« Why George Lucas Sucks | Main | Morning Awesome »
August 16, 2008
No Sir. I Don't Like It.
General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.
General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.
Well that settles that. Big, big mistake. The only remaining acceptable VP choice at this point is Governor Sebelius. I can't repeat enough how awful a choice Senator Bayh would be.
Filed under: Barack Obama || Democratic Convention 2008 || Democrats || DNC 2008
Posted By Bob Cesca | August 16, 2008 4:26 PM
Comments
As much as I would be cool with Sebelius. I want Clark on the ticket. I don't buy it that Clark was told to basically piss off. I think this is being taken out of proportion. Also, I am hoping for a head fake here. There has been no news of other vp candidates being treated as such. So why the extreme treatment of Clark. I think its to get people off his scent. So much of the netroots has been pushing for Clark, and now this claim. Seems a little to perfect of a dismissal. The Obama camp is too organized and smart to make a move like this.
Posted by: KidDynamo0
at August 16, 2008 5:00 PM
I hope you're right, KidD. If you're not, though, then this move is a huge slap in the face to both Clark & his supporters. He's been actively raising money and support for Obama and did what everyone hoped Clinton would do after the primaries - thrown his heart into unifying the party. He doesn't deserve a "no place for him at the convention". A prominent retired military man? A wounded Vietnam Vet? The former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO? No place at the convention? WTF??
Posted by: ceu
at August 16, 2008 5:27 PM
It will be another in a string of disappointments from Obama. I agree, it would be great if KidD were right, but somehow I doubt it.
Obama seems to be tripping over his own ass to get to some perceived "center," which translates to pandering to fundie right wing wackos.
Posted by: dusty59
at August 16, 2008 6:15 PM
If the sole reason Clark is excluded (provided it's true) is because of the perceived backlash they think they'll get due to his comments on Face The Nation, then I'm going to be really pissed off.
I am really tired of placating to an opposition party that has done nothing for the betterment of this country all the while bullshitting the public in trying to convince them that they are the ones who stand for family values, fiscal responsibility and experts at national security. I am fucking tired of it.
And more than that, I'm disgusted by the Democratic party of which I belong, falling for the same song and dance every fucking time and not having the backbone to stand up to these fuckwads and call them out on the mat like Clark did.
Don't be afraid to speak the fucking truth! 65% of the nation agrees with you, you idiots! If Obama picks Bayh, we're fucked! Talk about a letdown!
Posted by: Broadway Carl
at August 16, 2008 6:45 PM
Look this all goes back to the FISA decision in everyone's mind. He fucked up on FISA, but he never headed to the "center." That is a bullshit meme the media was pushing. If he doesn't pick Clark there is no reason for us on the left to go bat shit crazy over. Unless he picks Mitt Romney on something crazy like that. When we start saying things like "It will be another in a string of disappointments from Obama" we are setting ourselves up for disaster. I think it would be really odd that the night when the theme is "Securing America" they spit in Clark's face by telling him to piss off. Like I said Obama did screw up on FISA but this is not in the "long string of disappointments." That is a gigantic overstatement. When we practically castrate Obama for doing something we don't agree with (before he even does it) and praise him overwhelmingly when he just does something right we bring on the talk of "mindless drowns syndrome" and the like from the jackass on the far right. Lastly, I am not saying that he will definitely pick Clark, but to think he would just spit in the man's face is ludicrous. Just don't jump to the conclusion that whatever is put out there is real or accurate at all. Just wait and see.
P.S. - This is why I always tell people that GW Bush changed America, mentally, for years to come. We have had a president and administration that have been so bad that we think our people would be just the same. Would Bush screw a major figure in his party in public. Absolutely. He has been killing off logical folks in his party left and right for 8 years. This tends to seep into the mentality of some of us on the left. We think that this behavior is now the norm and that our guys are the same. Just like Bob has his meme on the BBQ Media, this is mine..."The Dubyaism of the left." We need to realize that the worst in certain politicians is not there in all politicians.
Posted by: KidDynamo0
at August 16, 2008 6:57 PM
Seems very uncharacteristic of the Obama campaign.
A Clinton-palooza convention, plus a Bayh VP just might insure a McCain presidency.
Posted by: johnk
at August 16, 2008 7:07 PM
Clark, Bayh and others are smokescreens to shield Obama's VP from premature media scrutiny. He's going to go with a very safe pick: Sebelius.
As far as I can remember, Clark is a war criminal for his role in the bombing of non-military targets in Bosnia. But assume he's not: do you really want a military person as VP? Doing so would undercut Obama's national security qualifications. The GOP would say "See? Even Obama knows he's not qualified to lead but Clark is."
Better to have Clark in the cabinet - SOD? - than as VP. And no senators as VP - the Dems need every one of them.
There's an outside chance that Obama would pick a congressperson. If so, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it were Kucinich.
Posted by: FrictionSoul
at August 17, 2008 12:03 PM
I'd be shocked if it was Kucinich - happy, but shocked.
Posted by: ceu
at August 17, 2008 12:55 PM
"do you really want a military person as VP? Doing so would undercut Obama's national security qualifications."
What qualifications? He doesn't have any special experience in national security. Better to bring in a VP candidate who can trump McSame's military record.
Posted by: Scrum
at August 17, 2008 1:39 PM
Late in responding: KD; what is perchance "mindless drowns syndrome?"
Is it when we get to drown someone who mindlessly agrees with everything Obama does?
Posted by: dusty59
at August 17, 2008 2:42 PM
I don't understand all the Clarkmania here and on other liberal blogs. Implicit in all your enthusiasm is that you buy the Republican version of reality, which is that we really need a career military man in the White House. Your own Democratic "Big Daddy." Democrats are not "man enough" to run the executive branch unless there's a soldier holding the President's hand, the thinking seems to be.
Also, I'm surprised that you all assume that Steve Clemons may not have been "pwn3d" on this newsflash from an "office." Clemons really offers no convincing evidence of anything as the entire story is couched in deliberately ambiguous PR terms that are very open to overinterpretation. The Clemons story may be a scoop, but it also may be a scoop of crap.
Posted by: StuporMundi
at August 17, 2008 2:57 PM



