No idea how seriously the idea of Wesley Clark as VP is being considered, but he's a good surrogate attacking John McCain's alleged national security credentials who's got the credibility and the guts to take it right to him.
« Vacation Spots to Avoid | Main | Father's Day »
Clark Does Good
15 Jun 2008 04:16 pm
Comments (35)
Wes' greatest weakness - terrible on the stump and even worse on talk shows. My bet/hope/wish is that he's gotten much better.
Well -- there's a segment of him on a talk show, right at the link Matt posted. What do you think? I think he did great.
It seems like he's learned a lot about being a politician in the last 4 years. He's definitely high on my veep wishlist.
So soon after you linked to Jon Cohn about thinking beyond this election, you go back to thinking about this one?
Think more about who you think would be a good president. Who do you want to give the inside track for the 2016 nomination? Who do you want to push into Obama's inner circle?
And let me suggest that you think about who you endorsed for president a few months ago.
that woman is simply confounded that Clark is speaking negatively about McCain's "credentials". i doubt there could be a better example of the media's unquestioning love for St BBQ.
I'm sorry, but Clark is the worst choice. He is a general who was brought up in the idea that high-technology, Clausewitzian firepower will fix anything - hence Kosovo. Iraq proves that is exactly the wrong way to fight wars, especially in the Mid East. The US is fighting a global, open-source insurgency. It requires a very subtle use of firepower and mass use of infantry and information warfare. If Obama really wants to pick a strong VP candidate with good military/Foreign policy experience, find someone who said the Global War on Terror as an insurgency right from the beginning and can help to impliment a Grand Strategy that can in fact win the war.
Clark is the perfect polemicist to debunk McCain's BS. In this particular exchange, it's the brilliant, military, genius-like guy against a couple of empty-headed media staffers.
I'm sure that Mr. Don Williams will be along shortly to tell us that General Clark had a more negative impact on national security then Robert Hansson and Aldrich Ames. Of course, we know that his real objection to the general is the ethnic identity of his natural father.
I think that Clark did an excellent job and has to be considered at the top of the list along with Biden. Here's the Rove 2004 lesson and how we can use if effectively without resorting to Swiftboat tactics. Rove said that you have to go after a candidate's strength.If you look at every poll out there, Obama is more trusted on the economy, taxes, health care, education, environment, etc. but McCain has the advantage on national security/foreign affairs. The lesson is not to ignore McCain's stregnth but try and neutralize it.
The public aided by the MSM has a conventional wisdom that McCain has impeccable national security credentials. He will keep us safe. If we allow that to go unchallenged then we will lose Independents and the election. Clark goes right after his perceived strength. If it is challkenged. If the news is a reexamination of McCain's national security credentials then that is good for Obama.
We honor McCain for his sacrifice and service, but what has McCain done since 1975. Look at his decisions, his positions. What major military decisions has he made ? None. Clark is politely saying that McCain is a warmonger. When liberals call him that it's considered unfair, but when a 4-star general says it, it is totally fair.
Listen to Mika and Barnacle. They can't believe that anyone would even challenge McCain on this issue. Clark was absolutely right when Barnacle challenged him on Obama's national security experience. Obama is running on good judgment andsurrounding himself with smart people. McCain is the one trying to run on national security experience.
If that fails, his entire candidacy folds like a deck of cards.
I think that Clark did an excellent job and has to be considered at the top of the list along with Biden. Here's the Rove 2004 lesson and how we can use if effectively without resorting to Swiftboat tactics. Rove said that you have to go after a candidate's strength.If you look at every poll out there, Obama is more trusted on the economy, taxes, health care, education, environment, etc. but McCain has the advantage on national security/foreign affairs. The lesson is not to ignore McCain's stregnth but try and neutralize it.
The public aided by the MSM has a conventional wisdom that McCain has impeccable national security credentials. He will keep us safe. If we allow that to go unchallenged then we will lose Independents and the election. Clark goes right after his perceived strength. If it is challkenged. If the news is a reexamination of McCain's national security credentials then that is good for Obama.
We honor McCain for his sacrifice and service, but what has McCain done since 1975. Look at his decisions, his positions. What major military decisions has he made ? None. Clark is politely saying that McCain is a warmonger. When liberals call him that it's considered unfair, but when a 4-star general says it, it is totally fair.
Listen to Mika and Barnacle. They can't believe that anyone would even challenge McCain on this issue. Clark was absolutely right when Barnacle challenged him on Obama's national security experience. Obama is running on good judgment andsurrounding himself with smart people. McCain is the one trying to run on national security experience.
If that fails, his entire candidacy folds like a deck of cards.
I think that Clark did an excellent job and has to be considered at the top of the list along with Biden. Here's the Rove 2004 lesson and how we can use if effectively without resorting to Swiftboat tactics. Rove said that you have to go after a candidate's strength.If you look at every poll out there, Obama is more trusted on the economy, taxes, health care, education, environment, etc. but McCain has the advantage on national security/foreign affairs. The lesson is not to ignore McCain's stregnth but try and neutralize it.
The public aided by the MSM has a conventional wisdom that McCain has impeccable national security credentials. He will keep us safe. If we allow that to go unchallenged then we will lose Independents and the election. Clark goes right after his perceived strength. If it is challkenged. If the news is a reexamination of McCain's national security credentials then that is good for Obama.
We honor McCain for his sacrifice and service, but what has McCain done since 1975. Look at his decisions, his positions. What major military decisions has he made ? None. Clark is politely saying that McCain is a warmonger. When liberals call him that it's considered unfair, but when a 4-star general says it, it is totally fair.
Listen to Mika and Barnacle. They can't believe that anyone would even challenge McCain on this issue. Clark was absolutely right when Barnacle challenged him on Obama's national security experience. Obama is running on good judgment andsurrounding himself with smart people. McCain is the one trying to run on national security experience.
If that fails, his entire candidacy folds like a deck of cards.
I too was impressed with CLark's performance. I really think he recieved some poor coaching in 04 and came across as a giggling dope. He now comes across as a serious and experienced veteran leader.
That was fucking awesome. Clark didn't back down at all. A few weeks of sticking to this talking point and McCain's brain will explode.
I'm sick of reading people praise Rove's (deemed) "brilliant" insight that you should attack your opponent's strengths. Rove's approach was to tear down opponents with whatever real or fabricated bullshit that could be flung their way. Smearing one's opponent is hardly innovative.
Re Don Williams
Where is ole Mr. Williams these days? Has he been shipped to Guantanamo perhaps?
Blond bimbo says: "But this is Superhero John McCain we are talking about here!! Being a POW automagically makes you a foreign policy genius with impeccable credentials!"
I'm sure she said something similar when war hero John Kerry was swift-boated.
Matt: No idea how seriously the idea of Wesley Clark as VP is being considered, but he's a good surrogate attacking John McCain's alleged national security credentials who's got the credibility and the guts to take it right to him.
I disagree completely. We need to confront this un-American, fascist notion that only people with military or ex-military experience have the "credibility" to discuss foreign policy. What ever happened to the Constitutional principle of civilian control?
In a democratic republic, the military should never be in charge of military matters.
Josh G., I think you misunderstand. I think Wesley Clark is well positioned to attack McCain on national security not because he's got more military experience, but because he's got far more foreign policy experience. In fact, what Clark is saying is that his experience as a NATO commander is far more relevant than John McCain's experience as a relatively junior officer. He's almost making your argument for you, that McCain's "experience" doesn't count, and if it does, Clark's experience is far more relevant to foreign affairs. Also, the important thing is that in this particular exchange, Wesley Clark is completely correct in his criticisms of McCain, and battling the public perception of where McCain is strong (but in reality is actually quite weak).
I believe in civilian control of the military. But I also believe that there is nothing at all improper about retired military expressing personal political opinions on issues that relate to foreign policy.
Not sure where to post this, but considering I like him for the same reason people seem to like Clark...anybody anywhere at ALL thinking about Max Cleland?
Clark is yet another person who strikes me as a potentially good Presidential candidate down the road, just like Webb and Sebelius.
Obama/Clark '08!!
MSNBC link doesn't work for my Linux/Firefox system.
Here's a Youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5bYzL2y7xQ
My take: Clark was too easy on McCain. And the obvious bias for McCain on the part of the news people was totally clear.
If this is the way the media treats McCain throughout the next five months, McCain is going to be President - as I've predicted. Maybe even without an Iran war to give him a "war bounce".
Clark makes good identity politics-- but being a good politician takes actual, specific, highly developed skills. It's not a something any successful, competent person can just step in and perform at the top level.
Everything I saw of Clark in 2004 suggested to me that his talents lie elsewhere. Maybe he's improved since then, but I think we need to consider how he will be on the trail, not just what he signifies and what kind of message he'll let us send.
Clark was really good; but I didn't realize that the Republican National Committee had a whole TV show with their own interviewers and everything.
By the way, I agree Clark's inexperience really showed in 2004, and he wouldn't have been worth the risk as the Presidential nominee in 2008. But give him eight years and two national campaigns worth of experience, and I don't think it is unreasonable to guess he would end up a pretty formidable candidate in 2016.
Hagel says he is up for Obama's VP too: http://www.examiner.com/blogs-73-yeas_and_nays~y2008m6d13-Hagels-wife-warming-up-to-the-executive-branch
Infantry Sergeant is about as combat leadership as you can get. But if Obama doesn't pick him, Clark should be it. And I'd understand, Hagel's domestic policies are conservative. On the other hand, Hagel as VP is the best for America.
I've been saying that Clark would be a great choice for some time: 1. he fills in a void in Obama's Resume, 2. as an avid Clinton supporter he might help unite the party (maybe not as well as a woman, but it could still help as an olive branch), 3. Trumps McCain on national security (his "strongest" area), 4. has a great presense, and this video shows that 5. he can throw punches with the best of them.
Wesley Clark, decent fellow and fine American, is stale and boring and dead weight. Obama will pick someone who inspires and kicks it.
The only problem I have with Wesley Clark as Vice-President is the idea, which I can't shake, that he would contribute a lot more, both for an Obama administration and the the country as a whole, as a Secretary of Defense rather than a VP.
Yes, agreed - Clark would be much better as SecDef.
Chuck Hagel or Jim Webb as Obama's VP. Either can cut Mr. Magoo (McCain) down to size as the sick, lying, zionist stooge crackpot he is.
Garuda: Obama is inspiring enough that his VP can be boring. His VP needs to make up for Obama's lack of foreign policy credentials.
Trevor: Hagel would be great but Webb is kind of a weirdo. His judgement has been pretty bad on a number of occasions (sneaking a loaded handgun into the Senate, quiting as head of the navy over a minor budget issue, etc)
i saw the piece under discussion and, although wesley clark made the correct noises, you could see by they reaction of the "interviewer" that as far as she was concerned he was speaking french, or some other foreign language. he made zero impression on her and, i would guess, most viewers.
he was definitely not effective at communicating the message. given that, i don't understand all the glee demonstrated here. he failed to accomplish what he went there to do.
unfortunately, half the problem is not wesley clark, the messenger, but the fact that the discussion has become so dangerously dumbed-down that slogans trump thoughtful analysis.
Am I the only one that doesn't think Mika Brzezinski is clueless here? I saw it more as a case of her putting the common assumption, that McCain actually does have foreign policy credibility, out there in front of Clark so he had the opportunity to address it directly and explicitly, kind of like how Jon Stewart will sometimes ask the obviously dumb question so his guest can get past it.
Of the few clips I've seen of her, she's always seemed pretty smart. Plus, I have to assume that with her dad being who he is and her brother being one of Obama's foreign policy advisors, she actually has at least a small clue about realistic foreign policy. Or maybe I'm just projecting because I have a raging crush on her.
As far as HAgel for VP- no. Whoever said that infantry sergeant is as combat leadership as you get is right but totally misses the point; the difference between combat tactics and foreign policy strategy is huge. If you want to figure out how to take and hold a position, ask an infantry sarge, but if you want to form a policy to deal with Iran, ask someone who knows about diplomacy, economic tools, etc. as well as military issues. And Hagel is way to conservative on the domestic front to have him first in line for the Oval Office
Just watched it, and he was excellent. The idea that he shouldn't be chosen because he's boring is ridiculous...he's supposed to *balance* the ticket, not take it to new levels of inspirational awesomeness.
I think the VP slot is overrated, other than it gives whoever it is plenty of face time. Clark is an excellent surrogate on the issue of the Iraq war and national security in general. I'm all for giving him more face time.
I agree with Karen Marie that Clark had the right message but was not effective at getting it across. He needs to learn to convey his basic point in one sentence. He can elaborate on that in additional sentences, but he needs to keep circling back to that one sentence. That's the only hope you have that the listener will actually remember your point.
For what it's worth I think that one sentence should be something like: "John McCain has exactly the same amount of foreign policy experience as John Kerry." Both served in Vietnam and both served in the Senate, that's all.
This addresses the subtext of the the McCain foreign policy strength, too, which is that he is "tough enough" to protect us, by comparing him to Kerry. And we all know that Kerry is a wind-surfing frenchman and not a real man.
Comments closed June 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
'But... but... but... this is John McCain you're talking about here... You're questioning his experience in national security leadership??? That's unpossible!'
Posted by El Cid | June 15, 2008 4:31 PM