View Story | 214 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The problem is that he has said some things in this primary that it will be hard to take back. He was one of the surrogates actively suggesting that Barack doesn't pass the commander-in-chief threshold. It's very hard for him to walk back from that.
That's why that whole line of attack is so taboo. It's DESTRUCTIVE and you don't speak that way about a fellow Democrat, ever, ever, ever.
I still like Clark a lot. And I understand why he's a good choice. But beyond the fact that he made those comments, I think the VP should be someone who made the right choice this primary. Someone like Bill Richardson who made it clear that he stands with "change".
by islandinthesun on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM PDT
Yikes I'd have to reconsider also then..wow what a tool. That line of attack was especially problematic because it reinforced the view coming from the Hillary-wing of the party that the only way one can pass the 'threshold' was by invading Iraq, basically. The same old tripe rolled out by the Beltway class every Sunday morning.
Give me liberty, or give me death!
by salsa0000 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
He said more but This is the first thing that popped up when I googled:
Link
Former NATO commander Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter, called the comments "disturbing," and he accused Obama of not being prepared enough to be commander in chief and properly oversee an end to the Iraq war. "That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path," Clark said.
Former NATO commander Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter, called the comments "disturbing," and he accused Obama of not being prepared enough to be commander in chief and properly oversee an end to the Iraq war.
"That means knowing where you're headed before you start down the path," Clark said.
by islandinthesun on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:34:01 AM PDT
Before he made this comment, Clark was a big favorite with me. But this comment made him look like just another greedy opportunist. Saying that kind of stuff about another leading Dem is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. A military man should have known better.
It showed poor judgement, poor strategy, and lack of political ear. It's that third one that bothers me most, because I think that's what caused the errors of judgement and strategy.
by DBunn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:45:05 AM PDT
Pretty mild stuff if you ask me.
by Bluesman48 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:52:43 AM PDT
... of Dems, that we "can't be trusted with national security". In effect, Clark was trying to position Hillary as the exception to that well-known rule. Very bad mistake, both for courting Dems in the primaries, 'cause we know it's BS, and for the long-term brand of the party.
by DBunn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM PDT
in Cheif, looks like the reporter reshaped what he said because the quote itself isn't damaging.
"Pardon me, I thought you were a trout stream"
by frankzappatista on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:00:10 PM PDT
That's especially dangerous with Clark because truth be told he's actually quite a poor politician (I voted for him in the 2004 primary so I know what I'm talking about!).
Though it was pretty mild, it makes me nervous that he'd lack the judgement in the general election campaign needed to do/say the right things and the right time to win.
by salsa0000 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM PDT
I personally have seen my own opinion of Obama as Commander in Chief and President improve from the time that he first began his run, and I have to tell you that I didn't think much of him early on. That's why we have a primary system, and one of the reason's that a previous Clinton was able to win the nomination and presidency.
Wes Clark is a proven administrator, and has a very modern world view from his work as NATO Commander in Europe and that is the balance that he would bring to the ticket. Certainly, Richardson would be a good choice as well, but I would find that Obama will be the better for choosing some of Hillary's and Edward's supporters for high level positions.
I disagree with choosing only from the pool of early supporters and relatively late endorsers. It won't serve his Presidency, and it might even make it a bit more tenuous during the election campaign.
by tmay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:44:06 AM PDT
Clark is perfect, Clinton supporter, Military, Arkansas, brilliant as Obama, would challege all conventional wisdom!
by dgone36 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM PDT
I've disliked him intensely since Iowa 2004. It is too bad because he had me on board for a while there. He is an intelligent man and well educated. I go for Webb if he can be a team player.
Make that change.
by barnowl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:57:30 AM PDT
His speech at the 2006 Texas Democratic Convention (Clark begins speaking at 5:15) is a fairly eloquent preview of many of Obama's campaign themes. Even if he said some contrary things as a Clinton partisan, Clark seems to have both the vision and the force of character (he accuses Bush in no uncertain terms of nothing less than dereliction of duty as Commander in Chief in his handling of the run-up to 9-11) to squelch one of the Republicans' strengths (oddly, they are poised to win the argument that they're tough on national security even though they've dismantled our foreign policy and turned Iraq into a terrorist haven).
by fjamesc on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:20:00 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 214 comments