Funny how opinions of Clark have suddenly changed since he endorsed Hillary.

[TwilightZone]

It's interesting how many people are expressing shock and outrage that Wes Clark, a longtime friend of the Clintons, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. As I said in other threads, this particularly Clarkie knew that the choice for Wes was either run for president or endorse Hillary. The latter obviously eliminates the possibility of the former.

Wes Clark was instrumental in the '06 elections. He raised funds and stumped for countless Democrats, and his contribution to the landslide that was the '06 election season cannot be denied. That contribution does not change just because he came out in support of someone other than your preferred candidate. I have no doubt that he will continue to do whatever he can to ensure that we have a similar result in '08.

[Colobo]

1. Clark is a great man. I admire him.

[emilyg]

5. So do I.

[RiverStone]

2. disappointed

I've always admired Wes and he has (or had) been part of my dream ticket --- GORE/CLARK --- alas, that seems just that, a dream.

His early nod to HRC was a real let down and I suspect that the VP slot may be the payback. If we are stuck with Hillary as our nominee, I'd be happy to see him on the ticket - though I also fear what of the second place finisher? If that's Obama or Edwards, there will be even more disappointed folks.

Well, I'm still not ready to concede defeat to the LEAST Democratic candidate in Hillary.

[TwilightZone]

12. I'm disappointed that he didn't run.

I think we, as a country, missed out on not seeing his potential in '04.

I always wanted to see him debate W. on national security. :)

[awoke_in_2003]

20. "I always wanted to see him debate W. on national security"

I pay big money to see that one :)

[knight_of_the_star]

27. I am too

I wish he had run this time around, he would have cleaned every single Republican's clock without breaking a sweat and had some nice, long coattails.

As an aside, a national security debate between him and Dubya I would have sold my car to see, that would have been something to behold. Probably would have had the same results as a Pop Warner football team taking on the Raiders.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. I agree

the only reason I am disappointed is because I dreamed of a Gore/Clark ticket.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Clark is an idealist in spirit but a realist by necessity

Wearing rose colored glasses, in the military, is almost always fatal. When defeat in battle seems extremely likely, then the only sane course is to initiate an orderly retreat no matter how important winning that battle was, if there is any purpose served by living to fight another day.

Clark I believe was motivated by two factors when he endorsed Hillary Clinton, and they are related. First, I believe Clark now thinks there is no Demcrat running who can stop her, and Clark determined he could not pull together the support that he needed to have a chance of running and winning himself. That Clark sees Clinton as the almost certain nominee now should not surprise anyone. For one thing Hillary has been running a very solid campaign and if anything her opponents keep slipping further behind her in the polls. Wes Clark has consistently believed that any Democrat running for President since 9/11 would need credible credentials in the area of National Security to win the support of voters. It is clear by now (to me anyway) that Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are unable to win enough support to be strong opponents to Hillary Clinton.

And frankly, Hillary Clinton has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama and John Edwards put together. She has served in the Senate longer, but more import than that Hillary lived in the White House for 8 years as a true working partner to Bill Clinton with a front row seat to all of the important questions of war and peace and diplomacy that Bill Clinton dealth with as America's Commander in Chief. Therefor Clinton starts out being able to project more seasoned 'gravitas" than either Obama or Edwards can muster. Many here at DU may not believe that a thin resume on matters of national security would keep a good democrat from winning the nomination, but Wes Clark is not one who would share that view. From his perspective, and personally I think he is right, there is no one now out there who will deny Hillary Clinton the nomination.

The way I see it Wes Clark is accurately reading the political tea leaves and adjusting his plans accordingly. In 2004 Wes Clark dropped out of the Democratic race for President early even though he had a string of second and third place finishs and one win scattered across virtually every region in the country. Clark had a strong organization and a lot of support in Wisconsin, which was next up on the primary calender, but he pulled out before that vote despite a solid 3rd place showing in Tennessee the night before, and quickly endorsed John Kerry.

Other Democrats, like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, kept fighting for the nomination but Kerry swept virutally every contest from then on out, with the exception of favorite son results in Vermont and North Carolina. What Wes Clark said at the time was that he believed John Kerry would be our nominee and he wanted to do all that he could to strengthen him before the General Election. Clark didn't get the VP nod as a result of endorseing Kerry early, John Edwards who kept fighting Kerry got that slot, but Wes Clark became John Kerry's top surragate campaigner throughout the 2004 election even though he wasn't on the ticket. Now that Clark sees Clinton as the very probable nominee, he is relating to that fact like he did with Kerry/

My posts have long reflected my belief that only Al Gore or Wes Clark, of those Democrats who possibly would run this time, could keep Hillary from getting the nomination. I do not believe Gore is running. Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton now is a predictable consequence of current political reality, in my opinion.

In the hard ball school of National Politics, Clark now earns the right to be a trusted advisor to Hillary Clinton. Of that part at least I am grateful. Hillary Clinton meets Wes Clark's pre-conditions for someone he can actively support for President, whether or not she would have been his preferred choice. Clark knows and has respect for the foreign policy/national security credentials of many who now are gathered around Hillary Clinton including Richard Hollbrooke and Madelein Albright, and of course Bill Clinton. He knows that Hillary is both bright and thorough in her preparation for any task she approaches, which shows in her Presidential campaign. Bill and Hillary Clinton are close political partners. Hillary has more foreign policy experience than John Edwdards and Barack Obama combined, plus she has a seasoned team of close associates.

Bill Clinton travelled to Africa to apologize for not sending America's military into Rwanda (against Clark's recommendation that we should intervene there) to stop the genocide that happened in Rwanda. Bill Clinton negotiated directly with North Korea, and unlike Powell and Rice, America's Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration was not afraid to meet with America's adversarys; Albright went to North Korea's capital in person. Hillary Clinton if nothing else can be expected to be willing to attempt meaningful sustained diplomacy prior to callig for military action in the world.

[avrdream]

94. Wow, very nice analysis.

My favorite part: "In the hard ball school of National Politics, Clark now earns the right to be a trusted adviser to Hillary Clinton. Of that part at least I am grateful."

That alone should help people feel better about Hillary. I support her for lots of reasons but surrounding yourself with FANTASTIC advisers, like Wes Clark, is very reassuring.

Thanks.

[dugggy]

105. May be Clark knows something you don't

which is that HRC has the best chance to win WH in 2008.

[wildhorses]

3. it is just that i have been hoping for a

gore/clark '08 ticket. i still maintain that hope. :patriot:

[renie408]

6. Can he do that now? I mean, now that he has endorsed Hillary?

Would he just say, "I endorsed her because Gore wasn't in, but now that he is, he is my first choice."?

I just keep praying Gore gets in.

[wildhorses]

15. i don't see why not....

if gore gets in...he chooses his own running mate, right?

[calteacherguy]

67. Gore won't get in now. It would not be what is best for the Party.

He's smart enough to realize that Democrats need to unite in order to win. Getting in now would only lead to a long, drawn out primary battle. In the end, I don't think even Gore could defeat Clinton.

[wildhorses]

75. not for nothing, but ---

hasn't it already been a long, drawn out, over-blown, bloviated process, already?

[Patchuli]

92. I think Gore would sweep Hill right off the map! nt

[Vickers]

4. Funny ha-ha, or funny hmmmmmmmm...?

:P

I noticed it, too.

[TwilightZone]

9. Ok, maybe not so funny.

:)

[Capn Sunshine]

7. Clark is a special kind of Dem

His corporate lobbying for defense firms, his Faux News commentary---why is anyone surprised he'd throw in with his longtime political friend? There's an argument to be made that the Clinton's brought him into the party in the first place.

And NO , I don't think it was to be VP. That will go to Richardson if Hillary gets the nomination.

[blm]

13. How long have YOU heard Hillary2008 was operational, Cap'n?

IIRC, Greider mentioned it in 2003.

The bigger part of me wants to believe Clark wasn't part of it.

[Capn Sunshine]

24. Well I can't argue with Greider, I think I mentioned it in '99 :^)

Either way, Wes Clark has been his own man, but certainly you can make the argument that his particular flavor of Democrat was always just this side of moderate republican. He voted for Reagan. So I never expected anything from him that would be out of character with that. I agree he's done great things, and we're lucky to have a man of his stature among our party faithful.

I've made it no secret that the party is in the midst of a dispute over future direction. I don't characterize it as right vs left. It's western populist progressives vs the east coast establishment/beltway wing of the party. Come to think of it , is IS right vs left. Only it's coasts we're talking.

The other struggle is to keep the young idealists from being crushed if they don't prevail. We will all live to fight another day. Now where's my picket sign......

[blm]

57. There's also good possibility Wes may not have been cognizant that he

was being urged for other reasons.

[blm]

59. BTW - the way I heard it in 2001, the fight was described as the Kennedy Dems

v the Clinton Dems.

And Brinkley's observations from April 2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

[calteacherguy]

68. Clark did a great service for the Democratic Party and America by appearing on FOX news.

And it's sure to pay big dividends in the general election, especially if he is VP.

[Capn Sunshine]

70. I don't agree-but I despise Faux News

I think anyone who appears there is perceived as feet of clay, like Alan Colmes. In it for the money.

[calteacherguy]

74. Obviously, you never watched Clark on Fox News.

The idea is get those on the other side to start thinking...yes, some of them are incapable of that, but not all. Your kind of politics will not broaden our base.

[TwilightZone]

89. It was a lot more entertaining than you might expect.

It was rather amusing to watch Wes bat O'Reilly around the room like a cat playing with a mouse.

[FrenchieCat]

90. Capn, you and I agree quite a bit on Obama, but please

do tell, with links, about Wes Clark's alleged Corporate lobbying for defense firms.

I remember the Acxiom (which is not a defense firm) lobbying dust up back in 2001.....but that was proven to be above board by the guy who wrote the book on that whole subject, Author of "No Place to Hide", Robert O'Harrow Jr.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clark_lobbying_for_axiom_a.html

So what Defense Firm lobbying are you refering to?

[OHdem10]

8. I have not heard that great disappointment.

I have not selected a candidate, and an old Clarkie.
It did not surprise me at all for Clark to endorse
Hilary.

It tells me he took a serious look at all candidates
and selected the one he considered best to be President

I just wish Hilary would consider him for VP

[Debi]

10. Look back at the 2004 race and you will see many Clinton friends

on his supporter list (and advisor list).

Makes sense that if he was going to wade into the endorsement pool he would choose his friend.

[calteacherguy]

11. I'm a long time Clark supporter, and I'm not surprised by this or disappointed.

I've felt for sometime it is unlikely Clark would run...he's a realist. I'm also excited that Clark is going to continue be active in helping ensure a Democratic win in 08'! I have suspected a Clinton/Clark ticket is likely for sometime, and I think it would be unbeatable!

And if not, SOS perhaps...

[juajen]

18. I love seeing that Clinton/Clark ticket.

Wes Clark is a truly wonderful man and would make a great VP or Sec. of Defense, which, I believe, he can now qualify for?

[calteacherguy]

29. I'm not sure about Sec. of Defense.

I actually think he would be better as SOS with his diplomatic skills. As VP, he would do the most to ensure a Clinton win. Surely she realizes how perfectly having him on the ticket would counter the kind of attacks the GOP is planning and already mounting against her...weak on national security, etc.

As Bill Clinton said in 2003, they are "two rising stars of the Democratic Party."

[tammywammy]

49. He's not eligible for Sec of Defense anyways

for a few more years.

I think he'd be a good sec of state.

[spotbird]

14. It says he is pragmatic,

He's done the math, and is fairly sure she will be the nominee. If she wins it will help him to be on her good side.

My opinion of each of them is unchanged.

[calteacherguy]

30. Spot on. nt

[tammywammy]

16. I've always liked Clark

And while Hillary isn't my favorite, it not like this should have been a real surprise anyways.

It doesn't change my opinion of Clark at all.

[Cameron27]

17. I haven't changed my opinion of him,

but then I've never had a problem with Hillary Clinton. It doesn't mean that I'm suddenly going to support her, I'm still very undecided and there's no rush for me to decide anything.

[LWolf]

21. My opinion of Clark has never changed. n/t

[pampango]

22. Being anti-Hillary must trump being pro-anyone else, it would seem. n/t

[Forkboy]

23. His endorsement of her doesn't bother me.I'm holding out for the coveted Xasthur endorsement.

Now, if THIS guy endorses her I'll be disappointed. :P

[Milo_Bloom]

25. He chose POLITICS over PRINCIPLES.

Which does diminish my opinion of him.

[calteacherguy]

32. He chose doing the most he can to ensure Democratic victory.

Which he's been doing ever since the neo-cons took over. His highest principle is doing what he can to help Democrats win. He's a highly principled man. He doesn't have to be doing this. He's not a politician. He does it for his love of country.

[Milo_Bloom]

38. His actions suggest otherwise.

I wonder what he was promised in return for his endorsement.

Unless all his anti-war talk the last 6 years meant NOTHING, this endorsement doesn't jive with his principles.

[jcrew2001]

33. He chose loyalty over politics

he's a political idiot imo, no backbone in politics, not capable of standing up as his own man.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I disagree and explained why above

If Clark is right that Clinton will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee then it is entirely consistent with his principles to now start helping her strenghten her standing with the general public to help her defeat whoever the Republicans nominate. I don't want to repeat myself so please read my post near the top of this thread. And it is more than simple ego invovled for Clark to allign with Hillary relatively early to increase his degree of influence with her. It is an unfortunate aspect of hard ball politics but true none the less that those who are inside one's political camp get listened to more than those outside of it. Frankly, if Clark is right and Hilary will become our nominee, I sure as hell hope that Hillary Clinton does a lot of listening to Wes Clark.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. That is EXACTLY what I said.. he chose POLITICS over PRINCIPLES.

You are saying he chose Hilary BECAUSE he believes she will be the nominee and he wants a greater voice in her administration.

That is the essence of choosing politics over principles.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. I think it depends on the meaning we assign those words

For example; To me those who choose to stake out purist principled positions on political issues when doing so likely increases the liklihood of real harm being done (because it lessons the potential to secure meaningful available progress toward a desirable end) can be people who choose stroking their political ego over the principle of doing some good when some good can be done. It is not something easy to discuss in black and whites, there are far too many shades of grey in the picture at all times. But I think working to achieve the best possible political end under the circumstances in play at the time can be a highly principled position to take. Count me among those who loved Ralph Naders platform and hated his efforts to win votes in the 2000 election. Ralph supposedly stood for principles by not backing Gore.

Huge questions of war and peace are fought out behind closed doors in almost every presidential administration. Those who are locked outside of those doors have very little say in what gets decided. Clark's entire career has been one of service to America, he understands the role of an advisor. At this point in his career Clark has no further need to climb up a career ladder. If he wants access to Hillary Clinton now it is because he believes that he has things he can tell her that will be good for America if she listened to them. Wanting to be positioned to serve in that way to me is not "political" as opposed to "principled". I think viewing those two aspects as either/or, in conflict with each other is misleading.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Tell that to Colin Powell

That is the exact same reasoning that many assigned to him, as he sold himself out in the bush administration. It is better on the inside... he can have more influence if he goes along with it for now.

In the end, it didn't matter and it never does. Hilary will do what is best for HILARY, as she has always done and Clark will not have influence over it. If he did have influence, she wouldn't have voted for the IWR in the first place.

Its called selling out your principles for Poltics.

[sundancekid]

50. and my dog ate my political principles ... sorry, but cognitive dissonance

can only stand for so much pedantic horsepucky at any one time ... trust me, I VERY GRAY in my thinking and perfectly capable of managing paradoxes ... given that, and as an old Clarkie 2004, I STILL find Clark's endorsement of HRC appalling. Period.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Bill Clinton sent his Secretary of State to North Korea's Capital

to meet personally with Dear Leader Kim when tensions that might have led to war with North Korea were building. Clark knows Albright well and respects her, and Albright is backing Hillary. Bill Clinton sent Under Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke to Bosnia to help negotiate peace in that war torn nation through negotiations with all the players in that region. Wes Clark worked side by side with Holbrooke in Bosnia on the Dayton Accords, and Hollbrooke is backing Hillary. Although Bill Clinton did not take Wes Clark's advice to intervene to stop the slaughter of genocide in Rwanda, he later did something few Presidents would even consider for an instant doing. Clinton travelled to Africa and apologized in person for his failure of leadership in not acting to stop the slaughter of nearly a million people. Wes Clark of course knows that about Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton is backing Hillary.

Wes Clark believes that the world is much closer to the brink of an escalating spiral of military violence right now than most other politicians in America have the vision to realize. If war expands out from Iraq it won't matter what domestic policies any of our Democratic candidates plan to implement should they become President; there will not be any funds available for any domestic initiatives, instead we will face cuts in the ones we have now. Issues of war and peace weigh heavy on General Clark. He has personal reasons to believe that of the Democrats now running for President, Hillary Clinton will bring the best team to Washington to advance diplomatic solutions to complex international issues that threaten the peace and security not only of ourselves, but of hundreds of millions more in other nations around the globe. I think that is a principled position to take.

[DFW]

106. I agree with Tom, here

I know Wes Clark somewhat, and he is not for sale, not for
Secretary of Anything. He wants to make a difference, sure,
who doesn't? He's from Arkansas, he and the Clintons have
known each other for decades. If Clark sees HRC as the most
likely candidate, and wants to be there with experience and
advice, it's for the same reason he joined the military in
the first place--to serve. He is also still extremely worried
that Cheneybush will follow through with their fanatsy in
attacking Iran, and will certainly be forming some of some
of HRC's (hopefully!) preventative medicine speeches on that
subject.

There was talk of Wes Clark as Secretary of State on these boards
for months before now, if he didn't run. VP, too. How come the
moment he endorses someone, he's suddenly doing it purely for
his own benefit? I don't buy that. Spend half an hour with the
man, and neither will you.

Personal note to Signore Rinaldo:

By the way, Tom, good to see you in Milwaukee, and did you listen
to those two CDs I gave you, and if not, shame on you! ;-)

[TwilightZone]

37. In what way?

I'm not sure that I don't understand your point. Is your comment re: his choice of endorsee or re: the fact that he's endorsing someone instead of running himself?

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Who he chose to endorse...

Wes Clark has never seemed the type to me to be for sell out politics and capitulation. Hilary represents Sell out politics and capitulation.

Either I misjudged Wes Clark or he sold out, either way, it diminishes my opinion of him.

[TwilightZone]

45. Wes has had a solid relationship with the Clintons for years.

I don't see endorsing a friend and acquaintance as selling out. I think it probably has less to do with politics than with his relationship with the Clintons.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Same thing as the dems who endorsed Holy Joe

And people weren't too forgiving of them, nor should they have been.

Being someone's FRIEND, doesn't mean you should endorse their faulty political stances, which is what Wes has done.

[TwilightZone]

54. I doubt that he sees it that way.

I doubt that he sees her political stances as "faulty"; otherwise, he wouldn't have endorsed her.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. Unless it was for personal gain, as it seems to be. (NT)

[MonkeyFunk]

82. or maybe you're just wrong

[Milo_Bloom]

86. Sadly, This time I am not (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

95. Yes

because nobody could possibly disagree with you for honorable reasons. :eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

101. No, because of a simple thing called FACTS.

Either Wesley Clark hasn't really meant what he has said for the last 5 years

OR

He suddenly discovered something more important to him.

OR

He is moron who doesn't know Hilary's voting record and hasn't listened to her speak.

[roguevalley]

26. its never been a case of the people picking their own candidates anyway.

corps and the media and big money always do that for us. what can you say? we're just the rubber stamp. we don't ever get to choose, not meaningfully,.

[The Count]

64. And did you notice, they always pick for us pro-war candidates?

They did it in 2004 - and 2008 will be no different.
War will not be an issue in the race this time - yet again.

[roguevalley]

66. yeah, media corps have munitions branches.

[Prophet 451]

28. It's disappointing

I was hoping he would run himself but having decided not to, it's not too big a surprise that he would endorse Hillary.

I reserve the right to disagree with him though.

[AlCzervik]

31. i'm kind of disappointed he isn't running but my opinion of him hasn't changed at all.

[usregimechange]

34. They likely offered him a high position in an administration

[Tellurian]

42. Most Likely to Help them END the War! nm

[Capn Sunshine]

48. "Secretary of ending War"

in these times we could sure use a cabinet position like that.
More teeth than Kooch's Secretary of Peace.

[Lucinda]

41. Not mine

I valued the opinions of Wes Clark AND Al Gore looooong before it was fashionable, and I doubt that anything much will ever change that...

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Mine haven't.

I still like Wes Clark, I still don't like Hillary Clinton.

[high density]

51. My opinion on him hasn't changed much

But I do not agree with him on this announcement.

[tishaLA]

52. My opinion of him hasn't changed one iota

I have always admired him and thought he was perhaps the smartest person in the party, at least in foreign policy matters. That doesn't change because of this endorsement. It simply means I disagree with him about something....but it's OK because I've disagreed with him before and will again.

[AtomicKitten]

53. Clark is one of our very best Democrats.

Nothing but kudos from me.

[bluedog]

55. I thnk its great!

and I'm a Clarkie........a NATO's supreme commander endorsing Clinton...good for him..better for her.......sure hope he gets a spot in the next administration............

[Cha]

56. Clark can endorse who

he wants..doesn't mean I have to like it.

[wyldwolf]

58. My first choice of 2004 endorses my first choice of 2008!

By the way, I was one of the original Clarkies on DU, not from the later crop who jumped on his bandwagon.

[Turner Ashby]

60. My entire opinon of Wes Clark....down the tubes.

[wyldwolf]

65. good.

[FrenchieCat]

91. But was it anywhere but in the "tubes" is the question?

:eyes:

[The Count]

62. I haven't changed a bit. I will vote anti-war in 2008, as I did in 2004.

At least in the primaries - we don't seem to be given that choice in the general election. Ever. Oh, maybe a write-in.

[BeyondGeography]

63. Funny how you are almost completely wrong about this

Just about every ex-Clarkie who supports someone other than Hillary has defended him here today, often starting threads with just that sentiment.

[renie408]

73. I dunno. I have read a lot of comments about being disappointed in him. n/t

[TwilightZone]

88. I suggest that you take another look around.

There are plenty of posts where people have indicated that his endorsement of Hillary has changed their views of him. There are a few in this very thread.

[Connie_Corleone]

69. I don't understand the shock and outrage. I was a huge Clark supporter in 2003-04.

I didn't know he would endorse anyone, but it wasn't shocking that he endorsed Hillary. I'm not outraged by it. He's worked hard for Democrats. If someone other than Hillary gets the nomination, Clark will work hard for him too.

To turn their back on Clark over an endorsement seems over the top to me. Clark knows the Clintons better than the shocked and outraged DU'ers.

[politicasista]

71. My opinion of him has not changed

:patriot:

[zulchzulu]

72. I want Clark to explain Hillary Clinton's IWR vote convincingly

Actually, based on his past words, he was for the war for the most part.

"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

London Times, 4/11/03

Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1839

But if you look deeper at Clark's view on the war, he appears to want to play both sides of the fence, like Clinton:

In the October 9 debate (2003) on CNN, General Wesley Clark claimed his “position on Iraq has been very, very clear from the outset,” adding, “I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war."

http://www.factcheck.org/clark_waffles_on_iraq_war.html

It looks like Clark and Clinton are like two peas in a pod with their utter inconsistency regarding the Iraq War. What a perfect fit...

[Adelante]

77. Oh, wow

I'm more disappointed in you than in General Clark.

[zulchzulu]

83. Explain to me why I should respect Wesley Clark's opposing views on the war

I've met him, shook his hand, talked to him...

Doing a google on his views on the Iraq War, I found troubling differences of opinion on the war within his own dialogue. I seek the truth....not something else.

If you want to be disappointed in me for wondering exactly which opinion Clark has on the war, then you're probably looking at the wrong person to be disappointed in.

I'd be impressed if you could point to the quotes from the sources and give me a reason why one view completely contradicts the other for a logical reason. Can you do that?

[Adelante]

100. If you want a battle of the endorsees, bring it on

You might want to check with Samantha Power first, though. If you want me to spend the next six months defending General Clark instead of Senator Obama, that can happen, too. Your call.

[TwilightGardener]

85. Ooops, there it is.

[FrenchieCat]

93. This post might steer me away from Obama more than any I have seen......

:wow:
Posting extremist left wing bullshit that can also be found about Obama is sickening.

Thank God that Clark isn't running, if this is what I would have to revisit....after the hours that have been spent documented exactly what his position truly was....which ain't at any of those links that you have had the nerve to actually post.

I was under the impression that you were supporting John Kerry last primary? I must have been wrong.

My opinion of you has definitely taken a downturn! :thumbsdown:

[zulchzulu]

97. Factcheck.org is "left wing bullshit"?

I'm trying to get an assessment on what Clark's position IS on the IWR and thought he was always against it. Then (mostly because I'm not that much of an uber-fan of Clark) I found through factcheck.org (a site I respect) that he had contradictory views.

Is it MY fault he's on record with quotes and video of his various opinions?

This has NOTHING to do with Obama.

Nothing.

It has to do with Clark.

It also has NOTHING to do with Kerry. It has to do with Clark.

Clark.

Clark.

Get it?

Please inform me what Clark's "official" opinion is on the IWR so that I could see what he would say if perhaps someone on a news show asks him. That's all I want. Is that somewhere I am forbidden to go to?

[FrenchieCat]

99. Here.....

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

[zulchzulu]

102. Thanks FC

The Levin Amendment was to have diplomatic resources expended fully before any attack. Thanks for clearing that up.

This then goes to why Clark was for the Levin Amendment while Hillary Clinton voted against it.

[Adelante]

107. Levin called for another IWR vote in Congress

Pursuant to a new UN resolution and before any attack.

[illinoisprogressive]

76. Endorsements are not that big of a deal. No one is swayed by them.

[calteacherguy]

78. I'm feeling somewhat of a sway, actually.

I'm taking a closer look at Clinton. Obama hasn't entirely convinced me he's ready.

[Forkboy]

79. Like Oprah's endorsement of Obama?

:shrug:

[TwilightZone]

103. Oprah is probably the exception to the rule.

Personal endorsements don't usually seem to sway people much, but I think that Oprah is probably an exception. She can certainly provide a level of exposure that wouldn't normally be available to a candidate.

[sampsonblk]

81. Same here: only two choices for Clark

Who didn't know that?

Now he's going to be a kick-ass campaigner for Clinton.

[wisteria]

84. He must of felt as an old friend he had to endorse her.

He couldn't possibly think she would make the best president.

[MonkeyFunk]

96. Of course he could....

sometimes people disagree with you for honest, honorable reasons. I know it's hard to believe....

[AZBlue]

87. My opinion is exactly the same.

I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for him.

However, my opinion of HRC may have been increased some...

[Rene]

98. Clark should be a Presidential Candidate.

[maxanne]

104. no surprise

Wes Clark was rumored to be a Clinton subsidized spoiler to eliminate Howard Dean in 2003.

Neither Clark nor Clinton has any anti-war cred - they're made for each other.