Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gen. Wesley K. Clark appeared together at the Clinton Global Initiative Summit in 2005. (Photo: Handout/Getty Images)In a conference call plagued with technical problems today, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy for president.
“She’s a remarkable person. She’s had incredible experiences; she’s smart; she’s done her homework,” he said.
General Clark, who served as NATO commander in her husband’s administration, ran an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination in 2004. Speculation surrounded his intentions for 2008: He vowed not to make 2004’s mistake of announcing too late (a mistake some fear Fred D. Thompson has repeated on the G.O.P. side), but then never revealed his intentions one way or the other, passively removing himself from the running — until now.
Nonetheless, General Clark ran as a credible critic of the war in 2004, and he remains a popular figure in the anti-Iraq war movement, serving on the board of advisers of the VoteVets group.
Asked what role he will play in the campaign, General Clark said, “I haven’t considered anything like that.”
For her part, Mrs. Clinton spent as much time plugging General Clark’s new book, “A Time to Lead,” as he did singing her praises.
“I know you’re going to be busy with your book tour,” she said to him. Perhaps he’ll hit some bookstores in Iowa and New Hampshire.
2007
12:53 pm
Clark’s endorsement is no surprise — he has always flirted with the Arkansas gang. He hopes to get some crumbs off their table. With his support, HRC is no shoo-in.
— Posted by leo l. castillo
2007
1:12 pm
I guess he is supporting her because she is “white”
right. Why not a man?
This was the arguement used when Oprah endorsed Obama, so shouldn’t it be the same here?
— Posted by Lyn
2007
1:16 pm
“She’s a remarkable person. She’s had incredible experiences; she’s smart; she’s done her homework,” he said.
All true, technically, but not good enough for President. What matters is what you get from your experiences. Hillary, who used to be a passionate advocate for what she believed in, such as the “It Takes a Village” theme and healthcare, has sadly allowed her ideological detractors to win over. She has become timid, and more interested in power than in the issues. The campaign of this intelligent woman has turned into fluff. She spend most of her time doing what is easy: criticizing Bush and other Republicans, and staying away from specific policy statements that the media can scrutinize.
As a result, her campaign is all form and no substance, and the uncritical media is trumpeting away and not asking the tought questions, and they are contributing to the myth about her inevitability.
Obama, on the other hand, is showing courage and leadership, staking out specific positions that he believes in, and showing that he is not afraid of the political establishment. His intellectual brilliance is everywhere manifest, as is his passion for the issues.
We need someone with courage for President - not a coward who has been artificially inflated by the media, by a slew of controversial polls with huge margins of errors and other technical dificiencies, and by her own good speaking voice.
— Posted by Lioness
2007
1:17 pm
It’s nice to see a general say that you don’t have to be a soldier to qualify for the presidency.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
1:18 pm
Get ready Rudy, Hillary’s going to strike you out, 1,2,3, when the General Election comes.
— Posted by hacp
2007
1:30 pm
” …she’s done her homework”
Finally got to that NIE report, has she?
— Posted by gcee
2007
1:41 pm
Exciting news to all Hillary supporters ! General Wesley Clark has impeccable credentials. While you’re at it Magic Johnson gave a fundraiser party for Hillary at his home. LA times has coverage for the latter.
Two battle-tested democrats, different fields. Well done !
— Posted by Leticia P. Carlos
2007
1:47 pm
Clark could very easily turn out to be Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, should she take the White House.
— Posted by Thomas NYC
2007
1:48 pm
Great Endorsement for Senator Clinton. The General’s trust in Senator demonstrates the qualification and ability of Senator Clinton.
— Posted by Wendy
2007
1:48 pm
Clark endorses Clinton…. yawn….
— Posted by Cate
2007
1:58 pm
The two of them,Clinton and Clark,could put any original idea to sleep.
Try Obama if it is change you seek and passion you embrace.
— Posted by Bruce Taylor
2007
2:18 pm
Could be good ‘mutual admiration’ book club memebers-she can endorse his book across the campaign and he can endorse hers(past and future) and also her candidature.
Any case endorsement from a general will only add to her’pro-war’ baggage.
— Posted by Arun Mehta
2007
2:24 pm
Yawn! Technical difficulties or not, General Clark’s endorsement will not influence a lot of voters in my opinion. He started too late in ‘04 and and in ‘08 a lot of people don’t remember him.
Meaning no disrespect to a fine American, but I can’t help consider this a non-itme.
— Posted by Joe
2007
2:26 pm
It is Wesley Clark who came out in favor of Senator Clinton. I remember the election of ‘04, it was he who was then against the Iraq war and concerned about domestic issues and the loss of civil liberties. I am sure that Senator Clinton would make a fine president, but I think there is an ‘embarrassment’ of riches this year in the Democratic field and that is what it is making it difficult for me to focus on my choice yet.
Ruth Beazer
— Posted by Ruth Beazer
2007
2:36 pm
I was a huge Clark supporter in ‘04, and currently support Clinton. I hope she puts serious consideration into making him her Vice-President; he truly is a great man.
— Posted by Keith from MI
2007
2:37 pm
Oh, what a big surprise, not. Let’s remember that the only reason Clark ran before was that the Clintons asked him to oppose Howard Dean.
Think we’ve forgotten that Hillary? Guess again.
— Posted by janet
2007
2:41 pm
I guess the former president called in his chips on this one. Sen. Clinton really angered people with her questioning of Gen.Petraeus. Gen. Clark would be a logical endorsement. He is liked by the democrats. However, Clark will be looking for business favors should Clinton get the Oval office. This is the big turn off for me concerning Clinton. She has to rely too much on her husband. Without Bill, would she be where she is today on her on merits? With her questioning of Petraeus she showed that she could put a dagger in the heart of a military man. However, hes not allowed to fight back. Can she do that with someone that is allowed like say a political opponent? The jury is still out.
— Posted by cliff jones
2007
3:08 pm
General Clark has picked the right horse in our ” All American Futility. ” Mrs. Clinton understands that her job is to ease us into the transition of a non-heroic debtor country.
She understands , as does Clark, that we are on the verge of a new paradigm where the lower middle class that produced generations of school teachers, cops, nurses, and career army non-coms has dissolved into the upper lower class. This means that lower middle class respectabilty is a thing of the past and 45% of us live only day to day with no hope for a tidy retirement or any form of economic stability.
The reason we can not make recruiting goals is that the lower middle class that provides the cannon fodder has dried up.
We will soon have only three classes, the super rich who hire the upper middle class to control the rest of us. Hillary knows this and this is why we should follow Clark`s lead and support her.
She may make the chains being forged in Peking a litle easier for 80% of us to wear.
Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee, Florida
— Posted by Charles B. Tiffany
2007
3:28 pm
Dear General Clark,
I supported you in 2004. I made phone calls for your campaign. I wrote heartfelt letters to voters in other states. I was signed up to be a delegate for you at the convention. I believed that you were a statesman, not a politician.
I just learned that you have endorsed HIllary Clinton for President. I simply cannot believe that you would support her based on merit - not when Barack Obama stands for everything I thought you believed in and wanted for this country, and more. I have no choice, therefore, but to believe that your endorsement was politically based. I am very disappointed. I have lost my respect for you.
Please remove me from all your mailing lists and from my previous involvement in Wes Pac.
Sincerely,
— Posted by Nancy M.
2007
3:33 pm
One can equally ask whether Bill would have become president without Hillary.
Either way, it’s tough to fill all that airtime after Q: “General, do you have a military solution to the political vacuum in Iraq?” A: “No.”
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
3:55 pm
Good for you General, as a former supporter of yours i am not going to vote for her no matter how. Please remove me from your mailing list and i shouldn’t have expected any better from Arkansas’ gang.
Thank you for your service to our country but i have my own mind; I am voting for other candidate that is not named Clinton.
— Posted by Topyankee
2007
4:18 pm
where are all the obama fan boys who were guaranteeing that Clark would endorse Barack?
Oh - pretending that this was inevitable or some shafy deal…lol!
Let me tell ya - Id rather have a true blue military hero and rhodes scholar endorse my choice then 200 tv talk show hosts.
(talk about yawn! I mean lets face it Opthe Oprah show aint Charlie Rose!)…
I mean get we get more shallow?
— Posted by dem dem
2007
4:20 pm
I hope General Clark understands that averaging his credibility with Senator Clinton’s drops his quotient down by half.
(And I, too, am requesting off his list.)
— Posted by Carmen Cameron
2007
4:20 pm
I don’t understand this, I expected better from Clark.
— Posted by disappointed
2007
4:22 pm
Mark my words, Wesley Clark is endorsing Hillary only because it is the Yellow Brick Road to being a “somebody” again. She will owe him big-time, dazzle the Hillbillies, and be a pouting object to those who are bashing the military.(Cover all the bases, Hil.) Check out his nonsteller record about his NATO work, his medicocre tour as Southern Commander, and his political expertise in obtaining these posts. Experience, sure, but of what quality???
— Posted by Virginia
2007
4:26 pm
Lost Petraeus, gained Clark
The dragon lady is hitting her mark.
Steady as she goes, people remark.
Her mind, her mien, her vital spark
Will lead this country out of the dark.
— Posted by Maya Teague
2007
4:33 pm
Good grief! Get over it.
Obama has Oprah and Chris Tucker, while Hillary has Gen. Wesley Clark and Quincy Jones. Edwards has the unions. What are you grousing about?
— Posted by Maya Teague
2007
4:43 pm
General Clark participated in the successful American war on Serbia for creating refugees.
One hopes that someday it will be possible for Iraqis to return to Iraq as it was for Kosovars to return to Kosovo.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
5:00 pm
To “Virginia”:
Stop it.
We can have a civil discussion about our disagreements ONLY if we refrain from character assassination.
Vilifying the opposition has become far too “acceptable.”
It is an unfortunate tendency in our country’s public discourse that needs to be rejected.
And I, for one, reject it.
— Posted by Carmen Cameron
2007
5:06 pm
Clark’s endorsement signals the end of the campaign and the start of governance. I hope he did attach a quid pro quo to his endorsement. He is needed as a SecDef of SecState. As an idependent voter I think its funny that people care what Oprah or Magic Johnson think. Oprah and Magic are great entertainers and cultural icons in their own right, but none of them know what its like to run a war. General Clark is the real deal.
The talent in Democratic party is incredible now. As an independent, the intellectual and practial energy there is very appealing to me. The world needs a team that includes the Clintons, Obama (an amazing VP choice if there ever was one), Clark (SecDef), a Richardson (State yes different idiology is good) with the financial skills of a Rubin and economic insight of a Sachs. It will take talented and experienced folks like them many years to rectify the US from the blatant stupidity, greed, econmonic imbalance and mismanagement that now defines the American Ideal.
Dems - be careful about too much infighting please. Many of us independents are putting our faith in you to take back the country and end this 7 (8 EVENTUALLY!) year Bush-inspired nightmare.
Thank you General.
— Posted by Sean
2007
5:12 pm
It’s amazing that such a ‘Liberal Rag” like the NY Times gets so many Right Wing posts. As for Clark being ‘political’ he’s not just a General, which takes a lot of political savy, HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT!
I liked Clark from 2004 and like it or not Hillary will get the nomination. As much as middle America will hate voting for a woman, a person of color? So it will be the lesser of two evils again, Hillary or anyone from the GOP. Clark as VP of Sec of Defense? I have no problem with either.
— Posted by Patrick nyc
2007
5:13 pm
Excellent choice for an excellent person on this very excellent website. Down with bashers.
— Posted by Tom
2007
5:39 pm
#15
Well said. While I currently do not support Clinton, Wes Clark as V.P. would be a great addition to which ever Democratic gets the nod.
— Posted by James White
2007
5:41 pm
This endorsement is a disappointment. I don’t know why Clark is doing it. Let’s remember that Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before she voted to authorize the Iraq war (and then she ignored Sen Bob Graham who tried to tell all the Senators—search for “What I Knew Before the War”). She did what was politically easy at the time, and she will do it again. Clark’s positions are so much more consistent than Hillary’s; I must sadly conclude that Clark wants a post in a Clinton administration, and since he has recently become part of the MSNBC staff, he will use his appearances to promote her (the Clintons are good campaigners, that’s for sure). We need a change. We need Barack.
— Posted by Joseph
2007
5:55 pm
Good for General Clark. Mrs. Clinton is exactly as he described her.
But don’t you just love the folks on this blog with the effrontery to pick her running mate and her cabinet for her?
I hope she does NOT pick Obama as her vice presidential running mate. And I would be very, very surprised if she did. In the first place, she doesn’t need him; she can win without him on the ticket. Secondly, Obama has a built in set of negatives that he cannot overcome. Just look at his standing in the polls. He stands where he was shortly after announcing his candidacy, and this despite a ga-ga media that spins him daily. The fact that Obama is stuck while Mrs. Clinton forges ahead appears in few of the news stories and certainly is overlooked by many on this blog, among others. Simply put, Obama is a weak candidate.
In the last go ’round, one of the biggest mistakes John Kerry made was giving in to the noisy John Edwards crowd and putting Edwards on the ticket. Like Obama, Edwards is a weak candidate. He contributed zilch to the Kerry campaign, failing indeed to carry his own state. Mrs. Clinton is slated for a landslide victory and the last thing she needs at this stage is a bunch of over hyped folks pushing Obama at her as Edwards was pushed at Kerry. Instead of an immature, inexperienced individual like Obama on her ticket, Mrs. Clinton would be well served with a serious, well-respected individual with strong defense and national security credentials, among other things. Perhaps Obama’s time will come, perhaps it will not, but it is NOT now. And Mrs. Clinton should NOT be pushed by anyone into having to make a decision as to whether or not he’s on the ticket. I would hope Obama would settle the matter once and for all by announcing that he is NOT interested in being a candidate for vice president. Whether or not that will happen is anyone’s guess, however; Obama has proven himself unpredictable if nothing else — a smiling, fawning, fast-stepping flibberdegibbet who apparently holds no serious conviction of any sort and whose campaign has been one serious mistake after another. Mrs. Clinton should not be pressured into picking up the pieces in the mess he’s made and the mess he continues to make.
Folks, if you want a Republican landslide in a Democratic year, then, yessir, Obama is your man.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinto has yet one more distinguished endorsement. General Clark is presidential material himself, which says a lot for her as well as for him.
— Posted by Inquirer
2007
6:14 pm
# 28 Steve Bolger:
Without the NATO’s incursion, led by Gen. Clark, into Serbia, there would be fewer Kosovo Albanians today to return to Kosovo; they were being exterminated. I find your attack on Clark to be unfair to the memory of all those who died during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Clearer than in the conflict as a whole, there is really not much of a discussion about whether it was a good idea for Clark to intervene in Kosovo. It was the correct humanitarian action, if you know the facts. In the 92-95 conflicts, there is less of a consensus, but the later Kosovo conflict is viewed unanimously within NATO as the right move. It may have been incorrectly carried-out, but it was the right answer.
I believe that Wesley Clark is a good man, as he successfully stopped the bloodshed in Kosovo, which stands in clear contrast to the situation in Iraq, to which you compared it. That you even compare the two is completely unfair and an insult to a good man and a thankful Kosovo Albanian population.
————
As far as Clark’s endorsement goes, I think it’s good for Clinton, but it probably is fairly unimportant for most people. I’m an Obama backer myself and it’s not going to change my mind, no matter how much I respect him.
———
And finally, a general question for all you who think Clark is just playing politics with his endorsement, hoping for something from Clinton. Why wouldn’t he just back Obama or Edwards then, hoping for a post in one of their respective administrations?
I have one thought as to the possible answer, which is that he’s banking on Clinton winning. Anyone else have any ideas? I’m curious.
— Posted by John in SF
2007
6:19 pm
The NYT has an amazingly cool interactive tool that you can study the campaign contributions of the candidates… see here…
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008_EG_FINANCES .html
Mrs. Clinton raises the majority of bucks in the $ 2300 category… very weak on the small donations… she has probably maxed out her big dollar donors… she has Hsu’d em up!
Mr. Obama is just the opposite… very strong in the $ 200 and less category…
Check it out and have some fun my fellow political junkies…
— Posted by Cate
2007
6:21 pm
To Inuirer. Obama is a weak candidate because he has only a big mouth, but no subatance to back his talking up. Hillary will win the nomination and the general election not only because she is smart, does her homework, but also because she is The Best candidate among all those candidates, more and more Americans appreciate that now.
— Posted by ps Tampa, FL
2007
6:30 pm
Although people find it easier to bash other democrats, I can understand their passion. I whole-heartedly support Hillary and know she will win. But I will not trash other democratic candidates - it is hard enough fighting the republicans. I understand politics and its stark realities. But it is exciting too and we hope to be part of history when our elected candidate gets to change the country and the world.
So to Maya #27 and Carmen Cameron,#29, I raise my glass to you both for always putting forth the effort towards a civilized debate - CHEERS!!!!!
— Posted by Leticia P. Carlos
2007
6:34 pm
Hope all of those who really think Obama has the goods and is “above” politics saw today’s Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20 07/09/14/AR2007091402254.html?referrer=emailarticlepg
Clark is probably the biggest endorsement any candidate has received so far- he is an courageous, intelligent and thoughtful man who would not do this lightly nor for political gain- I worked for him during the NH primary-he was one of the few candidates to agree to matching funds-Eli Segal, who died last year, was one of the most amazing men (welfare to work program/Americorps) in politics (Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton) was Clark’s campaign manager-He later told me that Clark was one of the most honorable men he’d met in politics- that was a major compliment coming from one of the most admired men in public service.
— Posted by veritas
2007
6:45 pm
I’m not shocked but I AM disappointed in the General. I thought he wanted EXPERIENCE?
Hillary has only a husband that use to be a President, and oh, she’s a senator. I don’t call that experience.
All I can pray for is, that Hillary is half as smart as Clark says she is and that she selects HIM for her VP.
— Posted by Connie Manes
2007
6:46 pm
Inquirer:
Obama would never agree to be on the same ticket as Hillary. The two dislike each other and, most importantly, have nothing in common.
Besides, Obama is not the type of person to play second fiddle to anyone, let alone to such a relatively inferior candidate as Hillary.
— Posted by lioness
2007
6:51 pm
Let’s be objective. This endorsement IS big for Clinton. And I speak as a Biden supporter. It burnishes once again her national defense credentials in a way that no other candidate — Democrat or Republican — can claim to date. And I suspect that the people posting here in opposition to Clinton are well aware of that. I’m not necessarily thrilled about it, but Clinton, if she indeed has maneuvered for this endorsement, continues to demonstrate how savvy she is politically. I’ve accepted the inevitability of her nomination and I’m moving more toward the inevitability of her winning next November.
— Posted by Sam
2007
6:51 pm
Thank you Gen. Clark. Senator Clinton is indeed a world class citizen, and a woman of substance. Having her in the White House is getting back America to the path of glory that has been lost as a result of war without a reasonable purpose and vision. Gen. Clark, please get behind her as we all get prepared to win the election next year.God bless you all.
— Posted by Idowu
2007
7:01 pm
I like Gen Clark and I like Hillary. As a democrat and a liberal, I can support any one of the candidates that have a chance for the nomination, but wouldn’t it be GREAT and isn’t it TIME that we had a woman running? Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ms. President. Maybe we could really get out of the mess we are in now with an intelligent, competent woman as our head executive. Shame on America if it really thinks a woman could not be elected!!!!
— Posted by Carol Lee
2007
8:14 pm
#29 “Stop it”? Civilized discourse” Hey I’m all for it…but I see nothing honorable about denying the facts! If I appeared harsh, I am sorry, but Clark’s resume was not that impressive at NATO, and for those who credit him with single handedly slaying the dragons, they are just plain wrong!!It is a joint effort! (It’s called Joint Chiefs of Staff, for a reason.)! I know of what I speak from personal “experience.” Yes, he ran for President, as have many persons through the years, but he wss roundly defeated! He uses the excuse that he entered “too late”…Well, there are those who apply that to Thompson. I agree with #36 on the clever political move of Clark in attaching himself to what he believes will be a winning ticket. I didn’t say the man was stupid I just see him as a politically savvy, and cunning, former general who knows where his bread is buttered. That’s the accusation Hillary made to Petreeus, isn’t it? So,Carmen, it’s not really bad to squelch misinterpretatons, is it?
— Posted by Virginia
2007
8:23 pm
“I’m not necessarily thrilled about it, but Clinton, if she indeed has maneuvered for this endorsement, continues to demonstrate how savvy she is politically. I’ve accepted the inevitability of her nomination and I’m moving more toward the inevitability of her winning next November. - Sam”
This is a good summary in general, I think of what Clinton’s campaign and her support have been founded upon. I don’t want a candidate who is good at political maneuvering. I want a candidate who actually takes the lives of Americans and the problems we face seriously. The primary should not be about coming to accept an “inevitable” candidate. Most of the problems of the last six years have occured because otherwise good people (like Clinton) stood by and let “inevitable” things happen. Clinton is only inevitable because people think she is. Wouldn’t it be something if people actually supported a candidate they were excited about?
— Posted by erin
2007
8:29 pm
Gen. Clark just lost my respect with his shameless “endorsement” of Hillary Clinton.
— Posted by Peter
2007
8:31 pm
Obama has little experience and his major accomplishments are limited to the Illinois Senate. Yet when he preaches about how America needs bipartisanship and thoughtfulness (oh boy, nobody’s ever called for bipartisanship before) people just lap up his rhetoric. To me it borders on a cult of personality that ought not to exist in a democracy.
— Posted by Jeff
2007
9:08 pm
She just might be what the doctor ordered. The macho hardliners in the Middle East will have to answer to a fine, well-tempered, mild-mannered female US President.
A juggernaut with a long shelf life and incredible staying power through November 08, she no doubt will at last realize her old college fantasy of making a contribution, setting the country on its moral path once more and fighting for all the right causes.
I can taste a Hillary victory, a victory for all womankind as well.
Cheers to you too, Leticia!
— Posted by Maya Teague
2007
9:35 pm
Clinton promises a major position to Clark. Clark endores Clinton. Clinton hopes we forget her horrifying treatment of General Petraeus. Clinton campaign posts a bunch of supportive blogs. How transparent. How sad. Were you fooled?
— Posted by T. Ruth
2007
9:56 pm
As a questionnaire asked on the internet the other day….Does a celebrity endorsement make you more likely to vote for that candidate? 67% said NO, 23% said it DIDN’T MATTER, the rest 10% said MAYBE IT HELPS!
So I say, vote for OBAMA, the only candidate who understands where we need to go and the only one that reminds me of JFK, FDR and TR.
— Posted by jerry rubin
2007
10:11 pm
Hope all of those who really think Clinton is not as tainted as her husband saw today’s Washington Post article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20 07/09/15/AR2007091501386.html
As for Clark, didn’t he lose the last time he ran for the white house…a loser backing another loser…very insignificant.
— Posted by Emmy
2007
10:53 pm
Sean:
Well said.
Hillary will be our next president. For people who will be so angry for the result of the election that they will have a heart attack, Hillary will have the universal health care in place then to save you.
— Posted by wendy
2007
11:01 pm
She was married to a liar and she’s calling a true American Hero a liar.How Ironic.
— Posted by hawkeye
2007
11:15 pm
Arun Mehta,
“Any case endorsement from a general will only add to her’pro-war’ baggage.”
How do you figure that? General Clark opposed the war.
This is a great endorsement. General Clark will probably be the national security advisor to Hillary.
— Posted by MikeB
2007
11:44 pm
Just as Wesley Clark has absented himself from the Presidential race, so has Cynthia McKinney (Green Party choice), allowing Hillary to select Cynthia for the VP slot on the ticket. This is truly a dream ticket - adding spice to the VP debates as never before.
If some conspiracy prevents Hillary from choosing Cynthia, then the scenarios for cabinet positions reduce to these: Wesley Clark = Secretary of Defense; Cynthia McKinney = Secretary of State.
We need all supporters of Cynthia McKinney for the VP slot on Hillary’s ticket to speak up and to post their support on these blogs!
— Posted by Harrison Bentworth
2007
7:17 am
He is only looking for a job again with the Clintons. Not to worry - Clark didn’t help Kerry.
— Posted by Kay
2007
7:37 am
#52
I read the same poll and was not surprised, but to compare Obama to JFK, FDR and TR is just ridiculous.
Before you pounce, I do not support ANY one candidate at this time, but I am intrigued by several, and Obama is on that list.
— Posted by James White
2007
8:00 am
Clinton-Clark -priceless. He would be a great VP and ensure a fall victory against any Republican combination. Unless Sen. Nelson of Florida presence on the ticket would ensure a FL victory–please Sen. Clinton–for the sake of generations to come (the supreme court is in the balance this election, for real) select Wesley Clark as VP or Bill Nelson
— Posted by Solojake
2007
8:20 am
I really rooted for Clark to run. This is a sad day. Now Gore is my biggest hope. If he turns it down as well, then Hillary is clairly the best of the rest.
By far.
Gore(or Clinton)-Clark08!
— Posted by J. Henriksen
2007
9:18 am
No surprise here. He’s been “sleeping” with the Clintons for years. And he’s not anywhere near the stature of General Petraeus.Not even close.
— Posted by Joan
2007
9:42 am
Wes Clark is highly respected in the baby boomer crowd as well as college activists. He is a blue dog dem; and with this nomination puts the final nails in the coffin for her nomination. How this will relay to the overall voter next November time will see….we havent seen the last of General Clark; my guess is a VP or Sec. Defense or State job in his future; highly popular compared to someone lets say like Joe Biden.
— Posted by Robert
2007
10:35 am
Done her homework? She didn’t even read the intelligence report before voting to send our troops into Iraq!
— Posted by Ben
2007
11:08 am
This is a good development for Sen Hillary, currently my wife’s favorite choice for president. I’m listening to what she actually says rather than the emotional outbursts from her detractors. For example, in her vote to authorize the use of force, she said to the president it was not a vote to rush to war, to use the powers wisely and only as a last resort. She is usually left out of those who attack her for her vote.
Certainly she would have been a much, much better president than our current one, who has divided our country like no other president.
I am reserving my judgment on whether or not to actually vote for her, but I think her detractors are reacting emotionally rather than intellectually. Just my opinion.
— Posted by Marshal Phillips
2007
11:24 am
So, General Clark took all that military experience, looked at the candidates, and decided that Hillary Clinton would make the best Commander-in-Chief?
Nope - not buying it.
This endorsement reflects a roll of the dice for him as he sees best, but it is in no way a true endorsement.
— Posted by J.K. Bowman
2007
11:31 am
Whether Hillary read the entire intelligence report or not like many of her colleagues in the senate (both republican and democrat), she read the summary and the conclusions as well as many other sources for intelligence. It’s not like that intel report was the sole and only source for deciding on going to war.
Now we know that the intel was cherry picked anyway so what actualy difference does it make that she read the summary and conclusion rather than the entire report?
I might vote for Rudy, but fair is fair regarding Hillary!
— Posted by MikePost
2007
12:45 pm
What a non-story. Oprah has a house party ofr Obama which the press stifles the news. geb Wesley Who? oh yeah the general in the Clinton’s pocket comes out fo the woodwork to endorse a plutocrat for President and this is front page news.
Obama gets a blog on bad breath and Billary gets real news stories carefully planned to convey presidential gravity the way the times pretends the Clintons have “it”. Completely forgetting the debacle of having a polarizing and divisive spin artist sexaholic do nothing talk a lot President Billary Clinton I, in national office .
* Long long hard years for the American people and the lmiddle class…except for the new plutocrats and those who fell for the spin about Enron, World Com, health South and other corporate entities who profited at stake holder expense for those 8 long long years.
Now Billary Clinton aspires to be president II, based on smoke and mirrors. And false promises like Billary I made. Oh now we are going to reform health care, the while Robin Toner warns us it may not get done. What lowering expectations already so Billary won’t look like the liar s/he is if elected AGAIN?
Those statespeople with the courage to speak honestly, will, viison, integrity, a history of consensus building and and the savvy to be BRAVE in reaching out to all Americans, and conduct themselves in office MATURELY can be a good President. we don’t need a pedigree from the NY Times or the centrist plutcrat establishment.
I wish the Times wouldn’t marginalize the other candidates. Barack Obama has got my vote, and if i have to write in AGAIN i shall.
It ought to be obvious that marketing Billary is like trying to sell used cars…those “say anything to get elected Clintons and Bushes”: the same breed.Too bad the car has a ten million dollar self-glorifying label.
For my lifetime i pledge not to vote for the plutocrats’ choice shoved down our throats by the DLC and the corrupt media elite of this country: those who believe they can do what’s best for themselves in America by pre-packaging candidates instead of fairly covering their candidacies, those scorning the change-oriented populists we need to unite out troubled, riven led like sheep by group think nation.
I predict the media will use Edwards as a straw man to destroy Barack OIbama’s candidacy the same way they used Perot to scuttle Jerry Brown.
Then the Beltway gamblers will lay their crooked odds on a last minute bid to scuttle Edawrds as too leftist and make Billary the “centrist” ie rightwing status quo entitled classes’ protector.
But a REAL Leader a Mandela-like candidate, a rare individual like Obama can blow the Billaries and Bushes out of the water, if covered fairly by the media.
The news media in our nation would have derailed the candidacies of Abe Lincoln and FDR.
— Posted by Aminah Carroll
2007
12:53 pm
This country is so polarized.
I’d sure love to see a true Independant, a true third-party or no-party candidate with some campaign money and some actual clout…
… not one that would be simply “the black dude” or “the chick”.
If we’re gonna be split I wish we could be split more than one way. This bi-partisan polarization of our politics and our policies has to stop.
— Posted by Benry
2007
1:04 pm
“I don’t want a candidate who is good at political maneuvering. I want a candidate who actually takes the lives of Americans and the problems we face seriously.”
That is all well and good, erin, but is hard to say that Clinton does not share your values when a major figure such as Wes Clark endorses her.
— Posted by Dennis
2007
3:41 pm
By Jove, I’ve got it: there are two Hillary’s running for President; the “well-tempered, mild-mannered female” who will save all “womankind”…and the evil twin who was known for her rages, treating the White House Marines and Secret Service staff like lackys, and unable to “recall” significant activities of her past. Well, Bill told us we would get Two for One, now it looks like we could get Three for Two! It prompts me to be careful with my precious vote. As the saying goes: “Measure twice/thrice; cut once.”
— Posted by Virginia
2007
4:07 pm
I hope if Clinton wins that she considers Mr Clark for Secretary of Defense. He called the Iraq war correctly and has the experience to understand the position fully.
— Posted by lawrence
2007
4:52 pm
I have noticed a trend on different blogs that whenever Hillary gets good news there is a sudden flood of posters I refer to as “Hillary Haters”. This not only from the repub camp, but it appears from folks that claim to support Obama. This is not good for the dems in the long run, for these “Attack” statements can and most likely will be used against her in the 08 campaign, once she is chosen by the dems, btw, I have no doubt she will be their choice.
— Posted by lylepink
2007
7:04 pm
I can’t help but notice that the lion’s share of snarky comments are coming from posters who happen to be WOMEN. It seems that some women can’t stand to see another woman succeed. Think about what you are writing! Remember that our country is in a huge mess because of the current Bush administration
This article is about an endorsement. Can we please stay on topic?
— Posted by R. Joe Smallwood
2007
7:38 pm
I don’t get democrats … isn’t it more important to pick a candidate that can reach across and win over independents and seriously discontented moderate republicans??
Hillary is an very divisive candidate - those that dislike outnumber those who do like her — this is a serious error in judgment. Who cares that she can raise more money - she has little to offer those who aren’t already Hillary supporters. She has nothing to offer those outside of the party.
— Posted by Katy
2007
8:15 pm
#71:
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Hillary. You may not know it yet, but you might be blessed in the future, say the next 8 years, to know the goodness she is capable of.
I have never heard of those horrible “rages” and other aspersions you wantonly cast on her. You must be fond of Obama, for it is his fan base that habitually employs such vicious mudslinging.
#74, the ill will against Hillary from many women is indeed complex and puzzling. She has done no wrong toward them, and has championed women’s rights for as long as I can remember.
However, I am not a psychotherapist, so we’ll leave it at that. I am sure we all have a theory as to why that is, but mine shall remain unexpressed. It is maddening enough in this blog box.
— Posted by Maya Teague
2007
8:27 pm
Someone here mentioned the Magic Johnson endorsement that really is bigger in name than Clark. I like Clark too, but not as many people know him.
I heard someone else point out something strange. The 2 men with the most name recognition supporting her are her husband and Magic. And both cheated on their wives. I wonder if there is some strange sort of atonement going on.
— Posted by Ruth Bethinger
2007
8:43 pm
Maya, I am all for a qualified and non-selfserving woman toe be elected to President of the United States. But blind devotion to Hillary, just because she is a female is not rational. Just because she proclaims to be “for woman” is not proven by her rehoric, nor her personal life.
These are the very standards that are being placed on the male candidates. If we women are to be credible in our support for a woman for president, it should not be for her to “fulfill a college fantasy” or suffer the ridiculous assumption that we don’t support her because we can’t stand to see another woman succeed. And to be truthful, if you look back on the posters regarding these allegations, I’m sure you will agree that they are irresponible. You say you have never heard of Hillary’s “rages”. Check out your White House history. This discussion is germaine to the endorsement by Clark..”we are known by the company we keep”.
— Posted by virginia
2007
9:03 pm
A PS to my recent post. I don’t want a Santa Anyone for President of the United States! Flirting with Socialism in any form will only put women at risk for the bedroom/kitchen only life style. Just check out the track record of Russia and China.
— Posted by Virginia
2007
9:42 pm
Maya Teague (#76)
The stories about Hillary’s ill-temperment have always followed her around -she’s always had a rep as a ’strong demanding’ woman.
As for her champtioning women’s rights - well - really - in what regard? She is the product of Women’s Rights. And many young women these days resent being told they should vote for a woman because well because she’s a woman or that she should have some level of special consideration because she is a woman.
There are also a fairly large number of women (and men) who can’t forgive her for “letting” Bill cheat on her and then for staying with him - it’s not rational and it’s over-emotional but there it is.
Hillary is an overly divisive person - it’s not ill will - it is out-and-out dislike. There’s no getting past that. And if the Democrat Party want to get in 2008 they darn well better stop giving any candidate a “special Interest” category and instead start looking at a candidate that can actually start uniting the country - we’ll have been seriously divided for 8 years by 2008 - it’s harmful for the country. And the people are sick and tired of it.
— Posted by Katy
2007
12:35 am
She was married to a liar and she’s calling a true American Hero a liar. How Ironic. — Posted by hawkeye
True, but Bill Clinton lied about a few incidents of oral sex when he gave a deposition in a civil lawsuit. Bush and his administration’s lies have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including that of over 3,700 of our servicemen and women. Which lie do you think has caused more damage to our nation?
— Posted by Bea
2007
12:56 am
I wonder if you’d still be posting here after the primaries, when it’s all over and she is the nominee. What would you say then?
I suppose by that time you could be someone else, like Lady Godiva or Mean Hombre or whatever moniker you choose to masquerade under.
— Posted by Maya Teague
2007
1:05 am
Virginia and Katy, I think that you’re buying into the caricature that some people worked hard to create about Hillary. Why do you think that she is highly respected by her colleagues in the senate? It has become a cliche the stories of Republican senators who changed their perception of Hillary once they got to know her. Hardliners like Graham and Lindsey have even gone as far as apologizing to her for the terrible things that they had said when she was First Lady. In her office she has a picture that McCain gave her and he dedicated it to his “favorite traveling companion”. Whenever possible, she has crossed the aisle to work with Republicans on issues where they shared common ground. She’s also highly sought by senators of both parties to co-sponsor bills.
If you ever have a chance to meet her you’ll see a highly intelligent woman who is personable, laughs easily and has a great sense of humor. More importantly, in meetings she actually listens to people’s opinions. She tries to get as much expert information on an issue before making a thoughtful decision and that to me is important. I think that this country has seen enough empty bravado from the current resident in the White House. Disagree with her policies if you wish, but don’t make the mistake of misjudging this remarkable woman.
— Posted by Bea
2007
9:07 am
Even, Alan Greenspan won’t endorse Clinton
— Posted by Lek
2007
9:24 am
I am a woman, a Democrat and NOT FOR HILLARY.
— Posted by Sally
2007
9:30 am
I lost my page so I continue I am not for Hilary why? Because she represents to me what is wrong with Washington and is cunning,deseatful, smiles way to much,says what her audience wants to hear, but will not answer questions put to her with consise answers. She is vague on the important issues and I think she is a war monger. I really believe she is Bush in a skirt.
Bill gave us the worse desaster to hit this country every NAFTA, what do we have in store with her as far as foreign policy. Her Chinese connection is in Jail. I say no more. If it’s not Edwards for the Dems I will be looking at a third party or Republican.
— Posted by Sally
2007
2:44 pm
Leticia @ post 7
Although General Clark is a well respected military leader, it may be too early to rejoice about this endorsement.
I urge you to read the August 26, 2005 article by General Clark in the Washington Post entitled “Before It’s Too Late in Iraq” - see below for link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20 05/08/25/AR2005082501623.html
While the article contains what can be called diplomatic wisdom by comparison to the Bush policies, it also contains the following pronouncement - “it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq” - this was two years ago and the ensuing two years have not produced much more than several thousand more dead and maimed.
I am afraid this translates into a military coziness with continued involvement and further loss of life and international support. The only hope held out here is his belief that regional governments should be enlisted to deal with the mess we have made.
On the other hand, to draft General Clark to be her Vice-President would be a mistake since it would hurt her prospects and can be interpreted as reinforcing her pro-war image.
Cheers,
— Posted by Romulo
2007
2:47 pm
Lek @ post 84
I believe if you read today’s NYT article, that Greenspan praises Bill Clinton’s economic policies.
How this can be contrued to indicate lack of support is not evident to me.
Cheers,
— Posted by Romulo
2007
4:57 pm
to Bea #83 I do agree Hillary is a good po1itician, very competent, maybe even remarkable. And she is a fun “girl” (ah ah, her words, not mine). Let’s all “do lunch”!~However, I am not misjudging her. I do know her and people who have worked for her and with her. My remarks were not a caricature. Patronizing me does not advance a defense of her policies. She is what she is! And, as evidenced by her own writings. and in addition to her personal character plus and minuses, she is a Progressive Era Socialist. She has been through the years, which will be evident in her coming HillaryCareII. She has abysmal judgement in the people she allows around her(Hsu, Chung, Wesley Clark and now Sandy Berger for starters!)A woman for president, YES! Just because she is female, NO!
— Posted by Virginia
2007
6:08 pm
#80 Virginia et al:
“Blind devotion to Hillary just because she is a woman” is a laughable stab at inferior logic. My cranium is firmly attached to my head from where all this certitude emanates.
If I were beholden to the female race, I would be excusing you and other female Hillary antagonists for your sweeping and inaccurate characterizations of the lone woman candidate - just because you are female.
Perhaps it is time to examine this enigma. Could it be that some of us don’t like her for the very same reason - because she is a woman? And God forbid one who dares to be adequate for the highest office, one who is more ambitious and intellectually formidable than the multitude - and in so doing, mirrors our own failings and frailties?
Is there a psychotherapist in the house?
— Posted by Maya Teague
2007
6:24 pm
Katy @ 80
I am no fan of HRC and can fully understand why strong independent women would find it insulting to be prodded into voting for Hillary only on the basis of gender.
HOWEVER, if you truly disagree with those that as your statement quotes “women (and men) who can’t forgive her for “letting” Bill cheat on her and then for staying with him”, you are not saying so and furthermore without such a disclaimer you are throwing a red herring on the table.
I think it behooves us to avoid the “smear tactics” of our devil in residence Rove, otherwise, we cannot claim moral ascendancy and furthermore, doing so only serves to endorse rather than refute such behaviour.
In my opinion anyone criticizing Hillary for Bill’s infidelities is clutching at straws and is not much more than empty suit themselves. Bill is not running, Hillary is.
Cheers,
— Posted by Romulo
2007
6:37 pm
#91: You said it well. The folks that oppose Hillary will have another eight years to hammer her while she is in The White House. Enjoy.
— Posted by lylepink
2007
1:42 pm
Gen Clark’s support of Mrs Clinton should be view as purely political with aspirations of advancing in the democratic party. Gen Clark has gone beyond supporting of the leading democratic candidate; now has become her puppet. Supporting someone who has shown such disdain for the Armed Forces and its members nothing short of appalling. Gen Clark’s memory must be failing him. The morale and quality of life in the military under the Clinton Administration was very low. There were not funds to maintain or replace equipment or to support the family programs then. Gen Clark’s support of this candidate may help elect someone who holds a lower opinion of the military than what President Clinton held.
— Posted by Thomas Tellson