Why They Hit Clark

John at AMERICAblog makes the case for why General Wes Clark is one of the Democratic party's most valuable assets - because he's proof that leadership on military strategy doesn't live with Republicans. And that's why Republicans attacked Clark so aggressively after his comments about John McCain - both because Republicans have banked so much on McCain's military service but also because it's deeply within their interest to neutralize one of the most powerful Democratic surrogates.

And the traditional media holds guilt too - heaven forbid they'd need to re-evaluate their tired (disproven) notion that Republicans are the party of national security. So they just recycle the Republican talking points.

We can't let them get away with it. There are very few Democrats as aggressive and confident in our party's national security credentials than General Clark.


Tags: Election 08, John McCain, Wes Clark (all tags)

Comments

12 Comments

Re: Why They Hit Clark

Good points, Josh.

I agree.  VoteVets also has been very effective.

by TomP 2008-07-24 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

You nailed it.  And it's why General Clark, VoteVets, Brandon Friedman, Paul Rieckhoff and others are so important.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-07-24 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

As important.... Wes Clark doesn't back down just because he's attacked by the right-wing smear machine.

by TxKat 2008-07-24 11:24AM | 0 recs
Clark is best choice for Veep

for many reasons, but his military record, his willingness to tell it like it is, and his intelligence are good enough reasons.

by Thaddeus 2008-07-24 11:36AM | 0 recs
They've been doing it to a lot of our guys

Remember the trumped-up thing they sent at Dodd about his Countrywide loan.  That's just one of many examples of the Republicans pre-emptively smearing our potential VP candidates in an attempt to choose our VP for us.

by Dracomicron 2008-07-24 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

The Republics have believed the military vote is ttheirs forever and will never go away.

That is why they are so afraid of Wes and folks like Paul, because they have built this wall around the military, that to question it AND THEREFORE their policies is tantamount to treason.

Look at Bush hiding behind Gen Petreuas?

They have had the hold card for decades, and they are shaking in their boots that the truth has been discovered about thier 'so called' support of the military.

by WashStateBlue 2008-07-24 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark
I always thought that Clark would be perfect for NSA. And I thought this as true for Clinton as it would be for Obama. But I now think it could pay even bigger dividends for Obama and democrats in general for Obama to pick him as VP.
It is clear that Obama is not concerned with polls right now and is laying the foundations of a major momentum move in the fall. This will almost have to involve a domestic economic offensive. Having Clark as the subsidiary but important voice always there to counter McCain's perceived strength makes that so much easier. This is even more true as the public has been conditioned to equate military competence with foreign policy experience.
What always worried me a bit was his 2004 campaign. But the dust up of a couple of weeks ago has settled my mind on that. Look at what actually happened. The Republicans dropped it when it started to turn in Clark's direction. By not backing down more and more the media was forced to look at the entire context of the argument and its basic self evident truth continued to bubble to the top. And he did it alone. And if you look at his defense of his position the word Judgment was the most used, this was the Obama theme at the time and he did it after he was at least escorted to the bus stop.
by Judeling 2008-07-24 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

I wish we had more leaders like Wes Clark.

by Pravin 2008-07-24 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

Clarks comments about military service not being experience for president is an inappropriate attack and is particularly inappropriate for the VP of a presidential candidate with a slim resume.

This isn't a winning attack.  It may feel good to Team Obama but there exists a sizable group of DEMOCRATS who find this line of attack offensive.

I don't want to heap negative on Clark, but this line of attack is taboo.

It may make you feel good but it loses votes and further puts a wedge in the party coalition.

Other than that comment and the fact that he isn't named Clinton I have no problems with Clark.

by dtaylor2 2008-07-24 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

Gen. Clark never said McCain's military service wasn't experience to be President, nor did he attack it. He was responding to Bob Schieffer's insinuation that Obama wasn't as qualified to be POTUS because of a lack of a specific experience, riding in a fighter plane and being shot down. So, he parroted Schieffer's words in Obama's defense, while making the point that he honored McCain's service.

by Karen Sandefur 2008-07-27 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

I think they hit Clark because they fear him, more than anyone else, as Obama's VP. I'm one of those who thinks that Clark would be an excellent choice.

Put Clark against McCain on military issues, and see who comes out looking like a fool.

Bob in HI

by Bob Schacht 2008-07-24 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Why They Hit Clark

Bad mojo.

Compare them and see which one comes out looking elitist.

This whole attack the war hero for not being a white collar war hero thing will backfire.

And even if it doesn't in the context of the GE its bad karma from a morality point of view.  

Obama will not always have a massive popular support to lean on, and the votes he loses on this issue will never come back even if he gains more short term support than he loses.  The people who don't like this, they VERY MUCH don't like it.

by dtaylor2 2008-07-24 03:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads