Diatribune - middle east - Comments

I don't think it's even

epppie — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:06:12 -0600

I don't think it's even clear that violence has been reduced. US military deaths have been reduced (Thank God) via payment of protection money, and REPORTING HAS BEEN REDUCED!!

That may be a result down

Tom Rinaldo — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:15:11 -0600

That may be a result down the road and the fact that Clark is supporting Hillary now can only make it easier for her to consider him. Clark would be an excellent choice for her because he can help her in multiple critical ways. He reassures those who assume Clinton is too liberal for them, since those people often honor a career of military service, and Clark reassures those who assume Clinton is too centrist for them, since Clark has a solid following among progressive netroots activists who trust his integrity.

But remember Clark endorsed John Kerry immediately upon deciding he would not be the Presidential nominee also. In both cases I think he felt he was helping at that point to shore up the almost certain eventual nominee. While I think Clark would be open to serving in a Clinton Administration I don't think that an ambition to do so was the motivating factor. I give greater weight to Clark wanting to lock in now having policy influence with the likely future President. I realize those two goals can overlap, but there is a difference in emphasis. I think Clark's concerns about spreading wars trumps all else here, however he is able to do so.

You are right that Clark's lack of sufficient inside political connections hampered his ability to mount a potentially winning presidential campaign this year. Clinton has those in spades, so your point is valid that through her he still may be able to influence American policy where alone he could have fallen short.

My own thought with the

WayneNight — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:48:29 -0600

My own thought with the Clark endorsement - though your idea could be correct as well - is that he's angling for the VP slot.

HRC has made a point, during her time in the U.S. Senate, of establishing a "relationship" with, and reaching out to, U.S. generals. This may be an attempt to "head off" the intevitable claims that she's too much of a "dove" to be president (studies show that female candidates, regardless of their actual positions, are viewed by the electorate as "less willing to use force"). It may be a genuine attempt to broaden her horizons on defense policy. Or, it may be both. But, either way, she has been working to be "chummy" with many high ranking military officials.

Wes Clark would fit into this perfectly. Who better as a Vice-Presidential nominee for someone who has been actively trying to reach out to generals than a candidate who is a retired general? At the same time, having Wes Clark, a former military man, in the VP slot might "balance out" the idiotic "women won't use the military" bias that's seen in much of the voting public.

They actually serve each others ambitions well. Clinton needs a military figure to balance out gender bias in the U.S. electorate. However, with her experience in the U.S. Senate, and her experience as first lady, she doesn't need a VP nominee to make up for a defiency in political experience. Clark, on the other hand, lacks political experience, and needs someone with a few elections under their belt to "latch onto" to help bring him to higher office. Clinton would provide just that.

I'm certainly not ready to predict that Clark will be the VP nominee next year (nor, for that matter, am I willing to say with 100% certainty that Clinton will win the nomination, even though I think it's likely, at this point). However, he'd be a good VP for any Dem candidate - and he'd be an excellent VP nominee for Clinton.

Thanks for this balanced

Jacob Freeze — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:00:50 -0600

Thanks for this balanced article, which may soothe some savage progressive beasts like me. Holbrooke and Clark could probably keep the toy boat of state from sailing into the sewer, and all might yet be well.

On one hand, it's

epppie — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:07:32 -0600

On one hand, it's understandable that the Germans, and we, were and are, seduced and paralysed by propaganda.

On the other hand, propaganda couldn't work
if we didn't let it.

The abandonment of the rule

kerry — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:43:07 -0600

The abandonment of the rule of law is the fault of the American people just like it was the fault of the German people during the Nazi rule. The American people have either sat by indifferently or worse completely co-opted the "unitary executive". There should be a firestorm demanding the impeachment of these criminals. Instead there is idle passivity. Even the most progressive democrats can't come together on impeachment. Impeachment is the only defense to the rule of law currently available.

Edwards is more comfortable

Feral Cat — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:07:05 -0600

Edwards is more comfortable talking to his peers, a jury of his peers. He enjoys give and take and a chance to make a passionate plea. I understand that. Those forums on the other hand are not real debates between two people. Just a lot of gotcha questions with too little time to answer with thought.

Bascially, CEO types like businessman Brian Schweitzer like to run things like a CEO. They like unitary power. They want to call all the shots. It might be more efficient, but it's not democracy and it flirts with fascism. The Nazis were very efficient. We had our fling with a CEO president and vice president and it was a disaster. Time to return to the rule of law and by people who know what that means and also that it should apply equally to every class of citizen.

Heh ;-) Interesting point -

Mentarch — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:30:44 -0600

Heh ;-)

Interesting point - and curious indeed!

Join us at the Pink House in

CODEPINK — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:37:14 -0600

Join us at the Pink House in Washington! www.codepinkalert.org/pledge

Great point eppie!

CODEPINK — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:35:09 -0600

Great point eppie!

Edwards, Kucinich, Gore -

epppie — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:49:09 -0600

Edwards, Kucinich, Gore - those are the candidates I take seriously. Edwards seems incredibly comfortable and eloquent when dealing with audiences one on one, but extremely uncomfortable during debates.

The pro-business Dems (as if other Dems are antibusiness, but it's how they see things, or seems to be) seem to have a stranglehold on the party even locally and seem to fear people power.

That's the way it is here in

Feral Cat — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:52:49 -0600

That's the way it is here in Montana. We spend more time fighting the DLC business moderates in our party than the Republicans. The more liberal you are the more you get grief. They even went so far as to infiltrate progressive county committees and fill them instead with yes men.

For me the way out of this mire is to reclaim the Democratic party from the Eisenhower Republicans who have taken it over. And for my money, that means electing John Edwards who will turn Washington upside down. He was here in Montana last night and drew almost 1000 people with no publicity. His speech was electrifying filled with passion and urgency for us "to get off our couches" and do something.

Power to the people. See you in Washington

It's amazing, but Rove is

epppie — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:37:26 -0600

It's amazing, but Rove is finally right about something. The Dems have been eager to demonize their base, going back decades. The GOP has never done that, that I know of.
We see it today. Even socalled progressive Dems would rather hunt down "extremists" in the party, than take on the warmongers, faux Dems and Blue Dogs who sell the party out to the GOP again and again and make close elections that we just barely lose or just barely win a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a country where the vast majority agrees with Dem positions.

I notice that I haven't seen

epppie — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:27:49 -0600

I notice that I haven't seen any apologies from the "serious people" in the blogosphere as more and more "tin foil" stuff looks less and less tin foil.

"my theory was supposedly

Mentarch — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:08:46 -0600

"my theory was supposedly "debunked" and forgotten... Unfortunately for all of us, no one's laughing now as we all realize that an attack on Iran, unless Bush and Cheney are removed from office, is all but inevitable!"

Too true, too true - sadly enough (sigh)