General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPerhaps we should encourage Ambassador Joe Wilson...
....on the national ticket. He's a middle east expert.
I might get behind a Wes Clark/Joe Wilson ticket.
JI7
(89,247 posts)is very close to the Clintons and part of their inner circle.
elleng
(130,864 posts)which it has been often. Not holding my breath that her candidacy, if it occurs, will do anything for Wes.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Someone close to her could get drafted when she is out.
Howard Dean could be another choice, as well.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)If she gets knocked out, it will likely be because her policies aren't going over well in the primaries. Choosing someone "close to" Hillary wouldn't make any sense, as they would likely fare no better.
elleng
(130,864 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 10, 2014, 03:33 AM - Edit history (1)
I've tried. Doesn't work here.
edit: Told you!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's why I want Elizabeth Warren to run.
elleng
(130,864 posts)and tho his economic and social progressivism hasn't been in front view recently, he has those creds too.
I must say I'm tired of banging my head against the wall for my candidates; its getting old.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)2004: National defense and foreign policy was the key issue so many Democrats (myself included) felt a Clark candidacy would neutralize the GOP advantage on that. Clark, by most estimations, was weak on other issues and was called a Republican.
2016: Economics is the key issue so many Democrats feel a Warren candidacy would solve most of our problems. We have no idea her positions on most other issues and she used to be a Republican for real.
I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could flesh out the comparison more.
elleng
(130,864 posts)and was called a Republican by Democrats who if they'd taken a moment to inform themselves, drove me crazy then.
As to economics now, Warren is clearly way up there, has the ability to inform and rouse a crowd on the issues. Again, if anyone bothered to inform themselves, they'd learn that Wes studied (and maybe taught) economics at West Point, where he was first in his class, so substantively he's got THAT, too.
JI7
(89,247 posts)they supported Hillary in 2008 also.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/06/valerie-plame-and-joe-wilson-to-host-ready-for-hillary-fundraiser/
JI7
(89,247 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)economics. I like Wes Clark and Joe Wilson on military and international issues, but America's biggest security challenge is the economy. It's not nearly as solid as it looks. Too much personal debt. Wages too low. Too many jobs shipped to other countries.
The stock market is high but that is because rich people have grabbed a huge portion of the wealth and are gambling with it, trading it back and forth. The value in the "investments" being made -- in terms of long-range profitability and usefulness to our country is questionable.
We need Elizabeth Warren to run. She should be at the top of the ticket.
elleng
(130,864 posts)and I attribute that to the continuing intransigent congress. And Warren would be great, but I see nothing hopeful without a reasonable congress. (Or rebirth of Lyndon B. Johnson)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)But I don't think she will run. And I think she probably could do more as Sec Treasure than as a POTUS obstructed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to regulating banks and corporations.
Hillary Clinton is the one who is not equipped to lead the American people. She is out of touch with the problems of ordinary people. Can you imagine Hillary or her daughter ever worrying about the cost of daycare? Can you imagine them worried about paying medical bills? They have it good. They always had it good. They have good hearts, but they have no idea, not in their hearts where it counts, about how tough it is for Americans now. The closest they have come to losing a job is moving out of the White House. Hillary just does not have the heart that we need in the White House. And because of that, I believe that she is the one who does not have what it takes to get elected. She comes across as cold.
Elizabeth Warren is not poor. But central to her professional life was her study of bankruptcy and the financial challenges of ordinary Americans. She knows that if the corporations take their tax money out of the US, the US cannot afford to fight the wars the corporations want to fight. It is as simple as that.
Hillary Clinton's criticism of Obama's Syria policy indicates that she does not comprehend that paying for wars we don't need and the debt that imposes on ordinary American people has impoverished our country.
The war in Syria would have been stupid. Imagine it. We would have been supplying weapons to rebels we knew little about. And in the end we would have had to admit that as bad as Assad is, the rebels were worse. They are now marching across Iraq massacring people so we are told (if you believe it). Could we have armed the "good" rebels? Maybe, if we could have figured out which ones they were. But what would have prevented the weapons we gave to "good" rebels from falling into the hands of the bad ones? Hillary never bothers to ask about things like that from what I can tell.
The first time we fought in Iraq, we were told not to worry about the cost because the oil in Iraq would pay it. Where did the money for the oil in Iraq go? Have you seen it? I haven't. Neither has the US treasury. Hillary said she regretted her vote for war in Iraq. But now she says she thinks we should have fought in Syria? I suppose the oil in Syria would pay for the war.
No. It would ultimately be taken out of the money for food stamps, schools, health care, freeways and the research our government needs to fund to keep us competitive in the rest of the 21st century.
No thanks to Hillary. Had enough of her kind of president.
Hillary Clinton has poor judgment when it comes to committing the lives of American servicemen in pointless, unwinnable wars.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Do some research into the Pristina International Airport incident
The Russians occupied the airport during the joint Russia-NATO peacekeeping agreement during the Kosovo War, Clark ordered British troops to take over the airport, using force if necessary. The British commander of the unit refused the order and the British general second in command of the NATO force also refused the order.
Some think it was the above that caused Clark to be replaced as the US Commander in Europe before his 3 year term was up, which essentially forced him into retirement as the US Army did not find another command for him appropriate to his rank.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11753050
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561897/General-Sir-Mike-Jackson-speaks-out.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/10/world/us-general-was-overruled-in-kosovo.html
Given his decision making process during the Pristina International Airport incident he has no business being in any position of responsibility with the US government.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)engagement of the US are restrained. And that is what the US needs.
Have you read Jonathan Kwiertny's 1984 book, Endless Enemies? It tells the story of our meddling in other countries' business prior to 1984. We are reaping the misery from that time right now.
Enough war. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I suspect that Wesley Clark would be less prone to get us involved in wars overseas than most American military leaders. He was out to win a war. That was his assignment. The former Yugoslavia is a situation I am very familiar with. The Russians would have backed down in any event, I believe.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)there was no reason to risk a conflict with the Russians by ordering troops to take the airport away from them.
Maybe the Russians would have backed down, maybe not, but there was no reason to take the chance.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Clearly, if Clark was wrong in that instance, others corrected him.
Again, that situation merely supports the idea that people can best control the risk of making a bad decision if they confer with and listen to others.
One of the reasons I don't want Hillary Clinton to be the president is that I don't think she really confers with others and listens to them well. Obama and Bill Clinton are very good and have the listening and conferring skills that keep the country safe.
Clearly, George W. Bush did not. He got us into Iraq in the first place. That was a colossal mistake. It set sparks that caused dangerous fires across the Middle East -- everywhere except in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Clark didn't confer or discuss things, the British company commander disobeyed the order, went to the British general who was second in command of the expedition, who also refused the order and it got escalated to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his British counterpart who determined that the airport wasn't risking a split in NATO. In other words the British were so strongly opposed to Clark's order that they were willing to risk a major diplomatic disagreement with the US rather then listen to Clark.
I don't think there is anything that will change my mind that under no circumstances should Clark be given a position of importance within the US Government.
As for the rest of your post we are in agreement