Clark: "It's part of paying back what I think I owe the country."

[calteacherguy]

Ed Schultz: Would you ever consider political life again?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure, I'd consider it, but I, I couldn't run for the Presidency. I couldn't get my preconditions met this time. I thought about it a lot. I certainly was motivated, but I just couldn't meet my own preconditions.

Ed Schultz: And over the weekend, you endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. Why did you do that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I thinks she's going- she'll be a terrific President. I think she's the greatest talent in the race. She is brilliant. She is hard working. She's incredibly motivated. She's got good judgement, and boy does she have experience. She's been there. She's been the, well you know Ed, she's been the, the victim of hundreds of millions of dollars of Republican savagery in terms of the political process, and she's come through it as a winner. I think she's terrific. And I think the next President's going to need that kind of abilities to survive, because from the very outset there are going to be crises that the next President has to deal with.

Ed Schultz: That word 'crises' strikes my next question. What kind of demeanor do you think Hillary Clinton would have in a crisis?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think she'll be calm and resolute. She'll study the alternatives, weigh them carefully, make a decision and stick with it.

Ed Schultz: She's come out with a healthcare plan. Do you know much about it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Haven't had a chance to read it. Saw it today. It's- the headlines make sense to me.

Ed Schultz: Would you, would you consider a, a spot on her cabinet if she were to win.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You know-

Ed Schultz: Let me, l-let me-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -in principle-

Ed Schultz: Let me, let me-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'd like to serve in public life again-

Ed Schultz: Yup.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -either elective or appointive, but I haven't really worked through those things. I'm a businessman now. I'm going to keep my political action committee alive. I want to try to help the right candidates get elected. That's why I endorsed Senator Clinton, and if I can help others, I'm going to help them too - in the Senate, in the Congress and the governorships. And it's part of paying back what I think I owe the country.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2686

[SaveElmer]

1. A guy who has his head on straight....

Sees the big picture, understands the complexity of issues, and acts to arrive at the best solution...

[calteacherguy]

2. Yep. nt

[durrrty libby]

3. He is a great American, with excellent taste in leaders

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Jackpine Radical]

4. By my definition, Hillary doesn't just HAVE experience. Hillary IS experience.

By my definition, Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

And we're gonna get Hillary.

Shit.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I saw him tonight and what he said on Hillary concerned me a great deal.

He indicated Hillary would stay in iraq and maybe even Iran. this is upsetting.

[calteacherguy]

6. You need to define "stay in Iraq and maybe even Iran."

It's a bizzare statement to make because we aren't in Iran, and don't have the ability to occupy Iran. Here's what Clark said re: Iran most recently, and it makes sense to me:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, look, here's the, here's the problem: For Iran to get a nuclear weapon, it will completely overturn the non-proliferation regime that's been one of the foundations of global security for over 50 years. Many of your listeners may not understand this, but when we entered the non-proliferation regime in the late '60s, we committed to eventual general nuclear disarmament over a period of time, and in return we asked that these non-proliferating, these non-nuclear states would not acquire nuclear weapons. We persuaded a number of states to give up their nuclear acquisition programs, including South Africa, Brazil, South Korea and, and, and maybe a half a dozen others that didn't even start on it, because they recognized they didn't need it. They believed in us. Once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, there'll be a dozen other nuclear powers in short order. So, this is very dangerous. Once those nuclear weapons are out there and more powers have them, it's only a matter of time until some terrorist group gets ahold of them. So, for a matter of global survival we, we want to work against this. Now, the question is: Is it appropriate to threaten the use of force? Well, I think it is. I mean, this is a matter of the most vital national interest. BUT here's the key point: Should force used, be used before all other means are exhausted? Absolutely not. And this administration's refusing to talk with the Iranians directly on these matters. They've outsourced our diplomacy to the Europeans, and that's simply wrong. So, when they come to us and say, 'Diplomacy's failed,' we have to say to them, 'It hasn't been tried yet, ' not American diplomacy.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2686

[Benhurst]

7. I hope that's not true.

If it is, I can't support her.

[calteacherguy]

8. I don't know even what the poster means by the comment.

What does "stay in Iraq and maybe even Iran" mean???

Sounds like a very vague and false accusation to me, as if Hillary were proposing we invade and occupy Iran, which she isn't. What's need with Iran is real diplomacy, as Clark has advocated for years.

[durrrty libby]

10. Illprog is prone to making shit up. Pay no attention

[FrenchieCat]

11. No, Illprog didn't make it up.....he just didn't go beyond a specific soundbyte.....

that didn't sound good to him.

However, if he knew Wes Clark and how Clark communicates, he would know that Wes Clark ain't never been one into soundbytes....and specifically now that Wes Clark isn't running for anything, he's not going to "couch" his language in order of the Soundbyters to get to cheer simply by them hearing the words that they are waiting to hear.

[calteacherguy]

15. I'll need to watch the interview later to get the context. nt

[FrenchieCat]

9. You are not Tucker, and you need to listen to all that Clark is saying......

not simply the parts that "sound" bad to you.

What Clark said is that Hillary isn't going to run out of Iraq......which is what OBama AND Edwards also advocate.

Hillary will leave Iraq in a rational and reasonable manner (Obama's word in describing his pull out plan). Clark mentioned taking out two brigades today if he could.....and start the regional dialogue required to change the current policy and bring security to the region.

Remember that Hillary, Obama and Edwards are all advocating basically the same thing, "reasonable pull out"....not a cut and run policy.

[Sparkly]

12. It's amazing he thinks he owes the country anything.

:patriot:

[GeorgeGist]

13. So it's payback time ...

eh, Wes?

There is no doubt that Bill was really good for your career ... but seriously, Wes, how good was Bill for your country?

[Sparkly]

14. Huh?

:shrug:

[Cameron27]

16. Wes was good for the Clintons,

then and now, and payback is not part of Clark's motives. It never has been.

[Donna Zen]

18. Let's check a few facts:

Clark's story is well-known by now: a first at the Point, Rhodes Scholar, WHouse fellow, siver star, bronze star, purple heart, and an anti-war winner of a war where we didn't lose one single American. None of those accomplishments were Bill Clinton's, they were earned by Wes Clark and only Wes Clark.

Then one night Cohen and Shelton completed a coup. They sent papers to Clinton that would place their favorite crony who was facing "up or out" by relieving Clark at NATO three months early. According to Blumenthal who was in the room, Clinton signed those papers without really reading them. Clark took the knife in the back. Clinton, not wanting a political dust-up with Cohen (R), let Cohen-Shelton plan play out. Clinton went along with ending a man's thirty-four year service to this country, and thus, allowed Clark to leave under the cloud of "why did he get fired"?

Pretty shitty huh? Where was Clinton during the 03 run? Probably hanging with the bushes while his "good friend" faced the charges--completely false--on his own. Clinton stayed silent.

Barry McCafferty once said that we could fight Kosovo a thousand times, and lose a thousand times. He called Wes Clark a "national treasure." However, the Clintons just love bathing in the glow.

[jcrew2001]

17. What are his "preconditions"?

Other than "not having to face Hillary Clinton in the primaries", Wes Clark certainly has just a good a chance at beating Obama, Edwards, etc. now that the majority of the country wants to elect a Democrat.

Its easy pickings for Dems in 2008! The presidency will be handed to a Democrat unless we severely mess up.

[FrenchieCat]

22. It had to do with organization and money.......

Considering that Clark doesn't have millions sitting in the bank waiting for him, he had to have a plan. It appears that whatever he felt he needed to have lined up, he didn't get.

[Auntie Bush]

24. Damn...I bet if he announced he was running...a lot of money would have

turned up in a hurry. I personally was waiting for him to run to make my donations. Big mistake! I wonder how many other people did the same thing?

[Steve_in_California]

19. Remember McArthur's Exit line, General Clark.

"Old soldiers never die; they just fade away."

General Clark, say goodbye and fade away.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Do you remember this line?

"If it smells like a fart, it's exactly that!"

I'm smelling me some Steve_in_California and it stinks like shit.

[Auntie Bush]

25. I hate you!

[Donna Zen]

20. Plato's silver star

One of the things about Wes Clark that I found very difficult to resolve before I chose to support him, was why did he did he stay in the Army? His grades weren't a casual gift from West Point, he earned them. So why not take that Oxford masters in economics and go out make a fortune. And he was offered big money positions while he was working as a WHouse fellow.

The riddle was solved, at least for me, when I was reading a Clark biography. One of his classmates from the Point told the story of a philosophy class when high-powered cadets argued the value of Plato's stars. Most of the men held the position that it was the gold star, the star of the ruler, that was of the highest merit. But Clark said, "no." He maintained that it is the silver star, the star of service, that holds the greatest honor. He was probably 20 at the time, and it would seem that his belief that we all have a duty to give back is just part of who he is.

[Auntie Bush]

27. Thanks for that post Donna Z

I admire him more than anyone I've ever known. It's such a shame that we didn't get him for our president...I could cry!

Maybe we'll have him as a VP or SoS and he'll do marvelous things for our country. If anyone can...he can.

[Donna Zen]

28. You want to hear my advice?

Probably not, but I'll give it anyway. I would suggest that he stay as far away from the Clintons as he can get.

[Auntie Bush]

29. Why? I'd like to hear your advice , although you're probably right

that I won't like it...but shoot anyway!

[Cameron27]

31. That's how I feel too Donna,

I hate what Bill did to him. I trust his judgment though, so I know that he's endorsing her for a compelling reason.

[calteacherguy]

32. Great Story. Thanks for sharing that, Donna. nt

[Auntie Bush]

23. Please tell me why General Clark owes this country anything.

Seems to me ...this country owes a lot to General Clark! But that's the patriotic General for you.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Putting the Clintons back in the White House is NOT what this country needs!

Fine if you want to endorse Hillary, Wes, you are entitled to your opinion. But when you start sounding like the propagandist pig Squealer in Orwell's Animal Farm, you sure lose a lot of credibility.

[calteacherguy]

30. Look, Clark wants to have the greatest possible influence on policy going forward.

Why? Because he care about the future of America. Seems to me endorsing the all but inevitable nominee is a smart strategic move in that direction. And, Hillary Clinton WILL be ready from day one to lead America forward.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. While I still hold out slim hope Gore might run

barring that I honestly believe Clinton will be the nominee. I have felt for about two months that, unless either Clark or Gore entered to challenge her, Clinton has a secure hold on the nomination. Prior to that I still thought that either Obama or Edwards still had some chance, or that a second tier candidate might break through. Now I honestly don't see that happening anymore. That certainly isn't my wishful thinking speaking, that is my honest hard tacks appraisal. It is one of the reasons why I continued to use my posts at DU and elsewhere to advocate for a Clark or Gore candidacy. But Clark didn't receive the support he needed and Gore continues to seem set on his course which is not to be a candidate for President in 2008. I know the arguments that can be trotted out to say that Hillary may still lose, I just don't believe that ultimately they are winning arguments under the circumstances, with the candidates who are left who still oppose her.

I did not want the Democratic Party to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008, but I am pretty sure that it will. I fear four more years of Republican rule far far more than I fear four more years of Clinton rule. Of that I have zero doubt. I do believe that is what the choices will boil down to, and that's not because Clark endorsed Hillary.. There is a chance that Clinton will allow the U.S. to enter into an avoidable war. There is a certainty that the Republicans would do exactly that. And that does not even touch on the number of elderly Supreme Court Justices who will need to be replaced over the next 5 years.

If the Republicans ran Chuck Hagel against Hillary Clinton I would clearly prefer Clinton, but I would not have nearly as deep a fear about what might happen if Hagel won. My support of Clinton in that scenario would probably be very luke warm. However the Republicans will not run Chuck Hagel, they are pandering to their right yet again and the words coming out of the mouths of their current candidates truly sicken me. I am now psychologically bracing myself for the General Election, and while I retain my right to be critical of Hillary Clinton I view her as our likely nominee. I will not savage her nor call her unworthy of receiving support. I expect to be fighting for her by June at the latest. That is reality as I see it.

[Apollo11]

36. My guess is that Gore will endorse Edwards

Tom - I agree that it looks like Gore doesn't really want to make another run for the Whitehouse.

Gore is making all kinds of commitments to deliver speeches all across the world (London in late November, Sweden in January 2008). Plus he is writing his next book "The Path To Survival" due in April 2008.

Gore has said that he is likely to endorse one of the Democratic candidates.

Here's what Gore said to Larry King on CNN (May 22nd):

Gore on Hillary Clinton:
"She is running a very forceful campaign. She has earned the strong support of her constituents in New York."

Gore on Barack Obama:
"He is also running a very strong campaign. I think that he is appealing to a lot of people who like the sense that he's talking about issues in a fresh way. And, you know, he has a lot of support."

Gore on John Edwards:
"Likewise, running a strong campaign. Put out a lot of very thoughtful policy statements and positions. I think you can see the strength that he's gained from having been around the track last time."


My feeling is that if he doesn't run himself, then Al Gore is most likely to endorse John Edwards.

The League of Conservation Voters has described Edwards' plan as the "most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date."

Of course Al Gore is better-qualified for the Presidency than John Edwards.

But if John Edwards wins Iowa, I honestly think he can go all the way.

[IanC]

37. Clark is trying to help the Democrats "keep their eyes on the prize"

I also have many friends who I had leaning towards General Clark if he chose to run and were very disappointed when he endorsed Hillary Clinton. I admit I was even surprised. But if we on the left agree that THIS ELECTION IS A MUST WIN for both the White House AND a super-majority in Congress, then it only makes sense to pick your strongest candidate and start training for the big game.

Furthermore, while I have serious doubts that many of my progressive friends envision America playing any positive role in the world, Clark demonstrates that one can be both ashamed of our country's misdeeds under the Bush-Cheney oligarchy, and still be proud Americans. Even more so after reading the General's new book which only confirms my belief in our country's basic goodness and why America can, with the right people in charge, lead the world through this dangerous time.

When I think about it, I have to admit that while I firmly believe General Clark would be the best choice for our country's next President, Hillary Clinton is more capable and well-rounded than the rest of the field. Add to that the fact that she can hit the ground running and we all know that she will ask General Clark to serve in her administration and I have confidence that the General knows what he's doing by endorsing her early.

And just look at all the media attention the combination of his book release and Clinton endorsement is giving him at such a crucial time. We've got to help him get his message out about Iran. We can't let MoveOn.org ruin the dialog and hand the administration a new hammer to beat on the Democratic Congress with. I'm convinced that the "General Betray-Us" ad cost us the Webb Amendment. The few Republicans that were considering voting for it could never do so after that ad and still face their constituency. Clarkies must help keep the message on the Bush Administration's failed strategy so the "end the war NOW!" factions don't undermine the Democratic effort to do just that in the smartest possible way.

I trust the General on this one. He knows what needs to be done.

[Ethelk2044]

34. Yep, her good judgment helped to get us into this war. REAL GOOD JUDGMENT

[Apollo11]

35. "boy does she have experience"

Well, I guess she has served a whole term in the US Senate.

So she does have a certain amount of Washington experience.

But I don't think it makes her a slam-dunk for the Presidency.

Ask Romney, Giuliani, Fred Thompson - any of those guys.

"Who would you prefer to run against in the general election?"

If they're being honest, they will all say "Hillary".