Wes Clark is our answer for 2008

1. Change the course in Iraq. Democrats must pressure George W. Bush to listen to the generals on the ground and the whole range of experts -- not just the GOP -- on how to change the course in Iraq. We must work with regional powers, promote gradual transformation and stability, and regain the 'strategic consent' for the long-term U.S. influence in the region. We must use the situation in Iraq to propel us toward this larger goal, and in doing so, we will also find the right way to wind down our deployment there.

2. Rebuilding alliances to address the real national security threats. We must bring our allies into the reconstruction of Iraq to ensure shared responsibility for the ongoing stability of Iraq itself and the region as a whole. We must provide real oversight on government contracts in Iraq; we cannot continue to allow no-bid contracts to Halliburton. And by bringing our allies together, we can finish the job in Afghanistan, and more effectively hunt down Osama Bin Laden and contain Iran and North Korea.

3. Address energy independence and global warming as national security issues. We must put a policy in place to lead us to energy independence and away from the volatile and conflict-ridden regions where, today, the "geostrategic risk premium" is adding billions of dollars to the costs imposed on the American people. Our reliance on oil also impacts global climate change. As I have stated before, global warming has serious national security risks: stretching our military resources to deal with catastrophes (like Katrina) and increasing the potential for conflicts due to the displacement of people, competition for scarce resources, and adverse effects on agriculture.

As we contemplate 2008, there is one candidate I can see who can put it all together. Above is this potential candidates plan for Iraq.

* Son of a single mom and who grew up in the South in Arkansas.

* Honor graduate from West Point.

* Former Supreme Allied Commander for N.A.T.O.

* Only Commander to go into a full scale campaign against the enemy and emerge with no fatalities.

* As a Commander, he was in charge not just of military, but the staff, personnel, their families, and dependents, which included schools and businesses.

* As a previous candidate for President in 2004, the only one drafted by the people.

* As a candidate for President, he courageously spoke up about defending a woman's right to choose as well as being the most progressive candidate on equal rights for the GLBT Community.

* The first Presidential candidate to advance an alternative fuel plan for America.

* After withdrawing from the race, he has fought for Democrats at all levels, from the eventual Kerry-Edwards ticket down to City Councilman. He's logged in hundreds of thousands of miles.

I was honored enough to work alongside this man. He's honest, independent, progressive, intelligent, and truly has a heart to see the best for everyone. He is the best choice we could name for President in 2008.

His name is Wesley K. Clark. Watch the American Son below and discover why I believe Wes Clark is the best potential next President for us in 2008.

http://youtube.com/...

Then go to http://www.SecuringAmerica.com/

There also is a Facebook Group at : http://www.facebook.com/...

Wes Clark needs your support in 2008! He helped to elect the Democrats who won nationwide. He'll be there for our country. Lets be there for him now!

•  Wes should have been our answer

  for 2004.

  by elliott on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:21:53 PM PDT

  •  Barring Gore throwing his hat in,

    ...I am leaning toward Clark.  He's got a lot of great assets and has noticeably matured as a public figure since 2004, which, back then, I thought was his biggest weakness.  He sometimes seemed pretty green on stage, as it were.  Not any more.  That Fox gig did him good and has put his face in front of a lot of people our party's candidate will need to reach in '08.  Hillary will never be able to talk to that segment of America -- or, to put it more accurately, they will never listen to her.

    by scorponic on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:40:43 AM PDT

    •  Gore or Clark

      Bushco has messed up the country and the world in so many ways that we will need a very strong Leader who can jump in day one to start fixing things before we run out of time. I just can't see any of the other potential candidates actually being able to do the job, especially Hillary.

      by Grassroots Mom on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:18:57 AM PDT

      •  You can vote

        for Gore or Clark or Gore / Clark, or your favorites for president and vice president in 2008 here (left-hand column).  Edwards won last month, and there's a major Clark push going on right now in the poll.

        Alex
        Choose Our President 2008

        by ourprez08 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:51:41 AM PDT

      •  can't we have both?

        by StormBear on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:49:01 AM PDT

        •  Not if you want to win

          by Bobjack23 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:24:42 PM PDT

      •  Sad as it is

        a military man is the answer here. And Clark is more than just that.  He is so terrific.  Up against John McCain the Democrats will need someone with the credentials and only Clark has them as far as I can see. An atni-war candidate without the military background will be a marshmallow.

        by hairspray on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:22:30 PM PDT

    •  Clark-Obama in 08

      Keep saying it, keep believing it.

      We've rarely been handed the opportunity for a ticket that would be incredibly popular across a very broad base of voters.  One that could eEnergize our base while simultaneously capturing the affections of the center and even the moderate right..

      Let's not blow this chance.  Clark has been loud, proud and strong  on his opposition to the war from day one, and he's one of the few Democrats with instant credibility on the subject who won't need to do any hawkish posturing before ending our ivolvement there.  Obama is an eloquent charismatic guy who ignites a sort of hopefulness in voters both left and right that melts away their natural cynicism about politics (a quality not seen since the Scions of a certain Massachusetts  
      Family once roamed like giants across the poltical landscape.  However as a first term Senator; he's not likely to be seen a seasoned enough to be president by the voters.  (but after 8 years as Vice, I believe he'd be a shoe-in)

      Together, they could do truly great things for our party, our Country, and I believe the world generally.  Let's cap our National "return to Sanity" with a truly stunning accomplishment shall we?

      Clark-Obama '08   Believe it.

      by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:34:30 AM PDT

      •  I'm being saying Clark/Obama since, well ...

        ..since a long time.  Even though Congressman Ford "lost" his bid, watching Obama and the General campaign for him only made me love these two men more.  Obama is a little too liberal on social issues for my taste but putting him with the General will be just right!  

        by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:52:48 AM PDT

        •  Obama too LIBERAL?

          You've got to be kidding me!  He practically defines the DLC, "keep your powder dry", do-nothing so nothing can be used against me Dem.  Sure, he's charismatic, but he was FAR behind many other Dems in pushing the important issues and standing up for liberals in the election.

          by bstotts on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:26:42 AM PDT

          •  Obama too right wing for my taste

            by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:24:21 AM PDT

            •  Nice Suit

              Obama's an empty suit. Not as empty as, say, Edwards, but both are coated in good looks and laminated in a couple of feel-good causes. Maybe after he's got 4-6 years of Senate work in his resume, Obama will have the skills and proof that he can run the country.

              by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:34:59 AM PDT

              •  Agree 100%

                It's not that he stands for nothing; it's that he STANDS for standing for nothing.

                After eight years of Shrub, I think this country is going to need more substance and less style.  I'd rather see a president who has the scars from battles hard-fought, not one who has spent his time in the Senate running from fights or trying to find ways of staying as neutral as possible.

                by asskicking annie on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:40:50 AM PDT

                •  May We Live in Unintersting Times

                  I wish our politicians were a lot more boring. Good looks are way too much of a distraction from incompetence. And Bush's charisma is rooted in America's obsession with stupid people being lucky enough to get born rich. One reason I voted for Kerry was that he seemed boring enough to spend a lot of time thinking and working on making effective policy. Not as much flying around raising money.

                  Dean and Clark are just mediagenic enough to lead our celebrity-addled nation, but aren't spokesmodels.

                  by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:47:51 AM PDT

                  •  100%

                    Agreed.  And as for Barack Obama, give the guy a break.  Those pushing for him to show up on a presidential ticket need to get some perspective.  First, how likely is a first term senator  to fly so high?  How likely is ANY senator to succed in presidential ambition, again?  Why not let him govern his state for a term or two, to at least equip him with a set of skills before turning him out to face the wolves?  He is a callow young man at this point.  Respect his judgement enough to admit that he himself knows that now is not his time.

                    by peterborocanuck on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:32:21 PM PDT

                •  Can you tell me three things he campaigned on ?

                  or are you yet another of the Deluded  who believes that supporting Ned Lamont's Charge of the Light Brigade is some kind of moral and political litmus test for our party

                  What, besides hating the war, did Lamont stand for exactly?

                  I saw Obama speak long before he was considered to have a chance in hell at even capturing his own party's nomination, and I must say he spoke eloquently and passionately about a lot of the very same things I hold dear.  Things like the importance of education for minorities.  Things like helping those at the bottom of the economic ladder climb up and break generational cycles of poverty.  About Equal oppurtunity and racial equality,  about social  and economic justice.

                  So on what basis exactly do you conclude that this self-made man, with an impressive record in the Illinois statehouse is "an empty suit" with no convictions?  Oh. Yeah.- he didn't support your favorite rich kid on his hopeless quest to get elected.

                  by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:45:39 AM PDT

                  •  I don't care

                    I don't care what he campaigned on. Actually I do care, but it wouldn't change my mind that he was a cowardly weasel for not campaigning against a guy who was funded by Karl Rove's network. Lamont's quest was only hopeless because weasels like Obama and other party figures declined to do what was right. And it wasn't just Lamont's quest. It was a righteous quest by progressives in Connecticut and across the netroots to excise the Bush/Cheney/Rove-enabling neocon cancer known as Joe Liebreman from the Democratic Party. And Obama and others who could have helped instead spit in their faces.

                    by miasmo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:59:42 AM PDT

                    •  Lamont's "quest" was hopless because

                      The Republicans were caught by suprise in the primary and couldn't get a credible republican feilded.  Thus 80-90% of the republican Vote and thereby about 35-40% of general vote) went to Joementum.  Thus to win, Lamont would have needed nearly 100% of the Democratic vote, while running against aformerly democratic  incumbent with nearly 100% name recognition and a virtual lock of the Democratic Jewish vote.

                      All the Democratic campagining  in the world wouldn't have changed to outcome.

                      by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:07:44 AM PDT

                      •  Not quite...

                        The lack of a credible Republican candidate was deliberate.  The GOP wanted Joe to win.  That and the lack of support for Lamont from the old boys club did in Lamont's campaign.

                        Hopefully, he'll take another shot in a few years.  He deserved better treatment from the Democratic party.

                        by Court Jester on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:27:47 AM PDT

                      •  Revisionist nonsense n/t

                        by lightyearsfromhome on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:52:48 AM PDT

                  •  I'll Tell You Something

                    Obama is a great speaker. But he hasn't become the kind of leader who can be a good president, though Bush has lowered the bar enough for anyone with good hair to get elected. They're spokesmodels, though Obama has potential. Potential isn't good enough to be president.

                    I don't even know who Obama supported in 2004. I can't even tell who you mean by your snotty comment. Because my favorite rich kid is a California doctor who took off several years from his trust fund and legacy admission to UC Berkeley medschool to work the graveyard shift as EMT in Northern California's murder capital, East Oakland. He's never run for political office.

                    And your Lamont comment is pretty off base. Of course I wanted Lamont to beat Liarboy. And after the election when I found out that Obama had blown off Lamont, it was obvious that Obama was more interested in sticking with his neighbor Emmanuel than with the CT Democrats. But that merely confirmed what I've thought about Obama the mediagenic opportunist since his tremendous speech that failed to help Democrats win in 2004.

                    Obama will risk nothing to help Democrats. He's got a great vision for his own life, which can in fact inspire many people. But what's his vision for America? Does any of that have anything to do with his popularity?

                    No. It has to do with his suit. When it's full of actual gravitas, he will deserve more respect than that due to a "self-made" IL senator.

                    by DocGonzo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:35:47 PM PDT

              •  Empty Suits?

                Obama and Edwards are not empty suits. Obama did some great things while working in the Illinois State legislature. He had the cajones to present legislation that would cap the amount that an employer could make to their next employee. As for Edwards, he just doled out 350,000 to poor kids in rural N.C. so they could go to state college. He also raised millions for Dems this past year, he spent a lot of time lobbying for minimum wage increases and for health benefits for hotel workers. His PAC has spent all of their cash doing good things, he actually has the least amount of money of all the 2008 candidates, he's doing good with it. I'm an Edwards fan, but I love and respect Clark too, I wouldn't talk bad about him just because I want someone else at the top of the ticket.

                by sarahlane on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:48:33 PM PDT

                •  Edwards is not an empty suit

                  Not so sure about Obama.  I wasn't pleased that he didn't try to help Lamont.  And he has some voting issues that I'm not happy about.

                  However, Edwards is a good and compassionate man, wanted to fight the outcome of Ohio, lobbied for Lamont , and cares deeply about the poor (the profits from his new book are going to support Habitat for Humanity) and admits he made a mistake on voting for a use of force for Bush.  He believes there were serious abuses of power by Bush, and just did a heartbreaking expose on Uganda.  Besides, he did great on John Stewart last night.

                  a Gore/Edwards ticket, or a Gore/Clark ticket would be just fine with me.  My one problem with Clark is that he employed the use of DU in Bosnia, and that is a chemical weapon.

                  by Hummingbird on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:19:10 PM PDT

        •  Clark/Obama '08!

          I've been sayin it for years, ok. well two years.

          by djm4america on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:17:12 PM PDT

      •  NO TO DLC!!

        Barak Hussein Obama is a wonderful energetic speaker with fantastic "presence", but he is a DLC 'democrat'.......

        Screw the DLC.
        Screw Corporate Amerika.
        NO WAY to Obama in '08, unless he AT THE VERY LEAST breaks ranks with the DLC, then, MAYBE. I know the MSM just loves them some Obama, but this isn't for Student Body President, this is for the Leader of the Free World.

        by irishamerican on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:59:53 AM PDT

        •  I think all this enthusiasm for Obama

          as president is based mainly on personality. What has he done so far as a junior Senator? Enlighten me.

          by revbludge on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:22:17 AM PDT

          •  Contrary to popular belief

            Cardboard cutouts are not what the Country is looking for.  Even though I didn't VOTE for Pres. Bush and believe the Supreme Court GAVE him the Presidency the man has a way with people.  He can relate to anyone on a personal level.  This is one reason my President, Al Gore didn't win.  The American Public wants to love their leaders.  By loving them means they must connect with them.  This is why Obama leads the pack; this is why Hillary will lose.

            by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:34:28 AM PDT

            •  Gore won.

              by bodiddley on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:02:04 AM PDT

            •  Anyone?

              "the man has a way with people. He can relate to anyone on personal level".

              I had to be heimliched after that, as I am reading this during lunch.  When he addresses a PFLAG or HRC convention and it's covered on FAUX, I'll believe he can relate to ANYONE on a personal level.

              And yes, he has way with people.  He has a way of really pissing them off.

              by Revel on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:24:15 AM PDT

              •  To be more accurate...

                He has a way of pretending to relate to people.  He has his mothers disdain for the unwashed masses, but he is able to hide it for short periods of time.

                A large segment of his supporters seem to believe he was chosen by divine intervention, another chunk believe that Faux News tells the truth, and the rest either have corporate interests or hate the left.

                That should tell you how little convincing the faithful need to see Bush as a good ole Texas rancher.  

                by Court Jester on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:34:05 AM PDT

            •  Additionally

              I don't think you can say Hillary will automatically lose, she has quite a few who already "love" her, and I would never underestimate a Clinton going after something they really really want.  Not even on a bad day.

              by Revel on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:26:32 AM PDT

              •  Yes, I'm saying Hillary will automatically LOSE

                She is a cold fish!  Her lovely husband has more estrogen that she does.  If she runs it just tells me I was right, she is selfish and self-absored.  

                by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:24:33 PM PDT

          •  Here's a link

            to a post with a number of wonky, non-sexy accomplishments Barack has to his name.  Take a look, because you won't find other people on Kos talking about these.  Not single-handedly winning a near-impossible Senate race in Connecticut is more than enough to lose the favor of this community.

            by Evanston Liberal on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:03:25 AM PDT

        •  Not so much

          A law prof of mine was an Obama supporter all the way back when he  was a hopeless 3rd inthe Dem Primary, and he took us to a fund-raiising dinner for him(he'd bought a table).  I can tell you that what struck me the most about Obama was how eloquently he spoke about economic justice, fighting povery, and giving hope to the underclass.   He hardly seemed then like anybody's Corporate tool, and his relatively easy rise to power has allowed him to reach his current position without mortgaging his soul for camopaign cash.

          by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:32:12 AM PDT

          •  Don't get me wrong.....

            I like the guy....He sure seems like a good person. But the DLC Connection just absolutely KILLS it for me.

            I really do WANT to be able to believe in him, but the DLC/K-street is the REAL third party in the USA....his progressive positions don't make sense with the DLC sponsorship, it just ends up looking like so much 'branding' to me. Not to mention the fact that I would like to see young Senators that were just elected by their constituants to office actually stay in the Senate and REPRESENT the very people that elected them for a while, instead of using the position in the Senate as a springboard to a Presidential Nomination. How much work can get done, and how many votes in the Senate can an actively running Presidential Candidate be present for, if he is out on the campaign trail or taking fundraisers with lobbyists in order to raise the money for a bid at the WH? There are tons of people back in IL that just got done two years ago pouring their blood sweat and tears into getting him elected to his FIRST term in the United States Senate, and now two years later he is going to take a year and a half off to run for Prez? With so many of our Dems in the Senate supposedly running for President, I have serious questions as to exactly how much is really going to get done over the next two years. Hillary, Biden, Bayhe,Kerry, etc.... They all need to have their asses in the fucking capitol spending 40 hours a week in debate on the Senate floor doing the people's business for a change, not running around the country from one fundraiser to the next triangulating what they think people want to hear and weakening the strength of our SLIGHT majority in the Senate by not being there, or taking policy positions that are "Safe" instead of doing what needs to be done, all in the name of running a triangulating Campaign theat ends up with them losing anyway, and losing our majority in the Senate because we didn't get anything done when we had the chance.

            by irishamerican on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:06:42 AM PDT

            •  a DLC Democrat?

              from June 2003:

              Illinois State Senator Barack Obama rejects any “suggestion” that “inclusion of my name” on a Democratic Leadership Council/New Democrats membership list amounts to “an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform.”

              In a June 13 letter to The Black Commentator, the Black candidate for U.S. Senate defended his civil liberties, anti-war, and social welfare legislative record, and requested “that folks take the time to find out what my views are before they start questioning my passion for justice or the integrity of my campaign effort.”  

              Things are never rarely as black and white as they seem. Obama needs seasoning, yes, and I'd rather see him stay in the Senate, or run for IL governor, or get the VP nomination. But if he's our nominee in `08, we could do worse, and I'll walk through the proverbial broken glass for him.

              by snookybeh on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:49:19 AM PDT

            •  A-Fucking-Men... n/t-

              I think you are spot on with this comment.

              Though Kerry has a fairly good record on his votes.NTL he shouldn't run this time, he screwed up too much. John should just work on Good Government.  He has credibility for that.

              by Hummingbird on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:34:29 PM PDT

        •  Not a DLC Member

          I'm not sure if everyone is just using this as a rhetorical device, but Barack Obama is not a DLC member.  They once claimed him as one, and he rebuffed them and demanded that his name be removed.  

          I'll say it before and I'll say it again (probably the next time someone says he voted for the Bankruptcy Bill)- There are many things on which to criticize Senator Obama.  Please do your research to make sure that your criticism is actually based in fact.

          by Evanston Liberal on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:52:06 AM PDT

          •  Thanks, E-L. I have worn out

            three keyboards trying to correct distortions of Obama's record on this board.

            by Sam I Am on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:21:24 PM PDT

        •  Just. Plain. WRONG.

          Barack is not in the DLC.  He was never in the DLC, though they did briefly try to claim him as a member before he rebuked.  

          I'd really like to encourage people to do a tiny bit of research before posting things like this.  It happens all the time and it severely damages the credibility of the poster and the blog.

          Start here.  It's amazing how much it can tell you.

          by Evanston Liberal on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:23:02 AM PDT

          •  Yep

            It's amazing how much of the opposition to Obama is based on ignorance.
            Whether it's accusing him of being in the DLC, being a supporter of the Iraq War, or voting for the bankruptcy bill, I've heard it all
            But at least they those folks try to come with something tangible.

            Others just try to use their ignorance as an argument by saying "What's he done?"  Some just try to say they're not "impressed" or that Obama has "disappointed" them.  Others say he's a pretty face, an empty suit, all rhetoric.  It's funny because their criticism of him is what's really empty.

            That's not to say that Obama is perfect.  He's made a couple bad votes, like for the class action bill early on.  And he's made a few bad remarks like the one about the pledge.  Overall though, he's one of the best and brightest Senators we have and I have a feeling that the people bashing him will come to regret it later on, just as those who bashed Gore in 2000 now regret it.

            by MattBellamy on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:37:09 PM PDT

            •  I agree with you about Obama, however,

              there is just too much of an unearned press frenzy on him right now for me to feel comfortable.

              There's a nefarious scent in the air with this kind of "raving press" promotion that I just don't like (sorry, but I don't trust the media, then or now). It smells almost like a Primary Dean without the netroot hard work beforehand (Oprah is powerful, but this is ridiculous)! It smells like an Edwards without an Iowa win. It smells like a Hillary in super fast motion. Obama has an admitted to a checkered past taking drugs, of no foreign policy experience of any kind, and is young, gifted and Black (usually dangerous, specially while driving).

              On the other side, the opposition is positioning  McCain with his seasoned hero soldier POW fame-- and yet we are "gifted" with Obama or Hillary?

              It just smells to me and personally I would need to know where the stench is coming from, because there's an awful lot of promotin' going on to actually get a grasp on the whys the sudden media "love" for Barack Hussein Obama. This is particularily curious that it is happening at a time when it appears that Iraq is in the most precarious of place, and the answer, some say, is really a very complex and difficult one that may not be solved by the next election cycle (which begins in January).  Considering North Korea and Iran and a host of other problems we have with the world since Bushco took over, I'm a little bit puzzled with the corporate media pushing a relatively inexperienced young man to be at the head of the Dem Party ticket.  That's all.

              by ZootSuitGringo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:51:05 PM PDT

              •  The increased interest in a possible

                '08 Obama candidacy likely comes from the very favorable reception to his latest book and to his many appearances for Dem congressional candidates in the '06 campaign.

                If Obama ran in '08 it might be a triumph like JFK in '60 or a fizzle like Gore in '88....  

                by Sam I Am on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:26:36 PM PDT

                •  I have a copy of that book autographed

                  by Sen. Obama, and I've been reading it.  Actually, it's a good book but falls short in propelling someone to this kind of national prominence.  I am a skeptic and I have good reasons for it, that when the media starts coming, I turn and go the other way.

                  This is not to take away from the intelligence and charm that I believe Obama possesses--it's just sometimes, things are not what they appear.  The media has a history of manipulation, and so I will continue to go by my BS meter, and so, like I said before, something ain't smelling quite right.

                  by ZootSuitGringo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:18:02 PM PDT

            •  The opposite is true ...

              It's amazing how much of the opposition to Obama is based on ignorance.

              I used to support Obama when I knew very little about him. Now that I know his middle name is "Hussein", I'm not sure anymore ...

              (snark)

              by Bronxist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:13:57 PM PDT

      •  Perhaps Clark/Sebelius? Clark/Swietzer?

        I dunno. I'm a bit dissapointed with Obama right now.

        by Mikesco on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:20:23 AM PDT

      •  Spare me Obama

        The jerk couldn't even campaign for Lamont.

        by Eddie in ME on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:29:25 AM PDT

        •  Spare me the Lamont Worship

          Fer the love of....
          Lamont was a hopless case from day one, and anybody with an ounce of poltical savvy knew it.  In the absence of a credible GOP contender Lieberman was a lock for the lion's share of the GOP vote and his name rec was going to pull 10-20% of Dems and that was more than enough to put him over the top.  It's a miracle it was even close, frankly.

           Yes I admired Don Quixote's shiny armor and determination too, but I never deluded myself into thinking that the Windmill he was tilting at was anything but. Lamont's value was that he was able to demonstrate to some of the more timid Dems that Running on your opposition to the war actually could get you elected.  However Lamonts general campaign was doomed from the get go, demographics is destiny in electoral poltics.  Since the Democratic Party is not comprised of leemings,  their willingness to throw themselves off a cliff to support a romantic but hopeless cause should not be how we judge our polticians.

          Has it occurred to you that Joe's good graces are the only thing standing between us and a Republican Majority in the Senate (and thus confirmation power over predintial appointees and judges?).  How many Democrats exactly did you want to piss him off solely to support a doomed campaign anyway?  

          by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:42:48 AM PDT

          •  I expected

            Every. Single. Democrat. to do so.

            Ned Lamont was the Democratic nominee. Joe Lieberman was an independant. And when Obama is in NY one day, and MA two days later, I find it sad that he wasn't in CT the day in between.

            It has occurred to me about Joe, and frankly, I don't care. It was the Democratic Party's job to support the Democratic nominee. I've seen enough good candidates get flushed down the toilet because the powers that be don't have their back. Ned Lamont is but one of many.

            by Eddie in ME on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:03:09 AM PDT

            •  Agree

              CT was another example of Obama avoiding taking a stand.  When you avoid taking a stand, you are usually tacitly supporting the status quo.  

              Connecticut was a litmus test, and a GOOD litmus test to see who is on the side of change and reform and who is on the side of the status quo and the "insiders."

              by asskicking annie on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:44:17 AM PDT

              •  Bingo

                When you avoid taking a stand, you are usually tacitly supporting the status quo.  

                'All it requires for evil to flourish is that good people do nothing' hannah arendt

                by hester on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:57:55 AM PDT

            •  In an ideal world

              I agree.  But we needed to be pragmatic about this.  Lieberman was going to win.  We could either drive him over to the R's or keep him on our side for the most important votes.

              Remember, first we need to get Dems into power--any Dems.  Then we can consistently support more progressive candidates.

              It sucks that it has to be this way.  But I'd rather have Lieberman, and his vote for Senate Majority Leader Reid, than a Republican majority in the Senate.

              If there was one thing we should have learned in 2000, it's that supporting a losing candidate can bring much greater losses to the overall cause, even if you feel that ideally it's the right thing to do.

              So let's move on from here, make the most out of the results we have, and keep looking forward to 2008 and 2016.

              by chgriffen on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:11:46 AM PDT

          •  Lamont would've made a good senator

            ... and I think there's a lot of truth in the idea that getting stronger support from the Democratic Party would likely have gotten him elected. maybe, maybe not, but as the Democratic nominee, the party standard-bearers had a duty to actively support him.

            Your "lemmings" comparison doesn't really work here. Lemmings do what they do because it's genetically imprinted in them, even though it leads to their demise. The small percentage of Dem voters who went with the Joementum did so because he's been there 18 years and it's just in their blood to do so, instead of looking at the election with a fresh mind. They're the lemmings, not the Lamont voters.

            You make a good point that LIEberman's "good graces" are what give us a Democratic majority but, given his actions over the past couple/few years, seems to me he's part of the majority in name only anyway. I don't think Holy Joe could get any more petulant towards the party then he did after the primary. He was "with us" just barely by a thread before, and that's how he'll be now.

            by snookybeh on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:03:11 AM PDT

            •  agreed

              but so long as he casts a vote for "Majority Leader Rreid" we win control of the Senate and all that awesome apparatus (After that though I do think it's be smart to convince  any of the remaining New England Republicans (Sue Collins and Snowe ?)to jump party as Lieberman insurance.

              by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:49:01 AM PDT

          •  So, Obama made a political calculation...

            It's not worship, it's admiration.  Which you yourself admit to.

            IMHO, what a lot of people want is a politician who can decide to do the right thing just because ITS THE RIGHT THING!

            There are too many politicians who won't take a crap without calculating the political ramifications of holding vs going.  Enough.  One of the key roles that I see the blogosphere taking over is acting as the collective conscience of the party.  To hold politicians accountable.  Praise and support when justified.  Criticism and scorn when justified.  Lots of emails either way.

            My disappointment with Obama is based on the fact that he appears to have fallen into the same rut as those before him.  He's worried about his bid for even higher office.  He's trying to position himself with every move he makes.  His limited support for Lamont was just the latest example.

            Ask yourself the question: Who would you respect more, someone who supported a noble yet hopeless cause like Lamont's campaign; or someone who worked through the calculations, played it safe and tacitly supported Lieberman?  I'll take the former every time.  We need more passion and more principle in government, not more career politicians.

            Yes, the "clever" people will say that Obama and others made the "smart" choice in either token support for Lamont or in simply standing on the sidelines.  It's exactly the kind of behavior that you'd expect from the Washington old boy's club.  Kudos to Clark and Kerry for speaking up on principle.

            Political savvy isn't what it used to be. Come January, Congress will be full of people whose candidacies were "hopeless" cases.

            by Court Jester on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:55:34 AM PDT

          •  Spare us the Obama worship.

            You drool over this guy for his eloquent manner and his captivating potential and you absolutely look the other way when people point out his tendency to equivocate and cover his ass and accomplish basically nothing for his party.

            Out here in Hollywood, we have a name for that kind of thing:

            STAR-STRUCK.

            Do you read People Magazine, too?

            by alysheba on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:38:54 PM PDT

            •  I'm a cynic at heart and by training

              my last job before law school involved looking into the eys of desperate women telling horrific stories of personal abuse and children in danger and making the decision who was honest and who was making it all up. (and worse yet which were truthful but I was still legally unable to help) usually  in five minutes or less.

              In law school I handled the cases of stone cold killers on death row and scared kids who swore they weren't in the car when thier buddy did a drive by.  Again figuring out who was lying and telling the truth was often literally a life or death matter.

              I boast of few things; but necessity and nature has made me VERY good at reading people, usually in a matter of minutes.   I once met Peter "scooter killer" Fitzgerald for all  of five minutes and based on that brief encounter I've more or less correctly predicted the timing and pace of his investigation.  ( and that you can look up if Kos's comment go far enough back)

              I've met Obama, looked into his eyes and read sincerity there.  I've also seen an  extraordinarily rare quality in a  man who has risen to great power- Idealism.   His quirky rise to power means he's gotten to where he is  without having his idealism raped and his honor so badly compromised he doesn't recognize it anymore.  It's a fluke our system tries its damndest to prevent, but nonetheless it happened.

              In short I ain't starstruck; I'm impressed, and that's not something that comes easily to me.  I Don't expect my polticians to be plaster saints, but I'm pleasantly suprised when they appear, on balance , to be decent people.

              by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:27:01 PM PDT

          •  Courage ...

            means fighting for causes you think are right ... not just those you will win.

            by Bronxist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:15:45 PM PDT

            •  Perfectly stated...

              It's the risk of failing that MAKES it an act of courage.

              In case you needed to know how badly DC is fucked up, we have Joe pissing on the democratic process, putting himself above the will of the people and the well-being of the party; but he gets welcomed back by the entitled politicos with a standing ovation.

              At least Kerry and Clark had the balls to do what's right.

              by Court Jester on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:23:12 PM PDT

            •  History's graveyards are littered with the brave

              The quality that makes you fight a hopeless battle in a losing cause is no courage but foolhardiness.  It is often mistaken for courage by the overly romantic, but it has none of the former's virtues.

              The graveyards of history are littered with the Bones of the Brave and stupid who preferred a glorious end to the hard work of staying alive, retreating and picking another battle on a another day.  Real courage is saving your strength for winnable battles no matter how many people call you a coward and traitor for doing so.

                 

              Constable

                 Disorder, that hath spoil'd us, friend us now!
                 Let us on heaps go offer up our lives.

              ORLEANS

                 We are enow yet living in the field
                 To smother up the English in our throngs,
                 If any order might be thought upon.

              BOURBON

                 The devil take order now! I'll to the throng:
                 Let life be short; else shame will be too long.

              by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:34:59 PM PDT

              •  You are confusing courage with bravado

                nt

                by kathygo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:54:55 PM PDT

          •  that's quite tautological of you

            how do you know what would have happened if EVERY democrat told Joe to go jump in a lake cuz NED won the  primary?

            by UndoBush on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

      •  NO OBAMA!

        He's all charm and no substance. Notice the disappearing acts re Feingold and LaMont.

        by ronlib on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:48:35 AM PDT

      •  Clark-Obama too inexperienced

        Clark will need to bring in a more politically savvy type as Vice - not a freshman.

        Plus - just not feeling the Obama love right now.

        by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:24:04 AM PDT

        •  Obama is too young and inexperienced!

          Plus, he has no military, war or foreign experience and that is very important. As a military mom, I can look at the Obamas, Hillarys and all of the republican chickenhawk asshats, (including the sold-out McCain asshat) and they don't really understand the corporate corruption and crimes committed against our troops, our people and the Afghani and Iraqi people.   My SSG son, recently returned from Afghanistan, supports Clark, Edwards and Jack Murtha!  Our troops deserve the corrupt and criminal Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rummy Neocon Cabal and their enablers investigated for War Crimes and War Profiteering.  Enough said!!!

          by mjd in florida on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:24:44 AM PDT

          •  You do relaize that Obama

            is the son of a 1st generation African Immigrant ?

            So to say he has no international experience is actually wrong.  While it may not have been a s memember of the US government or military, he's actually got a stranger "worms eye view" of a vital region of the world, sine he travelled frequently to Africa to visit relatives growing up.  Since this is a region of the world that is likely to be the defining global challenge of the next decade (between the wars,  famines, and the AIDS epidemic, etc , not to mention that they are one of the last major untapped sources of most natural resources at a time when global demand for energy and metals is exploding).   I would argue makes him uniquely qualfied and the right man at the right time to handle foreign policy.

            by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:56:10 AM PDT

            •  We NEED to handle Iraq, Afghanistan now!

              We invaded two countries and have totally screwed both peoples and our military with War Crimes and War Profiteering.  (I have more knowledge of the good Afghani people, as my SSG son loved the locals, his Afghani National Army troops and his interpreter that had several degrees)  We owe the Afghani people and our military congressional investigations into missing services, security, supplies and especially infrastructure repair....  We need War Crime charges against Cheney/Rice/Rummy/Bushco for bombing innocent areas for expediency!  Rummy/Bushco bombed civilian areas this last April to route out a few Taliban that they had ignored for 5 fucking years!   Why has Cheney been giving business and sub-contracts to the Pakistanis vs. the Afghanis for the last five years when Pakistan has been harboring Bin Ladin, Al Queda and the bad Taliban leaders?   Our military is quitting over the crimes and corruption that they witnessed from our neocon administration and their enablers.  Our military and the poor citizens deserve thorough oversight investigations and criminal charges against our corrupt government.  It is the only way to begin repairing our ruined military, our international respect and our divided nation! (my sons best friend is a Warrant Officer holed out near Baghdad and just trying to keep his troops alive. They do absolutely nothing to help the Iraqis.  Justin and my son joined the "Guard" together, well before 9/11, and have been friends since toddlers)   peace and love, mjd

              by mjd in florida on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:15:44 PM PDT

            •  I've traveled all over the world

              and learned many things that I wouldn't otherwise know, and it makes me the person I am today.  Oh, and I'm a first generation immigrant on my father's side.

              That doesn't give me interational political experience nor does it make me skilled to handle the foriegn policy of my country.

              I think Obama will be a good - make that excellent - candidate... eventually.  Clark needs a more "solid" running mate at this time.

              by mystery2me on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:36:37 PM PDT

              •  Though I'd say that makes you more qualfied

                than Our CURRENT Commander in Chief, Geroge "Sunnis? Shi'ites? I thought Iraqis were all Muslims!" Bush.

                by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:03:31 PM PDT

              •  I assume you are a 1st generation "American"

                as I am with my father that was born in "Slovakia" and I am barely 2nd generation on my moms side of the family as her parents were raised in Praque. ( I spent a month there as a teenager while still under communist control which was very enlightening)  I am a proud Czechoslovakian that sat on my grandpas lap, helped him roll cigarettes, while he explained "War" to me and why he moved his "early" family to America to separate church from state. (my dad was the oldest of 5 children)  My Grandpa was forced to fight in World War 1, against his democratic ideals and lost his only sibling, his twin brother, days before the end of that war.  He struggled so much with worry over Viet Nam as we lost a family member and a close neighbor in that war!   My life heros are my Grandpa Mike, my dad, John,  Mr. Jack Murtha, General Clark and my Staff Sgt. son that just returned from Afghanistan!!

                by mjd in florida on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:07:49 PM PDT

            •  Now that's funny!

              My mother is from a foreign country as well, but that doesn't make me an expert on National Security or even in Foreign policy.  

              What we will need in the middle east is someone who has brokered a peace treaty before with fighting factions; We need someone who is not only experienced in waging and winning wars, but experienced in ending them (that would be Wes Clark) successfully.  We need someone who is respected all around the world (that would be Wes Clark).  Someone who has prescience and does not wait for others to have a say before speaking up and speaking out (that would be Wes Clark).  We need a worldly, well educated, and experienced hand who doesn't rely on advisors in order to understand a concept.  Someone who thinks out of the box and has a problem solving mentality.  We need someone who is tireless and believes truly in Country, Honor and duty (the West Point Motto).

              What the world needs now is Wes Clark, and whomever he might choose as a Vice President.  The beauty of a Clark nominee is that he can choose easily a woman, a minority, or whomever else he determines will provide the best support to his administration.

              Don't believe the pundits, because they have yet to give us correct advice.  They are into the "horserace" and not into the betterment of our country.  They think of our situation that they helped us get in as a game, while we continue to lose blood and treasure.

              YES, AMERICA NEEDS WES!

              by ZootSuitGringo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:03:25 PM PDT

              •  Beautifully worded ZootSuitGringo

                and I and our returned military from Afghanistan and Iraq agree!  Our country must quit listening to the media as they are as corrupt as our current administation.  Wes Clark is our best nominee for President!

                by mjd in florida on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:30:27 PM PDT

              •  But what about ...

                My mother is from a foreign country as well, but that doesn't make me an expert on National Security or even in Foreign policy.  

                But what about your mom? Would she make a good foreign secretary or somp'n?

                by Bronxist on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:18:44 PM PDT

      •  Obama in 2012

        by SimplyLeft on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:30:08 AM PDT

        •  shouldn't that be 2016?

          if he's not the nominee in `08, and is the nominee in `12, that means a Republican will win in 2008. Which makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

          by snookybeh on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:06:34 AM PDT

          •  Yep. Math gene got zapped by Intelligent Design

            by SimplyLeft on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:08:27 PM PDT

      •  loud and proud?

        Clark has been loud, proud and strong  on his opposition to the war from day one, and he's one of the few Democrats with instant credibility on the subject who won't need to do any hawkish posturing before ending our ivolvement there.

        I watched Clark quite a bit during his CNN gig at the beginning of the war. I never would have guessed he opposed the invasion. In fact he came across as quite a cheerleader.

        And the whole idea of "instant credibility" is bullshit in my opinion. It is part of the same horrible "innoculation strategy" that brought us the Kerry nomination in '04. It is based on the loser premise that Democrats somehow lack credibility on national security, and therefore need to compensate by nominating a war hero (Kerry) or a general (Clark.) It's pathetic. It's Republicans who lack credibility on national security because they make horrible decisions. We just need a nominee with the balls to call them out. Dean, Gore or Feingold would all do just fine. And by the way, when I hear people gush like a star-struck teenager about Clark being a "four-star general" I just about want to puke.

        Having said that, I am open-minded about Clark, especially now that Feingold has dropped out. He certainly scored points in my book for standing up for Ned Lamont and against Karl Rove's best friend Joenertia.

        by miasmo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:47:38 AM PDT

        •  Let me point you to

          The fact that Clark testified against the invasion before Congress and was roasted by Perle et. al. for doing so.   Or look Diary I did about the rematch he and Perle had in April of '05 before the same committee:

          As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb clichés."
          {he dismissed} Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

          Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber clichés, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

          and at the rematch?;

          Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."

          Clark, an unsuccessful 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, could not resist piling on Perle. Intelligence estimates "are never accurate, they are never going to be accurate, and I think policymakers bear responsibility for what use they make of intelligence," the retired general lectured.

          In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

          "We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.

          When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

          "Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

          In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

          As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

          That sound like a cheerleader for the War to you?

          by Magorn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:40:16 AM PDT

          •  cheerleader

            That sound like a cheerleader for the War to you?

            No, his performance on CNN did, as I said.

            by miasmo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:50:51 AM PDT

            •  Opposed the war, supported the troops

              Clark advised strongly against the war -- but he was able to separate that opposition from his evaluation of the performance of the military in the actual invasion phase.

              CNN hired him to give commentary on the military operations and that's what he did. When he offered praise it was of way the troops were carrying out the mission. That's not the same thing as supporting the mission itself.

              A legal expert commenting on a trial could still praise the performance of the prosecutor without believing the accused was guilty. That's essentially what Clark was doing, and when "cheerleading" passages are pulled out from his CNN days that's what people need to remember.

              by Phoebe Tea on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:27:31 PM PDT

        •  You must have been channel surfing when Clark was

          on CNN.  

          Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was a long-time CNN military analyst but there's one cable network host he didn't impress: Lou Dobbs. Clark was a guest on Dobb's business show during the Iraq war and the host felt the former NATO boss seemed to push his own political agenda rather than provide the straight military skinny on the Pentagon plan, reports our Mark Mazzetti. The result: Dobbs, who hosts "Lou Dobbs Tonight," told a conference of reporters and military brass last week that he barred Clark from his show for the remainder of the war. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/august2003.htm

          "THE GUY MUST HAVE A BEDROOM AT CNN,” my wife would joke. It seemed true, because at every hour of the day or night during the Iraq War, retired General Wesley K. Clark could be seen on the Cable News Network as a “military expert” criticizing the Bush Administration.

          A quick victory in Iraq “was not going to happen,” he told viewers on March 25, shortly before the quickest blitzkrieg victory of its size in military history occurred. But his words doubtless brought comfort to the fans of a network slanted so far to the Left that the most asked question about its name is whether the “C” in CNN stands for Clinton, Castro or Communist News Network.
          http://www.frontpagemag.com/...

          Clark maybe a CNN analyst, but not for Lou Dobbs...

          Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who is mulling a presidential bid, gained significant attention for his analysis of the latest war in Iraq on CNN.

          But now Clark will no longer be invited on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" because host Dobbs, a gave money to President Bush's campaign in 2000, said Clark recently came on his show and gave political opinions instead of analysis, reports US News and World Report today
          http://www.politicsnh.com/...
          [/div]

          On CNN on August 28, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one."

          "Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years. So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French."--Wes Clark
          http://transcripts.cnn.com/...

          On August 29, 2002 on CNN, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone."--Wes Clark
          http://transcripts.cnn.com/...

          Clark said "I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons."

          On August 29, 2002 on CNN, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons."
          http://transcripts.cnn.com/...

          by ZootSuitGringo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:15:26 PM PDT

          •  Corrected CNN link

            I hate how these links sometimes don't work, and one doesn' realize that till after the fact!

            working link here
            http://transcripts.cnn.com/...

            by ZootSuitGringo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:28:03 PM PDT

      •  You've got it right! n/t

        by John L on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:31:44 AM PDT

    •  If Gore threw his hat in, I'd jump into it.

      I favor Gore as a potential candidate, though I doubt he'd run in 2008.  After Gore though, definitely Clark.

      by concernedamerican on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:39:40 AM PDT

    •  Clark = Foreign Policy Brain

      You got to admire his knowledge and wisdom of foreign policy in today's world.

      by StormBear on