Sunday, August 17, 2008

Obama's war on the Democratic Party

General Wesley Clark -- who should have run for president this season, and who deserved serious consideration for the Veep spot -- won't be seen at the Democratic National Convention. The Obama folk have told the General to go elsewhere. While some suspect that this move constitutes a "head fake" to hide the choice of Clark as VP, most believe that the snub is genuine.

Here's the reaction of one pro-Obama blogger:
Might one mention that Wesley Clark earned his way to the rank of 4-star general? That he did command, not just a unit, but an entire battle group during wartime? Successfully? That he outranks McCain, out-performed McCain, and has much more serious foreign policy expertise than McCain? (For example, he knows that Czechoslovakia is no longer an independent nation; that Al Quaeda is Sunni while Iran is Shia; that Afghanistan and Iraq do not share a common border...
Clark would also make an excellent Secretary of Defense. Would he take the job after this snub?

Just what, exactly, does Barack Obama gain by insulting yet another segment of the Democratic party? Does he really think that his mythical appeal to Republicans and independents can make up for a growing deficit among Dems?

Obama is the "backpacker" candidate. A backpacker wants to keep his tent as small as possible.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joe,
Indeed it comes from a very good source. Some of my family is in the military and they do not like Clark
"too much of an opportunist". However I like him and I think he would bring a lot to help Obama make the right decisions. I was hoping he would be considered for VP as well.

Anonymous said...

Obama's a Republican. It's the only explanation that comes close to making any sense.

Anonymous said...

A commenter somewhere explained the snub with Obama preferring to work with people with whom he feels comfortable with. People that share his views and are extremely loyal. Now, where tf is the difference to Bush???

Just look at Kennedy's VP choice: Lyndon B. Johnson. Does anybody believe those two have been close? Does anybody think they shared many of the same views, or that LBJ was very loyal? Nonsense. But Kennedy was above chosing a running mate for the feel good factor, he made his choice based on rational, strategical considerations. Obama likes to be compared to JFK, but in this comparison, he loses once again.

Now look at General Clark: Military background (not an academic and Chicago-style party insider), an outspoken guy who puts truth above false loyalty, plus he supported Clinton. No surprise he isn't even considered, because Obama doesn't look for a VP, but a campaign buddy instead. Damn, the more I see and hear from the spinmaster of "change", the more I'm conviced he doesn't have what it takes to be president.

Unknown said...

O would run a top-down controlled administration. No independent thinkers wanted. Fall in line; don't argue. Previous Clinton support makes you suspect. It's a corporate model. The machine will make the decisions, on war and spoils. Actually, it's the mob model, too. And Stalin. Time for the F word.

Is that Continuity of Government thing going to continue, with the shadow government ready to step in?