Hey Clark Fans, Guess What?

We're screwed,















again.

Where do you get your 100% undeniably accurate information from?

The Steve Clemmons thing bothers me, a lot.

just a case of we don't want anyone to be too sure they figured it out....?? I'm gonna watch and wait..we WILL eventually see for ourselves what's up, but this is exactly why I didn't want to get my hopes up......wb

I think we've seen here how popular he is. On a post a while back, from 20 or so candidates, Clark was in 75 percent of the top four selections of most folks. He had probably the most first and second place finishes.

I've said all along, and we could see it last night in McCain's war stories replies to almost every question, no matter how unrelated to war, that defense is going to be a big thing. I believe this angling for a state or two is the wrong strategy, especially since it is obvious that they are going to continue the empty-suit campaing, and accuse him of lacking foreign/military experience. In a way, that goes for Hillary too, as she has none to speak of except for a couple of committees.

I think picking a military guy would be more understandable to Hillary too. Picking some other senator, or an unknown governor is a bad idea. But I still think McCain is going to be pretty weak, and getting worse as the harangue of the campaign goes on.

I'm a Clark fan but I didn't win the presidential election so I don't get to choose the VP.

The way I read the Washington Note article/blog/whatever, was that it said Clark was ASKED by Obama's campaign NOT to speak there. I think that if true, it is a very poor decision.

but that's different than being asked NOT to be there. Of couse that supposes that Wes Jr is actually who he says he is at KOS.

I am bothered by the co-opting of Clarks PAC theme and Wes not being asked to be a part of the evening, if that is what actually happened, but O's Veep choice is his to make. O's doing well with the military vote and may not feel that he needs to go that route with his Veep selection (though I am a fan of the General and think he'd be a good choice)

Many people have had the same basic theme - in 2004, Kerry had a major theme "A stronger America" In 2006, he labeled his foreign policy speech, "real security". You can goi through other candidates and you will find similar phrases that intend to convey the same thing. Kerry was not the first to call for a stronger America or security - nor was Clark. I doubt that George Washington had bumper sticker slogans - but I bet he was for strengthening America's security too.

Thats a bit more than a similar phrase to me...

http://securingamerica.com/
http://www.demconvention.com/the-2008-convention-wednesday-august-27th-securing-americas-future/

is pretty generic - it's a slogan.

It is simply that he was not asked to speak. There are many many people included - for one reason or another. Some may be Governors or Senators in swing states he hopes to win - where the speaking role could have some - even minor help. There is also a lot of time given to the Clintons. This is wise - as they have been given huge roles it will diffuse the claim that her voters "voice was not heard".

At this point, Kerry, Gore and Carter have not speaking times. Every one of them has far more claim to a speaking role than Clark does. They are among the top elder statesman of the party. In Kerry's case, he gave Obama the 2004 speech and backed him early and very very well. Yet, there are no threads by JK supporters whining that he does not have a role. Why? It is up to Obama's team to consider what will help them. They know what Kerry has done and they clearly respect him and it is known that he is a top advisor - or they would not have used him as often. In a similar vein, they have used Clark as a surrogate and will likely continue to do so. The convention is short and there are many people who supporters would like to speak.

Boy, is that one of the stupidest statements I've read!

Any info we get is either from bloggers or journalists....how would they know?

Think about this -

The VP selection will be sent out to Obama's supporters via text message - we will be the first to know. It's a fantastic way to tell us little people we're important. If word gets out before they send the text, then the whole things goes up in smoke.

The Obama campaign must keep the VP pick a secret. They would not tell Clark's staff, bloggers, journalists - even Wes Clark Jr.

:hi:

So, Obama is going in a different direction. That's his right, and his decision.

Whether or not we are Clark fans (I still have my Clark Bar teeshirt) the mission is to put an end to the Bush administration before they drag this country into total collapse. Sure, I'd love to have Clark as VP but even if he never even gets a call from O, as long as O wins that's the reason for this whole thing in the first place.

Then we can get to work on eliminating the DINOS and other fifth columnists, and the lobbyists and the multinationals and, and, and...

This election is only a beginning, the opening shot. Let's not get sidetracked by disappointment over our own "cult of personality" guy like the PUMA's seem to be. Nothing that happens in this election is going to make Wes Clark anything less than he is, and that is a pretty special sort of guy.

But this isn't just about who becomes VP. It is about who Obama does and does not choose to associate himslf with and why. I'm not going to jump to conclusions but Wes Clark is someone who I would like to believe our next Democratic president chooses to associate with.

Obama is entitled to choose whomever he wants as his V.P., but not giving Clark a speaking slot at the convention, truly troubles me.
I can't think of anyone who has spent as much time campaigning for, raising money for and supporting Democratic candidates for the last four years. And is there any more credible voice in the party when it comes to military affairs and foreign policy?

Seems like an intentional snub not to have asked him to speak at all--it didn't even have to be in a prime time slot. Just an acknowledgment of what he has contributed.

anything not directly from the Obama camp is speculation, through and through.
The only thing Obama has said about VP selection
is there will be no talk about it until the announcement.
Period.
End of conversation....

So, an equally valid speculation is the ruse rumor...
perhaps he's not on the speaking list...because he is the VP.

I don't think Clark would be out stumpin' as much as he is...
if there were hard feelings between he and Obama.
JMHO.

...one who has great respect for General Clark. I support Obama for President, but if Obama relegates General Clark to a minor or non role in his Administration and the overall Democratic Party, that would concern me for what I believe are sound reasons.

And FYI, I also think highly of Clark and if he is truly written off I too will be disappointed and *gulp* concerned. ;)

Webb, of course, can go after McCain's military record also.

lack of judgment.

Are we seeing consequences of fact that 'they' (reps and dems alike) are afraid of Wes?

and that some of the others who've been mentioned bode ill for the ticket.

Nobody is "screwed" here. I have been watching this whole Veep thing too and I have not seen any more evidence of Clark being a potential running mate over the others. What people decide to read into things is their choice. If you choose to read more into any of (insert name here)'s involvement with the campaign and you were wrong as a result of wishful thinking you didn't get screwed. Your wishful thinking has been proven wrong.

And this applies to any candidate on this Veep issue. I've seen people take the involvement of many pols to mean they are for sure the VP candidate. They just *know* this to be true in their heart of hearts so they come to believe it as fact about their own favorite choice.

Julie--who doesn't have a favorite, is quite open to whoever is named and has seen no hard evidence that Team O is leaning one way in particular

I guess I'm just trying to brace myself for what's coming.

There may only be 50 of you, but you are loyal, I'll give you that.

Although, like I said above, I don't identify as being "a fan", I accept the term "supporter". Clark's care supporters are quite loyal because Clark has never failed to step up to the plate when needed, starting when we helped draft him for President in 2003. And he has never disappointed us through his behavior, though sometimes we wished his opinion was different than what it was he always gave it to us straight, he never sugar coats an unpopular stance, rather he has always done his best to explain to us exactly why he believes what he does, often going to great lengths to answer questions openly and fully in the process. In short, he still hasn't disappointed us, and he still treats us with great respect. That inspires a degree of loyalty. But there are a lot more than 50 loyal Clar4k supporters. You have probably noticed that Daily Kos is pretty Clark friendly also as are a number of blogging sites. General Clark has alwawys made time for the netroots and grassroots activists.

All it took was one sentence, crafted in great part by Bob Shieffer, plus the MSM's willful ignorance of the rest of Clark's statements (i.e. McCain is a "personal hero"), and here we are today.

I think Clark can have a much better life sticking with his focus on the private sector. His PAC does focus on House races, and I think that's fulfilling an interesting role. After all is said and done, I think he's in a thankless place politically.

But all is not lost. Obama would have to try pretty hard to find a VP that was more underwhelming than Edwards in 2004.