Endorsement Call

I'm on hold as we speak for a conference call with what Hillary Clinton's campaign is promising will be a significant new endorser.

UPDATE: It's Wesley Clark, which is what my smarter-than-me friends said last night.

UPDATE II: This seems pretty significant to me, at least in the little corner of the universe where I operate. There's obviously a lot of admiration for General Clark among the netroots, both as someone who's engaged with bloggers over the years, and as someone who's shown sound judgment on Iraq. Thus far, the endorsement from the national security world that HRC has wracked up have had a slightly double-edged-sword quality to them, the sort of thing likely to make me cluck about Very Serious People and so forth. Clark's not like that, and he's making the case that she not only has sound views on Iraq looking forward, but also the experience and judgment necessary to operate in what's necessarily going to be a difficult situation.

UPDATE III: Bottom-line, Clark didn't say anything earth-shattering (though he did make the point that the president, in his or her national security role, needs to tackle an extremely broad range of issues beyond Iraq and that he's most confident that Clinton is prepared to take on all of those challenges) but it's a useful reminder/signal/whatever that a President Clinton would, in fact, expand her circle of foreign policy thinkers beyond the group of hawks who was with her in 2002-2003 and looked set to be the dominant influence in a Clinton administration.

Comments

I don't think he will get a significant job in her administration if she wins. Which is too bad as I see it. One might assume that is what this is and I am totally OK with that.

Posted by rapier | September 15, 2007 11:09 AM

I dunno.. folks I talk to are constantly concerned that HRC will just be a carbon copy of the worst aspects of Bill's administration. There's already a flood of sycophants attaching themselves to her and this seems to be the biggest concern. And unfortunately since Clark isn't that breed, he'll probably soon be lumped in with them.

Posted by bubba | September 15, 2007 11:25 AM

" . . . the endorsement from the national security world that HRC has wracked up . . . "

Interesting malapropism, but I think you mean "racked up"

Anyway, I don't think this endorsement carries any significant weight. Just a bit of card collecting.

Posted by Joel | September 15, 2007 11:32 AM

This is actually bad news for the Democrats -- and could be extremely bad news for Hillary unless she steps well away from Wes.

As I've noted here before, Wesley Clark screwed up badly in Bosnia during Bill Clinton's administration. He lost a F117 stealth fighter and didn't bomb the wreckage before it could be hauled away. Plus, there was no need to even risk that fighter in that theater -- it was not needed.

God know who got pieces of that wreckage --Any college professor could analyze a piece of it and figure out the composition of its material. All we need is for one of our ships to be sunk by a stealth Iranian cruise missile for Wild Bill's legacy to loose a little glow. And there are far worse possibilities.

What's really bad is that some Republicans like Porter Goss (Chairman of HPSCI) know how Wes screwed the pooch and will probably sweetly leak it sometime --oh, in October 2008.

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 11:35 AM

Excuse me, I meant to say "Porter Goss (FORMER Chairman of HPSCI)"

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 11:36 AM

The value of the endorsement is, I think, that it's a further tip that DC thinks HRC has this thing sown up. And they may well be right.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 15, 2007 11:48 AM

Don says "This is actually bad news for the Democrats -- and could be extremely bad news for Hillary unless she steps well away from Wes."

Seems unlikely. I imagine they wanted his endorsement.

As for the "issues" you seem to think are bad news, kind of late in the day now dontcha think to argue whatever it is you are arguing as a problem for an endorser?

Strange comment. I admit I am a big Clark fan. But it seems to me you must be pretty anti-Clark to think of that as a problem for Clinton.

Posted by Armando | September 15, 2007 11:56 AM

Re Don Williams

1. Given the lacing that Mr. Gosses' reputation has taken since his disastrous sojourn as head of the CIA, I doubt that any criticism by him will be taken seriously (see attached link).

2. I am having trouble believing that Mr. Williams is so negative about an Israel basher like General Clark. Along with left wing appeaser Haim Saben, Clark is another good reason to oppose Ms. Clinton.

3. Is Mr. Williams planning to relocate to Northern Virginia to reside in what must be his favorite Congressmans' district (see attached link).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402146.html?sub=AR

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402171.html

Posted by SLC | September 15, 2007 11:57 AM

Other than Iraq, Clark isn't a flaming liberal in any sense. So this shouldn't be a huge surprise, and it could be attributed to a careerist move by the cynics among us. But, it does provide HRC with a bit more innoculation on the AUMF vote against Obama, which already was proving to be too little to move Obama all that much.

Posted by AJ | September 15, 2007 11:57 AM

Uhh, didn't Clark favor both the unnecessary war in Bosnia *and* the unnecessary war in Iraq? Why should we believe he has any credibility in determining Hillary's got a good foreign policy head on her shoulders?

Posted by Kevin B. O'Reilly | September 15, 2007 12:21 PM

Clark's her VP. Wake me up in 2012.

Posted by JC | September 15, 2007 12:34 PM

Kevin O'Reilly: "the unnecessary war in Bosnia". So Srebenica didn't worry you just a little bit? And what exactly was the excessive cost to the USA of getting involved, since it didn't put soldiers on the ground (unlike Britain and France), but relied on air power and the Croats as proxies?

Posted by James Wimberley | September 15, 2007 12:35 PM

But where does HRC stand on your key issue--the O'Hanlon primary?

Posted by Dennis Doubleday | September 15, 2007 12:38 PM

Wasn't Clark set up by the Clintons for his 2004 bid?

As I remember, he was going to be a stalking horse for the Clintons in New Hampshire when the Dean campaign got there. Of course, it never really did. But if my memory's right, it's hard to say this endorsement is some sort of surprise (or particularly issue-driven).

Posted by southpaw | September 15, 2007 12:40 PM

I don't buy it. Everyone has a price, I wonder what Clark got. If she hasn't got a good plan herself, why believe it when somebody else says she has? Either she presents it herself, or she doesn't.

If she can't come up with something better than "I'm just like my husband was," I'm not voting for her.

Posted by Jeremy | September 15, 2007 12:47 PM

Uhh, didn't Clark favor both the unnecessary war in Bosnia *and* the unnecessary war in Iraq?

No, actually he opposed Iraq, and said so all over CNN.

he was going to be a stalking horse for the Clintons in New Hampshire when the Dean campaign got there.

Yeah, that's what the Fox News crowd and the Dean followers were saying in 2004. There's no denying that the Clintons and Clark have deep ties, but Wes was a serious candidate in '04, and actually stood a chance at the nomination before it became apparent that he just wasn't ready for a political campaign.

Don Williams's criticisms are the same kind of arcane trivia the wingnuts were bandying about in '04 to criticize Clark, and the Blog For America commenters gladly spread further. I doubt that kind of stuff would mean anything to anyone other than ex-military right-wingers. Not exactly Hillary's base.

Posted by phil | September 15, 2007 12:51 PM

Oh yes, and I take the endorsement to mean Clark's on the short list for State.

Posted by phil | September 15, 2007 12:53 PM

I don't think he will get a significant job in her administration if she wins.

Of course he will. Major figures don't just exchange their endorsements for nothing.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 15, 2007 1:17 PM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wesley+clark+iraq

I'm having trouble finding the time that Wesley Clark favored the Iraq war. Can you help a brother out? Which article is it?

Posted by jonathan | September 15, 2007 1:27 PM

Re phil's comment "Don Williams's criticisms are the same kind of arcane trivia the wingnuts were bandying about in '04 to criticize Clark, and the Blog For America commenters gladly spread further. I doubt that kind of stuff would mean anything to anyone other than ex-military right-wingers."
--------------
Phil is wrong.

Actually, I doubt if phil is briefed to even understand what I'm talking about.

But on the off chance he is, I suggest he check with Melvin Dubee in Room 211 of the Hart Senate Office Bldg for a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether Wesley could turn into a limpet mine that sinks Hillary's boat if she hugs him real close on video.

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 1:48 PM

Re Don Williams

Porter Goss did more to damage US security with his totally incompetent sojourn as CIA director then did General Clark, as evidenced by the link I posted earlier. He has about as much credibility to sink Ms. Clinton as does Idaho senator Larry Craig. As for Mr. Dubee, according to a Google search, he seems to be a staffer on the Select Intelligence Committee and is a counter narcotics expert. Is Mr. Williams claiming that General Clark has some connection with narcotics? The only hit from Google searching both Dubee and Clark comes up with 1 hit, a past comment from Mr. Williams on this blog. If this is the best that Mr. Williams can do against Clark, Ms. Clinton has nothing to worry about. If AIPAC is as powerful as Mr. Williams seems to think, maybe he should depend on them to sink Clark as the latter has been critical of them in the past.

Posted by SLC | September 15, 2007 2:19 PM

Re Don Williams

Now if we can get my asshole Congressman Jim Moran to endorse Ms. Clinton, between him and Clark, that might really get AIPAC off their duffies to sink her.

Posted by SLC | September 15, 2007 2:24 PM

Re Don Williams

Actually, Mr. Williams should only be half as mad at Clark as the latter is only half Jewish.

Posted by SLC | September 15, 2007 2:26 PM

Re SLC's comment "Porter Goss did more to damage US security with his totally incompetent sojourn as CIA director then did General Clark, as evidenced by the link I posted earlier."
---------
Irrelevant. You don't have to be competent to sink someone with a leak.

Look at what Linda Tripp did to Bill Clinton
just by tapeing Monica's babbling. I don't think Linda was a schoolmate of Clinton's at Oxford

And that blue DRESS! Ha ha ha ha

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 3:10 PM

I just lost a lot of respect for Clark, and he was my candidate in 2004. This looks like repaying old debts, or perhaps just following the wind.

Posted by EricW | September 15, 2007 3:17 PM

Re Don Williams

The media picked up on the Lewinsky affair because it was about sex, just as the Paula Jones episode was. If Mr. Williams thinks anybody is going to get excited over an arcane discussion of the loss of a stealth bomber, given the numerous examples of incompetence demonstrated by the current administration in Iraq and elsewhere, he is living in a dream world. But we all knew that anyway. Now if we can just get George Soros to endorse Ms. Clinton, we can really get somewhere.

Posted by SLC | September 15, 2007 3:21 PM

I wonder what position wes clark will get in the Clinton Administration? Does we want to be an ambassador? Or an undersecretary? Or some agency head?

Posted by superdesroyer | September 15, 2007 3:27 PM

"I doubt that kind of stuff would mean anything to anyone other than ex-military right-wingers."

Phil is wrong.

Actually, I doubt if phil is briefed to even understand what I'm talking about.

That was Phil's point. To even care about what you're talking about, voters have to be insane wingnuts. Those voters wouldn't vote for Clinton even if Clarke bit her on the leg.

Posted by J Thomas | September 15, 2007 3:39 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if General Clark became the National Security Advisor under Hillary.

Posted by DonB | September 15, 2007 3:41 PM

Re SLC "If Mr. Williams thinks anybody is going to get excited over an arcane discussion of the loss of a stealth bomber"
----------
Then you have it make it ..er..not arcane. By pointing out the obvious to those who can't figure it out unless you rub their noses in it.

Hillary ,after all, has nothing going for her other than a vague, carefully undefined, link to an administration in which she was First Housewife. An administration which looks good, in retrospect, largely because of the efforts of George Bush. I suspect that halo is about to fade a little bit -- roughly 2 days after Hillary gets the nomination. If she gets the nomination.

When Karl Rove said Hillary was a hopelessly flawed candidate, I could hear him licking his chops.

You'll know it when you see it.

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 3:54 PM

Don Williams,

Clark won that war. The last war US has won. And he won it without the loss of a single US soldier. He managed to win it and keep NATO allies together.

The rest is arcane trivia.

Posted by DonB | September 15, 2007 3:58 PM

HILLARY IS A POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST WHO WILL BE A RERUN OF PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS. AT ONE TIME SHE WAS FOR A PALESTINIAN STATE. NOW SHE IS MORE PRO ISRAEL THAN BUSH. WES CLARK IS ONE I WOULD HAVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED. NOW I AM SUPPORTING OBAMA ( AFRICAN AMERICAN-IRISH) WHO WOULD UNITE THIS COUNTRY NOT POLARIZE IT ONCE AGAIN. CLINTON WOULD DIVIDE THIS COUNTRY AS WOULD ANY RREPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. OBAMA NEEDS IOWA AND SOUTH CAROLINA TO HAVE A CHANCE TO UPSET CLINTON.

Posted by daniel lynch | September 15, 2007 4:02 PM

Re DonB "Clark won that war. The last war US has won"
-----------
Clark didn't fight a "war" -- Clark went into a chickenshit conflict in which we had no US interests at stake ( well, maybe that AMBO pipeline heh heh) and managed to lose an advanced weapons systems to enemies which did not have it yet. A loss which has synergistic effects if those enemies replicate the F117 material.

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 4:09 PM

Re Don Williams

Actually, Ms. Clinton is generally considered to be a pretty good Senator, although one might ask in comparison to what, given the low level of competence in todays' Senate. It's quite possible that her talents are more suited to the legislative arena. However, I'm still hoping to get AIPAC of their collective asses if she is endorsed by Soros and Moran. I doubt that even AIPAC could stomach Clark, Soros, and Moran. Incidentally, Ms. Clinton got a shot from another left wing appeaser and AIPAC critic, Daniel Levy, on his blog this morning which, unfortunately, will fool the clowns at AIPAC into forgetting about her dalliance with Suha Arafat.

http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/09/clinton_vs_clinton_on_israel.html

Posted by SLC | September 15, 2007 4:19 PM

See http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-6626358
(partial transcript)

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 4:34 PM

Re SLC's comment "which, unfortunately, will fool the clowns at AIPAC into forgetting about her [Hillary's] dalliance with Suha Arafat."
----------
"Dalliance"????

What're we talking about here? Kissing?

TONGUE-KISSING with the love which must not be named??

Come on, SLC. What kind of a limp-wristed Neocon propagandist are you? William Kristol is gonna take away your secret decoder ring.

You need to speak in more lofty tones and leave the grubby rumors/unsupported innuendo to the boys at National Review -- that's what they're there for.

Go with the Krauthammer approach. Talk about the fall of Western Civilization. Flaws on the level of ancient Greek tragedy. Mention "Medea"

If you want to work the sex angle, say "poet of Lesbos" not lesbian.

Go to Borders and grab some Cliff Notes. You may even bump into Charles in that section. If he's near the head of the escalator, jab a broomstick into the spokes of his wheelchair and I'll buy you a drink.

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 4:45 PM

"There's obviously a lot of admiration for General Clark among the netroots, both as someone who's engaged with bloggers over the years, and as someone who's shown sound judgment on Iraq."-M. Y.

What about this:

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.-AP, 10/9/02

Or this:

“Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. ... President Bush, Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”-Wesley Clark, London Times, 4/10/03

Posted by Isocrates | September 15, 2007 5:05 PM

Someone wants to be Secretary of Defense, obviously.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | September 15, 2007 6:08 PM

Re Don Willisms

The reference was to Ms. Clinton staying silent while Ms. Arafat stood and in her presence accused the Government of Israel of deliberately poisoning the Palestinian water supply. Obviously, Mr. Williams as usual is unaware that this episode figured in her 2000 Senate campaign and resulted in her winning about 57% of the Jewish vote in New York City where Democrats usually win 70%. Her tactic of positioning herself as representing Upstate New York, which was greatly assisted by the Republicans' incredible stupidity in running somebody from Long Island, resulted in her losing Upstate by only 1%. A Republican who only caries Upstate New York by 1% in a statewide election is doomed. The result of that election is Ms. Clintons' commitment that nobody is going to be more verbally supportive of the State of Israel then her (read the link to Mr. Levys' article re Jerusalem). Or to paraphrase the late and unlamented George Wallace, nobody is going to out Israel Ms. Clinton.

As for the references to Mr. Kristol and Dr. Krauthammer, Mr. Williams is a big an asshole as they are.

Posted by SLC | September 15, 2007 7:24 PM

There is definitely a conflict of interest here.

Hillary is on board with attacking Iran. Last I heard, Clark wasn't.

In fact, he also got in trouble with "The Lobby That Must Not Be Named Otherwise SLC Will Have A Hissy Fit" for suggesting that "New York Jews" were paying to push for a war with Iran.

I just found the following March, 2006 interview with Clark with George Stephanopoulos:

"George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head."

So it sounds to me like Clark believes Iran IS developing nuclear weapons - despite the absolute lack of evidence - but he also believes that Iran should be at least talked to. Clinton, on the other hand, while paying lip service to negotiating with Iran, clearly is in the AIPAC crowd in supporting keeping military options "on the table."

So perhaps there isn't as big a difference between Clark and Clinton. Maybe Clark sees himself as Secretary of Defense overseeing Clinton's war in Iran - if Bush doesn't start it first. Maybe Clark thinks Bush WILL start it, screw it up, then he can come in and fix it as Secretary of Defense and use that "success" as a stepping stone to running for President himself...

Good luck with that plan, Clark...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 15, 2007 7:47 PM

Oh good lord, Isocrates, those issues were dealt with in '04. Both are out-of-context.

Posted by phil | September 15, 2007 9:42 PM

This is depressing news. I always liked Wesley Clark, and his short-sighted decision perturbs me. Because it shows either a sad lack of judgement about what's best for our country, or he's more of an opportunist than I thought and has or expects some deal/position with the Hill-dog snizz in the snitch in the eventuality that she's elected (the authorities abjectly apologize for the shameful, disgusting 'South Park' references made just before in this comment). Truly unfortunate. What's he thinking!!?!? I would've thought (and hoped) he'd be an Obama man. A big de-merit frown face for General Clark.

Posted by Warren | September 16, 2007 3:09 AM

Todd Gitlin over at TPM has a post about Clark's Washington Post op-ed.

The consensus of the responding posters indicates that a lot of people are skeptical that Clark is actually against the war in Iran.

Even though he founded the StopIranWar.org Web site, his latest op-ed and his endorsement of Hillary Clinton indicates he has punked out on the issue.

His op-ed still warns about what Iran might do to retaliate to a US attack, but the rest of the op-ed is more about "how I would run the US military" than anything else. So he is definitely pandering to Clinton to be "Secretary of Defense" in a Clinton administration.

As an aside, for those thinking that the Edwards et all notion of leaving US troops in the region to foil any "Iraq genocide" makes any sense, Howard Berkowitz has some useful comments in the thread on how foiling genocide isn't that easy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 16, 2007 8:51 PM