Was just at securingamerica.com and listened to the audio of Clark's most recent interview on the Georgia/Russia problem. Hearing the host of the radio show say how much he wanted to see him as VP or something else important in the Obama administration and hearing the disheartened sound of Clark's reply.
So the VP night is named "Securing America's Future." Just like Clark's website. I've decided this is what makes it so intolerable. Because I did have a look at the speakers and I see that Jim Webb isn't on the list either. And he would certainly seem a likely pick to speak. But Clark very definitely has the edge, both for his great dedication to helping elect Democrats to Congress over the last four years, and for the gravitas of a 4-star general supporting Obama.
Clark starts every political speech he makes with a call for the veterans in the audience to stand up and be applauded. He was a founding member of VoteVets. He has done more to get vets elected as Democrats than anyone else in the country.
And he's not invited to speak on the day where the topic is Securing America's Future?
What is wrong with Obama? He says he is looking for someone without ego who complements him and who shares his views. Check, check and check. Warren Beatty came out of a meeting with Clark back in the 2000 election cycle disgustedly claiming that Clark didn't have a big enough ego to be president. Clark was a Rhodes scholar who taught economics and philosophy at West Point. Like Obama, he warned us to stay out of Iraq and like Obama he is progressive on all fronts. His extraordinary military experience as head of NATO and our armed forces in Europe give him great insight into the military and diplomatic choices available to the United States. He has received the most awards from countries around the world since Eisenhower because of his exemplary handling of the Kosovo conflict --- his personal relationships with world leaders would an asset to any president. Yet there was that oddly contemptuous rejection of Clark when Clark agreed that being a POW was not qualification enough for the presidency. And now this. Does he have something personal against him? Does the fact that Clark supported Hillary --- and I don't see how he could have done otherwise, considering that the Clintons supported him in the previous election cycle --- does that make it okay to hurt him in this way, by refusing to acknowledge his contributions with a simple speech?
I thought in the Democratic party merit was rewarded. I thought that we didn't throw people under the bus who didn't deserve such treatment.
I bought a yard sign and two bumperstickers with Obama's name on them. I've supported him since long before Hillary left the race. But I am tempted to remove them now.
I don't like the way Obama has treated this American hero.