post just has to be called out.

arrogance and power hungry greed for oil and supporting bush;s war/She is a female W

I thought this site allowed opposing discussion, but not outright bashing of dems, or am I wrong.

Stating she is a female W appears to be quite a stretch of the imagination, beginning with the foundations of Hillary's life of hard work and the foundations of Bush's Big Daddy gimmes all I need.

Frat boy Bush has not done an ounce of real work his entire life, but rather has concentrated all his efforts to role playing and curling his shoulders at the right time. The former alcoholic is probably not even former now. The born-again is an act, a tall story leading even Pat Robertson to label him as lazy.

Sorry, but comparing Hillary to Bush merely makes any argument you choose to put out appear as swamp gas.

Seriously.

And while you're at it - check the rules of this discussion forum:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

That means if Hillary wins the nomination, we are all expected to support her.

If you are not prepared to do that, why continue to post on DU? :eyes:

and I'm sure deflating Rudi's voice on the matters of Generals.

Google shows that all major newspapers and media outlets and blogs are reporting this as something quite important.

http://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton%2C+Wes+Clark&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

not a huge amount, but no endorsement helps anyone a huge amount... but they're nice to have. What WILL help her immeasurably is picking Clark for VP in the general election.

I was saying she'll never do it.....and he was saying that she might, and if she did, she would be showing how smart she is. He said that Bill Clinton might be a nice re-assurance on the Foreign policy matter, but he couldn't re-assure the military to vote for Hillary....because the Military haven't necessarily loved Bill Clinton. Wes Clark could get that done, and hubby feels that a Woman Commander-in-chief might very well need a Clark to persuade many that she's got her "T"s crossed and her "I" dotted during a time of war with upheaval all over the world.

Of course, I don't believe that she will do this, because I just never believe the obvious to ever happen in politics....although, now that I think of it, the obvious does seem to happen more than I give it credit. :)

At least there was a TV show about this sort of coupling once...not long ago.

I had a gut feeling all along that he would not run if Clinton was in the lead.

I've thought for a while that he might be her Veep choice.

I'm still digesting it. :wow: :wow:

The Swift Boating could have been squashed in a day if he were the VP. Or at least a week.

I know that the "insiders" will have their own say in the VP, regardless of what is logical, obvious or beneficial.

However, this may be one case where they coincide. Clark is well liked by the Clintons. Bill called Hillary and Wes the two rising stars of the Dem PArty. I also, regardless of anything, believe Hillary is a shrewd politician and would recognize Wes' obvious strengths as a VP. So, this may be one case where the "insiders" actually support Wes! (I too have learned not to get my hopes up too high in this regard, however.)

People WANT a Democrat in 08, but Hillary provokes a lot of fears among many, and I am not talking about the die-hard Reps here. What the die-hard Reps WILL be able to do is plant fears of Hillary among the moderates who haven't studied the issues much. With Clark as VP, they won't be able to make head-way into that group, which after all will probably decide the election. Wes has great appeal among moderates. And his strengths compliment her perceived weaknesses.

Will Wes help her in the primaries? Probably some, but she doesn't exactly need help here. Will Wes help in the general election? All I can say is that Wes would add another meaning to the phrase "General election"!

Wes would never have endorsed her before the nomination if it wasn't.

TC

;)

This is huge from a military perspective, where Clark is still highly regarded, and especially in light of how Bush used the military and ran them into the ground.

He is an expert in warfare and well considered in both parties. With Iraq at the forefront, a nod from Clark is gold.

As a female, she must overcome the misconception that she would be soft and inexperienced. Clark really helps her.

Secretary of State. He would be a gift to any President in that capacity, so I was disappointed he endorsed this early since most of us included him on our candidate cabinet wish lists :)

With hopes this negates future blather about IWR votes, since his supporters must be aware that Hillary did vote for the war ?

Clark has been pulling a load for our party for several years now. A lot of people listen to him. A lot of people respect and admire him. And he raises a hell of a lot of money and has a loyal following - much more so than some of the candidates running this year. Clark is relevant.

but if he makes speeches and they get press attention, absolutely. No one's ripped Guiliani more effectively as he did, and no one can make strategic diplomacy easier to understand than he can either.

I explain my reasoning more at length in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3524199#3524632

The short version though is this. Hillary is the overwhelming favorite (IMO) now - that's before Clark endorsed her. I think she will win with our without further support from those who in any way are influenced by Clark. What Hillary needs more than anything else is for some degree of the antipathy toward her that many Democratic activists now feel to receed somewhat as soon as possible before she actually becomes our nominee. She needs that far more than she needs any more "love" from those not already in her camp. It is in that regard that Clark's early endorsement of Hillary Clinton will help her most, it will help her win the General Election against the Republican nominee. Clark's early endoresement of Hillary is far more likely to help soften a little of the strong distates many activists feel toward her now, prior to her nomination, than it is to actively win their support now for her nomination.

In my opinion and I think in Clark's, Hillary Clinton doesn't need help winning the nomination now, it is already her's to lose. What she needs is for more Democratic activists to view her nomination as at least marginally acceptable when it actually does happens. That is how Wes Clark is helping Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic party in my opinion, the most. That is why his support of her is critical. Hillary will need some serious bridge building to this party's activist base to unify the party behind her if she becomes our nominee. Wes Clark is helping walk point for her now in that regard.

For those who do not see Hillary's nomination as a near certainty already, Clark's endorsement may be a bitter pill. Since I have long believed that only Al Gore or Wes Clark could deny her that nomination, of those who either are in the race or had a potential to enter it, I can appreciate what I think Wes Clark now is attempting to do, even if I am not at all pleased at the prospect of Hillary Clinton being our candidate in 2008.

Regardless who Clark came out for, I have no doubt that the supporters of any candidate besides the one he endorsed will want to believe that his endorsement doesn't mean much.

:-)

I just wish that Richardson would play his presidential cards early like Clark did so that Richardson could jump into the New Mexico Senate race while his candidacy would turn an unlikely flip into a very likely flip (and greatly bolster our hope for a 60 vote super-majority in the Senate).

... but if he is selected as VP, it will help her a lot.

If people believe that, they do so at their own peril.

Made you look!

But in all seriousness, most Dems don't want a career military man in politics to the extent that they would not even consider Clark in 2004 regardless of his qualifications. I voted for him in the primary but I found it very difficult to engage anyone in a serious conversation about him because of his background. Frustrating.

So I don't think his endorsement will do much. His supporters won't necessarily go for Hillary just because he did, and putting him on the ticket would be detrimental, so don't expect to see a Clinton Clark ticket.

Personally, I would like any of the dems to pick him as their Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. In this regard he is without equal in either party.

It will make HRC more easily supported by some.

I was trying to be somewhat neutral with this; it just strikes me as an interesting move and not a particularly good one. From the initial responses to the announcement, it really didn't seem like much of anything at all and upon reflection, I was curious to hear how others would respond.

It follows the pattern that both Clintons follow: play to the center to appease the reactionaries.

Since he was expected to maybe make a run it helps Clinton in that it seems to "finalize" the field. (Although Gore still has a month or more to decide. Gore probably cannot announce until AFTER the 12th of October, as he doesn't want to taint the Nobel voting process.)

For those anti-war people who liked Clark (such as myself) ad those who feel the IWR was a vote upon which a candidates credentials can be judged, this endorsement calls into question his motivation and dedication to that cause. If he can back a candidate who was foolish enough to vote against the Levin Amendment, how much more is he willing to overlook in the name of loyalty to friends aka POLITICS. I suspect that it is this group that makes up the base of Clark's support and they will now be split between those who think he did what he feels was best and those who think he sold out.

As for Clinton, it is highly unlikely that even a small % of that base will go to her campaign, so I don't think we will see a bump in her numbers over the next week, but time will tell.

which is producing an opinion based on misleading information.

Please keep in mind that Clark and his supporters are not interchangeable.
Wes Clark never said that he would only support a candidate who didn't vote for the IWR; although some of his supporters have said this.

So Questioning Clark's motives of his endorsement based on what some of his supporters have said isn't rational.

Further, not all IWR votes are exactly the same......something that I personally maintain. There is a difference between co-sponsoring, advocating for, and cheerleading the Blank check and simply voting for it without the exclamation point.

Clark obviously believes that Clinton is the best person for the office, or he wouldn't have endorsed her. He has always maintained that during times of war, the candidate should have foreign policy experience....and on CNN he spoke of Hillary going over to Kosovo and her being there at some of the high level meetings. He believes that the fact that her other half held the office for eight years, means that she has a team ready to go when she gets in.

It makes sense to me as to why Clark endorsed Hillary (besides the fact that they go back a way and have roots in the same state)......

Although that doesn't mean that I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton due to his own choice.

In other words, your post didn't make your case on questioning Clark's reasons for doing what he did.

This particular post wasn't advocating one opinion of Clark's motives over another... just instead discussing the result.

Some, such as myself, believe that Clark's endorsing of Clinton is a purely political move and not based in principle and I am less interested in what he has to say tomorrow, as I was yesterday, as now I feel I have to question his MOTIVES and analyze his positions more carefully. Others, such as yourself, feel differently.

However, this is why i said, I believe this endorsement only hurts Clark and doesn't help Clinton. I don't believe the vast majority of Clark supporters are going to suddenly like Clinton. I think those who would have voted for Clinton if she were the nominee, are still going to do so... HOWEVER, those who would have never voted for Clinton under any circumstances may change their opinion of Clark, which divides his base of supporters, thus, "hurting" him. It doesn't actually hurt him, as he isn't running for anything; however, I know I am going to read his requests with more scrutiny in the future, as I feel his motives are not as pure as I once thought.

was little more than a stand-in for the Clintons last time.

Lots of people endorse lots of people -- it doesn't mean they all have or have had some secret plan together. :eyes:

I don't think that describes anything I wrote. I don't think Clark would have been able to build up much institutional support or organization with Clinton in the race though.

I'm undecided - haven't picked a candidate yet. And, for the most part, I think endorsements are b.s. Unless it's someone I have real respect and admiration for - like Wes Clark. Someone who's opinion really counts.

from his email group. They do not want to receive any emails from him anymore.

Wes.

If you don't think he was the most effective surrogate Kerry had, you should ask some of the Kerry folks.

Great point.

For all the reasons you state plus the fact that Clark doesn't have much of an organized base outside of a small number of Arkansas Clintonites and online activists. I don't think it will do a thing for her.

I think this is about Clark trying to make sure he gets a good cabinet position or selection as VP.

then no, it doesn't.

I think the impact of his endorsement on the "non-political" voters will depend on how much television coverage it gets... Clark is known to tv news viewers from his commentary work. And IMHO if they have heard him, they will remember him. Sooooo....his endorsement might lead people to taking a closer look at Hillary. So it could be helpful.

As for the political junkies...I dont think it will make any difference.

And now he's backing one of the loudest of the saber-rattlers on our side.

Do you doudbt that one of those three will be our nominee? Personally I have had very little doubt for about two months now that Hillary Clinton will be our nominee. Clark now is in a better position to influence Clinton's thinking and statements on Iran. I asked Clark about Clinton and Iran yesterday when he blogged at Clark Community Network. Here is our exchange:

Me: "A question regarding Senator Clinton and Iran"

But first let me say Sir, that my respect for your leadership never wavors. You know that I am one of those who find Senator Clinton closer to the political center than would be my first choice, but there is much that I do respect about her. Could you share anything with us here regarding her views on the Middle East and the way forward from here for both the U.S. and that region that gives you confidence in her leadership for America moving ahead?

I respect her skills and experience but Hillary Clinton has not to date been as forthcoming as you have been about the need for America to approach potential adversaries in that region, such as Iran and Syria, in open ended discussions regarding the full array of issues and sticking points of concern to all of our nations. Can we count on her to do so?


General Wesley Clark:

Tom, thanks for your note, and all the support you've given me over the years. I still need it! As for her views on these issues, I can tell you that we are very close. But she has had so many other issues to deal with that she hasn't come out with as much detail or as forcefully as I have. I do have confidence in her judgment, though. She was there when we did the negotiations for the Balkans. She was there during the War over Kosovo, she understands the way to mix diplomacy and force, and she's pretty cautious - as she should be - about protecting the credibility of the Presidency. Consider how John Kennedy got humiliated in 1961 in Vienna - that's why she was smart to say that she wouldn't be meeting in the first year with these opponents at the head of state level without doing all the homework, knowing the agenda and making sure such meetings are productive.

All three of the frontrunners are foursquare in favor of military domination of the ME, which has jackshit to do with actual defense. Not happy about it, but I'm sad to see Clark going along with it.

Re Kosovo--I'm not impressed with a policy which demanded Serbian selling off of government assets and NATO occupation of the entire country as a criterion for not having their infrastructure destroyed and being poisoned for generations with DU. (I've gotten nothing but crickets from Clark supporters whenever I ask WTF those things had to do with ethnic cleansing.) People don't know that the Serbian parliament (2/3 of which was in parties opposed to Milosevic) proposed turning over Kosovo as a UN mandate territory for the exact same reason that so many don't know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Clinton stands for imposing corporate globalization at gunpoint, and I'll be fighting it until the corporadoes impose their choice on us. The other two front runners aren't as bad here.

His years of trying to stop us from attacking Iran don't disappear because of the endorsement. He'll still be out there doing his best to stop it...If only some others would hop on board, it would be a little easier, though.

If he has any influence at all, I hope he is pushing her hard on that right now.

If he endorses any one I think it would be Clinton, and if Gore endorses anyone it will be John Edwards...however I think Gore will be in the running with Edwards as VP

instead of Obama or Kucinich?

Gore was against the war, while Edwards supported it. :shrug:

Shortly after Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean is when Dean's campaign went downhill.

Personally, I'm not sure if he is willing to "help" who he supports in that way again.

I'd be careful about that. Gore's endorsement signaled Dean had serious support, and then the consultants banded together with the help of some from each campaign...and they made an Osama ad.

Some of us have said very little since Clark's endorsement. But we knew this was coming back in 03. Placeholders and all. It surprises us that many are so surprised he endorsed her.

So, here's the timetable..Gore endorsed Dean Dec. 9, 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/

The Osama ad began airing the next week.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/16/politics/main588924.shtml

And don't forget who skipped Iowa to campaign in NH and make attacks from there as well.

:toast:

...with the implications of your last line: "And don't forget who skipped Iowa to campaign in NH and make attacks from there as well." Two men skipped Iowa to campaign in NH. Are you talking about Joe Lieberman?

Revisionist history has to be guarded against from every direction. Wes Clark was not involved in those coordinated hit ads againt Howard Dean in Iowa. And in NH it was Wes Clark who was on the receiving end of personal attacks, not the other way around. I can link you to a direct quote from Howard Dean saying that if the Democrats nominated Wes Clark for President that would turn the November General Election into a Republican Primary. The only people who have ever accused Wes Clark of running a hint of a negative campaign in 2004 are some Edwards supporters regarding some comments Clark made about Edwards record relatively late in the campaign, shortly before the TN primary I believe. I note that here in a nuetral way without comment on who is right or wrong, because I don't want to reopen old flame wars, but really that is the only instance I know of where anyone has griped that Clark did not run a positive campaign with his guns focused on Republicans in 2004, even though Dean made more comments like the one I cited above regarding Clark, and was joined by elements of the Kerry campaign and Joe Lieberman frequently in that line of personal attack.

There were 8 Democrats who each had the audacity to believe that they deserved to be President instead of anyone else, and Clark was one of them. They all tried to come out on top and that is a definition of competition. Since then Wes Clark has steadily defended both Howard Dean as DNC Chair AND his 50 State strategy.

Like I said above though, your point's regarding the reaction that followed Gore's endorsement of Dean are well taken.

I respect Wes, but who he endorses isn't going to make a difference.

And her problem in a general is that while liberal Democrats may consider a "centrist". Independents and Repukes perceive her as the most liberal candidate. They live in a different world.

I mean, I may to a movie or buy a product someone recommends but an endorsement has never really swayed my vote

I wish Gore would jump in.

Clark is not an exception.

I would say Oprah is the only exception I can think of, because she can translate her endorsement of Obama to coverage. Clark, IMO. cannot.