Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

I just received an email from WesPac, Gen. Wes Clark's PAC, and he  brought up the main reason I support Hillary Clinton for president in these times when we have troops in the field.  I just do not see Obama as being knowledgeable enough to have these types of conversations with military leaders, or the troops in the field.  That is the ground on which McCain will fight the general election, and Obama cannot hold a candle to Hillary in this arena.

I quote Clark:

As you know, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton for President. I could list countless reasons why, but I think one story about Hillary sums it all up.

After the war in Kosovo was over, she and the President flew in to meet the troops. I watched her engage with the privates, sergeants and the colonels. She knew the issues, she knew the personal aspects and she had their respect. In my talk with her, I could see she had followed the issues closely and was well in-tune with the military and diplomatic requirements. She could have been the Commander-in-Chief.

Tags: clark, clinton, commander-in-chief (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Clinton should get Joe Wilson out more

I think he helped her in Nevada.  

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-11 08:31AM | 0 recs
Yes, get him AND Wes Clark...

Out on the campaign trail more often! These two are real patriotic Americans who want what's best for this nation, and I really think these two make an excellent case for Hillary. :-)

by atdleft 2008-02-11 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, get him AND Wes Clark...

Will we be seeing Hillary in a military uniform riding in a tank before the campaign is over?

Needless to say, Hillary likely knows nothing about the minutae of military operations any more than Bill Clinton did. Hillary's problem stems from her stature as a foreign policy hawk, who is likely to continue carrying the ball for the Neocons:

Hillary's foreign policy nightmare to come...  
were she elected president of the United States.

by shergald, Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/9/10132 /05682#readmore

by shergald 2008-02-12 01:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

Please edit the diary if you can.  The quote got truncated.

by ghost 2 2008-02-11 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

Sorry ghost2, that is all of the email that I quoted. You can read the whole thing on the WesPac site,

http://securingamerica.com/

Most of the rest of it is fundraising and the 'ready on day one' arguments we have already heard.

by ocli 2008-02-11 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

Hillary's experience shows, that's why Obama fears debating her one-on-one.  

by anna shane 2008-02-11 08:47AM | 0 recs
Wes Clark

Most of the Clark-heads in Virginia are going for Obama. We'd all love to see him on the ticket with Obama next novemeber, too.

by mcdave 2008-02-11 08:48AM | 0 recs
If he does that...

...I will lose all respect for him.  

by Shazone 2008-02-11 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: If he does that...

Nice!

For the record: I still love and respect the guy even though he's supporting Hillary.

by mcdave 2008-02-11 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark

So let me get this straight...you like Wes Clark and want him on your ticket, but you don't respect his judgement in his area of expertise. What exactly is it you like about him?

by ocli 2008-02-11 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark

Where did I say I didn't respect his judgement?

I respect his judgement tremendously. I worked for the guy in New Hampshire. I'm part of the Virginia Clarkie network - it was one of his strongest states, for some reason (the demographics of Clark supporters mirrors Obama suppporters - creative class, highly educated, white professionals).

I'm just clearly a better person than you, since I can (a) listen to the guy's opinion on the Presidential race and disagree and then (b) still respect him and want him on board as a big contributor in the next administration.

Ahhhhh. It feels good to be better than someone!

by mcdave 2008-02-11 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

I understand the infatuation with Obama, but people need to remember being president of the United States is serious, serious business. We are a nation facing multiple crisis and a constitution that has been demeaned by president Bush.

Hillary 08 -- serious times require serious leadership.

by seattlegonz 2008-02-11 08:49AM | 0 recs
Leadership

I'm not sure why you are arguing that Clinton is a serious leader, but I cannot help but think of the argument from the Republicans that you become a 'strong leader' by pursuing a belligerent foreign policy and declaring war on other countries.

If Clinton wants to be a leader, she could prove it in the Senate. When the Iraq War authorization went to Congress, she could have proved herself a leader by standing against it. When the vote came to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, she did not appear to learn from her previous mistake - which could be expected, as I do not think she has acknowledged that to be a mistake. She voted for it, rather than taking a principled stand against it.

One of the reasons I respect Senator Russ Feingold most of all among the members of the Senate is that I know that he is not afraid to stand for what he believes in. He put his career at risk by voting against bills such as the PATRIOT Act, and although I disagreed with some of his actions, such as voting to confirm Ashcroft, I still respect that he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do, not because he was afraid for his career.

As for Clinton? She once was a leader; although I was very young at the time, I have read of her efforts to achieve national health care during her husband's presidency, and I remember watching her stand up to speak for voter rights in Ohio. She took a leading role in investigating the health effects of 9/11 among emergency responders, and voted against the Bush tax cuts. But by now, I feel that she has sacrificed some of her principle in favor of ambition. This is a crime that almost every Congressman and woman has committed, so I do not mean to single her out, but I do not think that she has been a better leader than the average Democratic member of Congress.

by MILiberal 2008-02-11 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Leadership

I understand that you don't agree with her Iraq vote, that's fair. When taken in the context of what she said on the Senate floor, and her understanding of presidential powers and what is required for effective diplomacy, I don't agree but completely understand why she voted as she did.

As far as being a leader -- she worked on SCHIP, FMLA, veterans' health insurance, and first responder care to name a few. When she was knocked back on universal health care she just set about trying to solve the problem through incremental change. She shows tremendous leadership.

I think the questions of governance in a time of war may be more complicated than you are making them out to be. And, Kucinich is the most anti-war of all the candidates, but no one is voting for him. If the only thing you look at is whether or not someone voted against the war, than Kucinich is your man. Obama spoke out against the war before he became a Senator, but once in the senate he's voted repeatedly to fund the war. Kucinich hasn't -- not once.

Me, I take all of a person's positions into consideration. Hillary is by far the better candidate in my estimation -- she's been working to help the poor and disenfranchised for a long time. I can trust her to implement universal health care and get us out of Iraq. I can trust her to deal with the economic crisis and forestall home foreclosures which are ruining neighborhoods.

Obama doesn't even make me feel good, the way he does others, so once that's gone  there's nothing there to make him a viable candidate for me.

by seattlegonz 2008-02-11 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

I just don't buy it. Hillary has been voting in the Senate, and campaigning, using the now-standard DLC tactic of being "Republican lite." It hasn't worked for any Democrat since Bill Clinton, and it won't work for her.

McCain's had actual military experience and is a bona fide war hero. Hillary can't match that. For voters who care deeply about "ability to understand and connect with the troops", McCain will beat Clinton just as handily as he'll beat Obama, no matter how tough she tries to look. (And look at how much Kerry's war experience helped him vs. a Republican -- not at all!)

Ditto on her support of the bankruptcy bill; her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment laying the groundwork for a new war in Iran; her vote for the Iraq war resolution and her refusal to apologize for that vote; and on and on.

Republicans keep winning by moving TOWARDS their base, because voters -- even moderates and some Dems -- like people with solid values who stick to their guns. Clinton's a triangulator. Obama seems to stick to his principles. That's why poll after poll after poll shows that independents and moderates like Obama better than Hillary, and that Obama stands a much better chance of beating McCain in November. Electability

by thersites 2008-02-11 08:57AM | 0 recs
Blah blah blah blah blah

You must be reading from a script.  So canned.  So corny.  So untrue.

But keep on believing if you must.  Hopefully it gives you some comfort.

by Shazone 2008-02-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

It's not about looking tough.  It's about knowing what you are talking about when the brass tries to tell you they can't be out of Iraq in 18 months. The president has to be credible on military issues, and one of the ways you do that is to study them for at least 15 years as Clinton has.  Of course she is not as experienced as John McCain - few people in politics are - but she cannot be labelled a lightweight either.  

She comes a lot closer than Obama does to neutralizing McCain on his main advantage, and, once again, that is knowledge, not toughness.

by ocli 2008-02-11 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

neutralizing McCain on his main advantage

Sorry, but McCain's main advantage is his appeal to moderates and independents. Clinton is NOT winning with those folks -- whoever above said that she is isn't reading the exit polls. Obama is running very strongly with moderates and independents, so he's the one who can best "neutralize" McCain on McCain's strongest point. Once they split the moderates and independents, then the public's fundamental distaste for everything Bush has done should tilt the scale toward the Democrat.

Hillary, on the other hand, won't get even 10% of the independent vote. They'll flock to McCain. After all, 44% of the American people say they affirmatively dislike her -- and why would we want to start off with a disadvantage like that?

by thersites 2008-02-11 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

Independents and moderates like obama because he has stuck to his progressive principles, and they are sure he will in the future?  I doubt it.

by ocli 2008-02-11 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

I am so sick of hearing the bots exclaim "republican-;ite". it just shows they know not of what they speak.

by americanincanada 2008-02-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
The main reason

I don't like Obama is that, to me, HE IS republican lite - I mean, he's spent much more time dissing Democrats than republicans. And he's just going to abandon Democratic principles and policies if he gets in the WH - in favor of cozying up to the republicans who have destroyed this nation, all in the name of "bipartisan unity," which of course will NEVER exist.

Obama's fanatical supporters are another whole creepy story...

by Firefly4625 2008-02-11 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The main reason

Exactly right.  He is not getting the votes of moderates and independents by standing firm for progressive principles.  He gives up on universal health care before the battle is even joined. How much more will he negotiate away trying to stay popular with Republicans?

by ocli 2008-02-11 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The main reason

You're not paying attention. Clinton, NOT Obama, voted for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton, NOT Obama, voted with Lieberman on calling Iran a terrorism sponsor, helping Bush lay the groundwork for another war. Clinton, NOT Obama, voted for the bankruptcy bill. Clinton, NOT Obama, is a member of the centrist DLC. Clinton and Lieberman, NOT Obama, jumped to their feet and applauded enthusiastically when Bush talked about how well the surge is working in the State of the Union.

Obama just was ranked as the most liberal Senator; Hillary was 16th, and that's a big step leftward from where she was last year, as she's adjusted her stance to win the primary.

It's true that many Republicans are willing to cross the line and vote for Obama -- but that's not because he plays to the center, because if you look at his record, he doesn't. It's a little like Reagan in reverse: he didn't "run to the center", and no one has ever claimed he "wasn't conservative enough" (at least the way modern cons mis-define the term) -- he's the Republicans' MODEL conservative -- and yet enough Democratic voters flocked to him that the term "Reagan Democrats" was coined.

Obama's got a lot of Reagan's charm and hopefulness, and both polling date and his electoral results in states where independents can vote in the D primary consistently show that he's winning a lot of votes that, ever since Reagan, have gone Republican. And he's doing so based on force of personality, not by caving in. Clinton's the one that's been doing that ever since she got in office.

Finally, to the folks who called me a "bot" or suggested that I'm just miming someone else, go spend some time at my blog and then tell me I'm not digging into the issues. vichydems.blogspot.com

by thersites 2008-02-11 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The main reason

Clinton, NOT Obama was in the Senate when the Iraq resolution came about.

We'll never know how he would have voted (talk is cheap) but he's continued to support the war to this day.

Kyl-Lieberman -- the coward didn't even show for that vote.

I could go on, but I know I'm  speaking in a vaccuum, truth is not the reason people vote for Obama.

by Sensible 2008-02-11 12:40PM | 0 recs
Twist into a pretzel

all you like - but it just seems to me to be a ploy to get some traffic on your blog - no harm in that, I guess.

But...I  don't think I'll be going there - thanks so much anyway.

by Firefly4625 2008-02-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Twist into a pretzel

Forget it. I don't need the traffic to my blog, but there's no sense trying to talk sense to people who don't want to listen. You're right, I'm a canned, robotlike Obama cultist who thinks Obama's the Messiah. Hillary's better, and I'm oh so sure she'll win against McCain. If she gets the nomination, and loses to McCain, I hope you don't lie to yourselves and forget that people told you so.

See ya --

by thersites 2008-02-11 01:02PM | 0 recs
only a fool

lets the enemy choose the ground to fight on. Wes Clark should know that.

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-11 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: only a fool

Bingo! Thank you for making this point. Hillary's going to try and fight McCain on his home ground -- national defense, homeland security, etc. And she'll get ass handed to her. Whoever wins the nomination needs to make McCain fight on OUR ground, because we know the American people actually want the things Progressives offer. The problem is that I haven't seen Hillary take that approach; rather, she's consistently voted right-of-the-aisle to protect her ability to play like she's more conservative than she really is, and that's a lousy position from which to control the debate.

by thersites 2008-02-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: only a fool

Um... my point is: Bingo! Thank you for making this point. Hillary's going to try and fight McCain on his home ground -- national defense, homeland security, etc. And she'll get ass handed to her. Whoever wins the nomination needs to make McCain fight on OUR ground, because we know the American people actually want the things Progressives offer. The problem is that I haven't seen Hillary take that approach; rather, she's consistently voted right-of-the-aisle to protect her ability to play like she's more conservative than she really is, and that's a lousy position from which to control the debate.

by thersites 2008-02-11 01:03PM | 0 recs
I heard

almost the same thing from a soldier (not sure of the rank) on one of the AAR shows. He was very impressed.

by kevin22262 2008-02-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

If Hillary and the military are so in sync, why is Obama leading in contributions from people in the military?  According to the below USAToday article, he leads all candidates - including McCain.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2007-09-13-military-donors_N. htm

I think very highly of General Clark but, based on what he described, Clinton is no more qualified to be president than Bob Hope was.  

by ruskin 2008-02-11 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Wes Clark on Hillary as Commander-In-Chief

Thanks for the good work!

by magnetics 2008-02-11 01:28PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads