I whole-heartedly agree with Steve Clemens' new post in which he says:
The Obama campaign needs to reverse course and reach out to General Wesley Clark who is the No. 1 most requested surrogate by Democratic Party fundraisers. He is a thoughtful, top tier, command experienced strategist.
Not to mention:
How many generals are really, totally committed to climate change as a national security issue? The answer is not many -- but Wesley Clark is.
Seriously folks. Ask him to serve, and he'll be there for you in a heart beat. Again, Clemons:
I have been told by Wesley Clark's office that the General would do anything he could do on behalf of the party and on behalf of Barack Obama if he could be of service.
I know someone who served with General Clark when he was Supreme Allied Commander, NATO. The man is golden.
Wesley Clark is one of the best things that ever happened to this country. Listen up, Obama people: this is just wrong. Please reconsider. Wesley Clark should absolutely be at the Democratic National Convention. Did you not see his speech at the 2004 convention? He is an inspiration and he'll fight his heart out for you.
And it just so happens that your Wednesday theme, Securing America's Future, is the name of Wesley Clark's PAC. Please honor him, and us, by asking him to speak that night. You'll be glad you did.
Events transpiring in Georgia bring to the fore the extensive resume of Gen Wesley Clark in considering Democratic Vice Presidential candidates. His military career, which included COMMAND experience, GOOD COMMAND experience, puts "Panama John McWar's" to shame. He was right on to say that McSame's experience was not a qualification to lead. It's not, and Wes Clark was one person who could say that and back it up with his own hefty resume. As Commander of NATO his experience was not just command military experience, but foreign policy experience as well. And he has a healthy skepticism toward the Pentagon.
Wes Clark is a great communicator as well - intelligent, well educated (in economics, no less), direct and diplomatic. He's a midwesterner or a southerner, depending upon the region in which you place Arkansas. He is in touch with middle America and has a deep appreciation for soldiers and veterans and people of all faiths and ethnicities. He was a Clinton supporter and is right on with women's issues.
On ALL the issues, he's an outstanding Democrat and knows how to lead and function within a collaborative setting. He's "notcho ordinary retired General" who knows that you don't make war on people unless absolutely necessary.
I don't think that the choice should be political - hinging on which state or the other the Veep might bring to the ticket. I think the overarching rule is to pick someone who could step into the role if need be. Wesley Clark could do that for sure.
Retired four-star general joins Mahoney on campaign trail
October 18, 2006 By MICHELLE SHELDONE | TC Palm
A retired four-star general and former presidential hopeful traveled coast to coast in Florida Tuesday for Democratic congressional candidate Tim Mahoney and promoting national security.
General Wesley Clark, a Vietnam Army captain turned NATO supreme allied commander who had been instrumental in the Dayton peace talks that ended the Bosnian war, said the country is on the brink of a national disaster.
"We didn't have to go to Iraq," Clark said in rallies held in Charlotte and Palm Beach counties Tuesday. "It's a war we chose to go into. And then we didn't put enough troops in. It's a failing mission despite the courage and sacrifice of the men and women in uniform."
Mahoney, at the rallies, called himself one of the first to state publicly that President George W. Bush should rely on diplomacy and multinational forces in Iraq, and replace American peacekeepers with Muslim peacekeepers.
"My new opponent came out and accused me of trashing the president," Mahoney said of Republican congressional Candidate Joe Negron. Bush confidant James Baker in the meantime recently made a suggestion similar to that of Mahoney, the Democratic candidate said.
Clark told of North Korea readying for another nuclear weapons test and Iran's desire for nuclear weapons. United States military forces are overstretched, he said, with some men and women on their third and fourth tours of duty as a result of Iraq.
"As the administration pushes North Korea with coercive sanctions, it should be aware the North Koreans — they don't bluff. When they get backed into a corner, they may lash out. It's a very volatile and dangerous situation."
At the same time, Clark told of how Republicans get "juiced up" about weapon systems, while Democrats get "real excited" about people. His words came as the congressional race entered the national spotlight since disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley resigned and state Rep. Joe Negron was named in his place.
"It's a campaign now where we have a struggle between House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Karl Rove," Mahoney said. "They've marshaled tremendous forces to try to hold on to power by attacking me personally. By lying about my position on Social Security. By lying about my position on taxes.
They handpicked a candidate, a professional politician whose first public statement was that he believed this campaign was going be a referendum on supporting the president. He wants to stay the course. He believes the strategies being employed right now are the correct strategies."
Mahoney said he supports Bush's goals for winning the war on terror, stopping nuclear proliferation, achieving peace in Iraq and making America safe.
But "after 9/11, I think what we can clearly see is we need a new strategy," Mahoney said.
The hot rumor is now that Barack is back to Wes Clark for VP. This is due to the VP's speaking day being Wednesday at the convention, the day themed "Securing America's Future". The day is supposed to be about foreign affairs, protecting the country, and honoring veterans. The talk immediately switched to Kerry, Clark, Bayh, and Beiden. But once the bloggers realized "Securing America's Future" is Wes Clark's PAC, the spotlight moved entirely on Clark.
I know you're saying, didn't Obama reject and denounce Clark for his comments against McCain's military service. But he didn't really. He said that diminishing McCain's heroism, patriotism, and service wouldn't be accepted by anyone. He never mentioned Clark by name -- so, perhaps Obama doesn't feel Clark was doing that with his comments that crashing a helicopter doesn't make you automatically qulified for the job of president. Which, of course, is obviously true and not demeaning to McCain's service at all.
If we look back at his Meet the Press interview that turned to VP considerations, his answers about not trying to bring a state or get a "yes" man, but rather someone who could change Washington (a capital hill outsider), work with him and tell him when he disagrees, and bring a skill set that will be helpful in our challanges ahead, fit Clark to a T. So, do we have our guy? Who the hell knows at this point...I'll wait for an E-mail Sunday night and a rally Monday morning to find out for sure.
Does Faux News not hire people with an ounce of training? I thought that Wes Clark's comment had taken a back burner in light of Rev. Jackson's comment. Apparently, McCan't supporters are still seething that anyone would look beyond McCan'ts war record to see if he has qualifications for a job.
Upon reflection, this may explain Faux News hiring practices. I can envision the scene now ... (Flashback image) The prospective Faux News employee is being interviewed for a vacant political analyst position.
"Do you have a degree in Political Science?" "Uh, no."
"How many years of experience do you have in political analysis?" "Uh, none."
"How many of your articles have been published in political journals?" "Un, none."
"What qualifications do you have?" "I was a carrier pilot during the Viet Nam war."
"You're our man. Welcome to Faux News."
Would you want your state to license people as doctors and surgeons simply because they may have been carrier pilots, without testing their medical competency?
Would you want your school district to hire French teachers because they had been carrier pilots, without checking to see if they spoke French?
Of course not! Any job applicant is examined for competency and experience that relates to the job discription. Certainly, the training that goes into becoming a Naval officer and Naval pilot shows many skills. But, the bottom line is that an evaluation based solely on a person having been a carrier pilot, without more, does not qualify that person to be a French teacher or Neuro-surgeion or trial attorney or architect or President.
I'm just writing to add my voice to the displeasure with Obama's stringing up of Wesley Clark last week.
I'm a big fan of Wes Clark; he was one of my favorite candidates in 2004. IMO, he had exactly what the country needed at the time: international credibility. Clark is the kind of veteran who can be trusted to make wise military decisions: he's a warrior who knows that war is to be avoided.
Clark's statements last week were completely harmless. He seemingly praised McCain's service every other sentence. He repeatedly made clear that he was not questioning McCain's record. But Republican pundits attempted to position the statements as something far worse: a vicarious Obama statement that was vaguely critical of a veteran and therefore unamerican and unpatriotic.
But Obama's camp took the bait, disavowed Clark, and as a consequence drew even more media attention. I can't believe that Obama is letting the Republicans frame this campaign.
During Obama's recent swing towards the middle, I am beginning to wonder if Obama's team is underestimating Americans. After 2004, I was extremely pessimistic as to the average American. But Obama needs to remember that Republicans are overall weak and using desperation tactics right now. I doubt the average American would have read Clark's statements as unpatriotic but now some Republicans, encouraged by their success, are pushing so hard as to request an apology from Clark.
Obama, in your journey to unite this country, please don't execute your best generals on account of divisive rumors planted by your enemies.
-Andrew
The timing of the brouhaha around Wesley Clark's comments about the value of John McCain's experience did not fit well with Barack Obama's statement on patriotism. That is Wesley Clark's only mistake in his recent comments about John McCain. We need to be on the offensive on national security. I applaud Wesley Clark for his insight, and I think his words were good and powerful.
Jon Soltz describes Wesley Clark's comments and the value of McCain's record to his ability to lead America in this article in the Huffington Post.
Here we see the inability of members of the news media to even find the context within which a statement is made. This takes fact checking to a new low. Fortunately, this is not the only place that has been telling the story of the smear of Wesley Clark by sound-bite specialists.
When we fail to support Wesley Clark's service to our country, we dishonor him. He honored McCain's service. John McCain and his supporters have falsely claimed that his service qualifies him for many things that it does not. Welsey Clark merely put this in context, as one veteran to another, and as a superior officer to a lower-level commander.
I don't know why General Clark, a highly decorated retired military officer who reach the highest rank of his profession, cannot express his personal opinion that McCain's 5 yrs as a POW doesn't add to his qualifications as a presidential candidate. There are a whole slew of veterans who not only share Clark's opinion, but who abhor McCain because they believe he also revealed his father's name, rank and high level position in the USN to the enemy in order to save his life.
I think it's absurd that anyone would think Clark was speaking as a surrogate of Obama when he expressed that opinion. I was glad to hear that rather than back off from his statement when his motives were questioned, he not only stood firm on his position about that issue, but reiterated that he has expressed that opinion on numerous occasions in the past!
Ok, so whether or not you agree with Wesley Clark's position that McCain's specific military service (because of the nature of the roles he was in) doesn't necessarily qualify him to be a good Commander in Chief -- I honestly don't know if I agree with Clark or not -- you have to acknowledge that Clark has repeatedly said that he is not questioning the quality of McCain's service, and has repeatedly said that McCain is a hero (even referring to him as "a hero of mine") and that his service was honorable.
Even with all of those caveats the reaction from "the right" has been that Clark is "questioning" or "criticizing" McCain's "service." Which, btw, is the one thing Clark has decidedly not done, IMO.
Ok, ok, so let's even say that despite all of Clark's caveats, disclaimers, and explanations, that somehow someone really did still see what he was saying as some sort of insult to McCain's service...and they criticized him for that. Let's just go with that...
Clark didn’t attack McCain’s service (he even calls McCain a hero) he simply questions McCain’s qualifications to be president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Spn1Lg-qIw
Now that Senator Obama is the presumed nominee, our thoughts move towards who we'd like to see as VP. This post title tells you my preference.
Making Hillary his VP would be against everything Barack stands for - a complete destruction of his principals. So, it's not going to happen. At no point so far has Senator Obama compromised, so he won't start with something so controversial! For this same reason, he shouldn't pick Evan Bayh. Bayh used horrible tactics against Obama during the Indiana primary campaign, showing his old school leanings. McCaskill is fantastic, but she is also a Junior Senator, so too inexperienced to be on the same ticket. Barack needs a governor, a general, or an elder statesman (stateswoman). How does he find someone with experience, who also is not too caught into the Washington web? My choice is Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas: http://www.governor.ks.gov/about/bio.htm and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nHp90Z2NJk. She has had great success in Kansas, is likable, and knows how to run a campaign (she's won twice). Let's not ignore the fact that, as a female, some of those Hillary supporters would feel vindicated.
Bill Richardson has proven through the primary that he is not competent as an executive branch candidate. He should be made Secretary of State. Wesley Clark often comes across as crazy, like Mike Gravel, so I think he'd hurt the campaign, like Vice Admiral Stockdale hurt Ross Perot's campaign in 1992. John Edwards - he lost his chance to be VP by not endorsing Obama. By playing it safe, he has at best earned the position of Attorney General. How about General David Petraeus? Petraeus won't be able to run because he's serving in the Middle East, but he'd be an interesting candidate. Maybe too conservative.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg? That's worthy of a book of comments...
I also would be okay with the idea of Senator Chuck Hagel: http://hagel.senate.gov/public/ Here's an interesting article from way back in December: http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=20&num=17657
Check the excellent comments by politicoswizzlestick, who answered a question about this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080222114338AAazfDL. The answer starts with, "The Obama camp has thus far wisely not leaked any VP choices..."
What are your thoughts?
