How Are All The Clarkies Here Doing These Days?

I'm not sure what I think about him endorsing Hillary. Still numb I guess. I'm just asking here, because I haven't been here much lately & was wondering what they think. Hillary supporters too.

...kind of-- not too surprising. They both represent the corporo-military wing of the Centrist-Right Party from my leftist perspective.

The post was addressed to Clark supporters.

I can understand how it might be easy to misconstrue him as a militarist. I do not accept your characterization by any means, but I understand how one might leap to that view. But it is the career politicians, those who came up through the ranks ravishly seeking campaign funds every election cycle, those who have directly courted money from corporate interests all of their lives in order to keep their personal careers on track, who gravitate to the Corporate wing of the Democratic party for obvious reasons. Plus, of course, those people who built their influence and thus their ability to leap frog into politics at a hight lever on the foundations of long and lucrative careers in business, or inherited personal fortunes.

I was a little surprised he endorsed anyone so early. I especially didn't expect him to endorse Clinton but hindsight being what it is, I find it makes sense.

Now he is out of the picture.

I believe that he is running for VP and I will never support a Clinton Clark ticket.

I think it's time to get behind him or get out of his way. Basically.

:)

I probably won't get involved with the Clinton campaign. But there are MANY Democratic candidates we need to get elected in 2008 and Clark/WesPAC will continue to play a major role in getting the job done. I am eager to be a part of the effort.

I'm still a Wes Clark fan, and appreciate his tireless non-electoral efforts (especially as he could be raking in millions on corporate boards, and living comfortably in retirement).

and I may eventually be convinced to think more of her.

I know he's a strategist. I know this is part of something big, that may or may not turn out for him and for us, ALL of US; but I trust that it is his honest attempt at the best way forward.

Not sure at this point who I'll end up voting for.

but I've never part of the "hate Hillary" crowd. Whether I decide to support her or not doesn't change my respect and admiration for Wes Clark at all.

I must move on. I'll vote or her if she's our nominee.

Now I wish he'd just go away.

Damn!

I posted it in the Clark supporters Forum at DU, but not everyone goes there. I'll make an updated post to this thread a little later after I post this one:


I believe General Clark is walking point for the Democratic Party again.

Over the last four years I have come to appreciate that Wes Clark seems to have a sure sense as to where attacks on the chances for a Democratic Party victory are most likely to come from, and how he carefully pre-positions himself to protect whatever flank of our Party is most exposed and vulnerable to an attack that might deny us an important victory. There is no more important victory to secure for the Democratic Party now than the White House in 2008, because that victory is not just needed for a domestic and partisan political party, it is needed both for the health of our Democracy and for sanity in this world.

The visible danger that the Democratic Party faces in 2008 comes from all of the usual suspects, starting of course with the Republican Party but including a host of puppet masters and enablers, from powerful special interests to a rightist propaganda oriented mass media. Most Democrats know those enemies well enough, they are familiar foes; dangerous yes, but easily recognized and fairly straight forward to defend against. Sometimes we do well in that regard, sometimes not, but it is an unseen adversary that can ambush and thereby defeat our efforts to deny Republicans the White House in 2008.

That adversary hides in our own passion, in our own desire to right all that is wrong in our nation now. I am guilty of that passion though I do not view it as a crime. I make no apologies for fighting for what I believe in my heart is best for our nation. But passion denied frequently leads to bitterness, and for many of us in the activist base of the Democratic Party, passions flow in support of Democratic candidates for President far more progressive than Hillary Clinton will ever be in our eyes. Passion isn't the hidden adversary that will have to be overcome for Democrats to defeat the Republican nominee for President in 2008. It is a lack of passion for our most likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, that I fear may doom us.


I am among those who believe that Hillary Clinton will be a tough sell with the American electorate in 2008. I am also among those who believed barring a Clark or Gore candidacy, that Hillary Clinton is destined to win the Democratic nomination for President. To me that now seems all but certain. Neither Obama or Edwards or any other of our declared candidates can overtake Clinton in my opinion; Wes Clark is not running and I don't believe Al Gore will either. It will take a lot of hard work by a lot of committed progressive minded Democratic grassroots activists to put Hillary Clinton over the top in 2008, and she can not afford for that effort to lurch forward in low gear after her nomination.

I suspect this is one of the reasons why Wes Clark chose to endorse Hillary Clinton now. Clark is a thoroughly decent human being who was trained in the profession of warfare. There is no room for woulda coulda shoulda in a military campaign. Clark has been on the equivalent of such a campaign ever since he entered politics to oppose George W. Bush's neocon scripted disastrous plans for America.

I firmly believe that Wes Clark believes it is near certain now that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. If he is correct, and my respect for Wes Clark's ability to analyze pending events has grown continually since I first was exposed to his thinking four years ago, then the future of our nation's well being in the first half of the 21st century will largely rest on Hillary Clinton's ability to defeat the Republican nominee for President in 2008.

I don't think Hillary Clinton needs further active support from Clark supporters in order to win the Democratic nomination. I for one can not bring myself to give her such support at this stage, but that part doesn't matter. What matters is how fast so many of us who have deep resistance to the idea of supporting Hillary Clinton for President are able to work through our antipathy toward her to fight for her chances to win in November. We can all pretend that there is an intellectual switch each of us can throw that shifts us from opposing Hillary with a passion to fighting hard to help her defeat the Republican if she wins the nomination, but most people are not wired that way. There is an emotional psychological journey that must first be undertaken, and that journey can be slow and torturous.

It was that type of journey that took too long to take for far too many in 1968 that allowed Richard Nixon to hold onto a rapidly shrinking lead over a late charging Hubert Humphrey to win that presidential election and doom our nation to four more years of war in Viet Nam. It took a long time for anti war Democrats to become pragmatists in 1968 after the Chicago convention nominated LBJ's Vice President to run over Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern and the ghost of RFK. By the fall most of us were sobered enough by the prospect of Nixon getting elected that we could then seriously work for Humphrey, but we were a little too little, a little too late.

I don't think Wes Clark expects his endorsement of Hillary to turn many people who oppose her now into supporters of her now. But I think he realizes by endorsing Hillary Clinton early, who he (and I) fully expect will be the Democratic nominee, that he is helping hasten for many that emotional psychological journey I mentioned above, so that come the day when she is nominated, more of us will be ready to stop sitting on our hands and start working hard to get Hillary Clinton elected.

In my opinion (and I suspect in Clark's) Hillary Clinton doesn't really need further help to win the nomination now because it is already hers to lose. What Hillary needs most is for more Democratic activists to view her nomination as at least marginally acceptable when in all likelihood it actually comes to pass. 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 now 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. In so doing I believe Wes Clark is also walking point for our nation's future well being, just like he has for his entire life.

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 pleased at the prospect of Hillary Clinton being our candidate in 2008.

Will see Wes on the 3rd and ask my questions.

Looks like the media black out veil may have been lifted....which makes me wonder who ordered it to begin with.....as it has been clear for quite sometime that Wes Clark was never to be heralded, much less mentioned (unless in the form of a negative--see Fred Thompson campaign compared to Clark's 04 bid)by the corporate media unless it couldn't be helped.

The media controls much of what happens in this country, i.e., molds public opinion in whatever direction they want....or at least tries damn hard. I'm not convinced that they would have treated Wes any differently this time as the last time he ran (even when Wes was running 1st and 2nd to Dean the entire time prior to the vote, he was rarely mentioned except when he first announced, and from the first day of his campaign on it was strictly negative)........and so I'm not so unhappy that he chose not to run. He's a smart man and knows that regardless of his proven qualities and his track record on what will be the most important issue front center of the 08 elections, he wouldn't have ever been given due credit.

As to his endorsement of Hillary; the endorsement was his to make.

What I do see is consistency in that he has always maintained that this country needed someone leading it that wouldn't required to be schooled on foreign policy matters while in office. Regardless of what some folks may think of Senator Clinton, she was not a passive "out of the loop" first lady. The undeniable fact is that she has Bill at her side, and therefore Bill's team...which really does provide her with an advantage over her primary opponents, regardless to whether we want to admit it or not. Personally, I don't quite get the vitriol about Hillary (beyond her IRW vote...which was a passive one much more than Edwards' and NO, an apology 3 years too late does not make everything honky dory for me cause it is too convenient). The real live folks that don't hang out on the Internet yet vote that I talk to really don't have this problem with Hillary winning the nomination, and in fact many are rooting for her. Some have another favorite, but none that I have spoken to would die if Hillary reaches the White House.

At the end of the day, it isn't what a politician promises that counts (because that's too easy), it is whether that candidate will have the capacity and where-with-all to actually get some of those promises realized. Talking a good game may make folks feel happy, but it is the candidate who knows how to play the politics required to be played that will be the most effective. Is that Hillary Clinton? I believe that when one lines up the candidates, the answer becomes more and more apparent....that yes, she is certainly one of the strongest in the area of giving off the aura of being a doer instead of a talker. That counts for something with me.....and certainly many in the public who have a vote will see it this way as well.

I haven't totally decided who I will vote for during the primaries (and I get about 13 votes....cause many members of my family consistently request advise from me on that note cause they believe in my passion and respect my knowledge), but I do know that I wouldn't at all die if Hillary got the nomination.

All of that said, I wish each nominee good luck, and hope that we all line up behind the nominee once the votes have been tallied--and yes, I'll even get behind John Edwards during the general election if that's who is chosen, regardless of what I really think of him in my heart of hearts.

Just kidding, I like the General...The ad should feature HRC.

The first time was a book signing in NYC where he was solo. The second time was a Clinton fundraiser in NYC where she invited him to join her on stage and join in while she was interviewed by Tom Vilsack.

At the book signing Clark was asked, as a last question with time running out, if he thought the U.S. would bomb Iran, and he said "Yes". Clark focused on what appeared to be likely and why, he wasn't giving his personal advice, just answering the question, though he repeated that he thought that was a "bad option." Simply put he said not only is it the policy of the Bush Administration that Iran must no be allowed to acquire weapons grade uranium, but he's talked to all of the current Democratic candidates and they all essentially indicated that they agree with that bottom line, though it was not something they eagerly talked about. Clark then backed up and said that was the position of all the Democratic candidates with one or two possible exceptions which he did not clarify further. I took that to indicate that all of the major candidates, minimally including Obama, Edwdards, and Clinton, took that position. Kucinich most likely is one exception, and my guess is Gravel is the other Clark is not sure about. Perhaps it is another Democrat, not Gravel,who is not clearly in that bomb Iran at the point of A bomb making camp, but I am confident Clark would not have started his comment with the word "all" if one of the likely nominees disagreed with that position. Clark said though Iran denies it , there are strong indications it is developing the capacity for nuclear weapons, and someday possbily soon a top Intelligence official might walk into the oval office and tell whoever is president then that weapons grade uranium is now being produced and we have a 15 day window to take it out before it gets dispersed to the far corners of Iran where it can not longer be pin pointed.

Earlier at the book signing Clark had strongly made the case for full court region wide diplomacy in the middle east engaging both Iran and Syria in wide ranging talks NOW. He returned to that position as the wrap up to his reply to this question.

Here is how that ties back to Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton in my mind. When Clark was asked at the book signing what he would do if he were President now regarding Iraq one part of his answer was to say he would immediately get Richard Hollbrooke, who he called a friend, a personal gulfstream jet and sent him off to the middle east to do non stop shuttle diplomacy involving all of the players with a stake in what happened to Iraq and the entire region as his personal representative there, to hammer out a set of agreements that would meet the needs of the nations in that region without further escalating the arms race there or other military tensions. As most should know, Richard Holbrooke is a key adviser to Hillary Clinton.

Both at the book signing and at the Clinton fundraiser, Clark stressed that Hillary Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate in our current field, on foreign affairs and national security in particular. Clark stressed that Hillary will need very very little orientation to her new responsibilities, let alone on the job training, since she has already been a full partner at the highest level of an 8 year Presidential Administration, to go with her 8 years already spent in the Senate. And not just any administration, but one that developed a coherent grasp while in office on how to handle the security threats facing America, and which fully embraced diplomatic initiatives, including those with current adversaries, as a tool of state craft. Clark thinks Clinton is up to speed to begin working the entire middle east at the highest levels from day one in office. And with a diplomatic break through now seemingly the only option that could prevent looming military conflict with Iran under any conceivable administration the voters may install into office through the 2008 election, time is of the critical essence in preventing the next war.

Hillary Clinton was very respectful of Wes Clark at the event she had him appear at, she neither seemed intimidated by nor dismissive of his expertise. I believe Clark now feels that not only is Clinton our near certain nominee, but of anyone who we may elect she is most familiar with and supportive of the type of region wide diplomatic offensive that Clark believes the U.S. must launch in the middle east ASAP. It goes beyond intellectual support for that policy, it goes to having the contacts already in place inherited from Bill Clinton's presidency, both with a seasoned team of advisers who are comfortable working with each other at the highest levels playing for the biggest stakes, and with various world leaders who would view a Hillary Clinton presidency as a reprise of Bill Clinton's presidency - knowing full well that Bill will be in the White House too. That combination will allow Hillary Clinton to hit the ground running, soon enough if we are so blessed, to find a diplomatic way out of the looming show down with Iran. Months matter. Weeks matter. Even days matter.

If Clinton is elected Wes Clark is now part of her inner circle one way or another. It was clear to me from last night watching them together that she is absorbing at least some of his counsel. It was clear to me from the broad language she used in describing the types of security threats facing America in the coming decade. It was embracive and not limited to direct military threats, and very reminiscent to how Wes Clark talks.

Or maybe that's an exaggeration. Clark would have made a brilliant president because he's a class A strategic thinker. He did what he had to do to stay a player in Washington. I don't think his endorsement came early this go-round. It's actually coming late. I was surprised by his quick endorsement of Kerry in 2004. I'd only been watching him for about six months at that point.

Having watched for the nuances in his public character for an additional three years, I'm not surprised at the timing or the choice. It fits with who he is and how he sees his mission as a leading citizen. I don't agree with it. I'm not swayed by it. I won't accept Clinton as the nominee any quicker or easier than I otherwise would have when/if she's the nominee.

But I'm still a Wes Clark Democrat.

that he didn't talk about Hillary or Iran like he did on Maher's show. It was like he was careful so he could sell books?? I am not sure why. I like the guy but don't agree with him about Hillary and saying that we might have to go to war with Iran scared the hell out of me. For him to say it...