8 posts tagged “politics”
Steve Clemons is all a twitter at the thought of Chuck Hagel entering the presidential race. Since Steve’s forte is national security, I can understand his excitement.
Agree with him or not, you have to admit that Hagel’s has been the loudest, most consistent voice (except for Wes Clark) among possible contenders, on the debacle that is Iraq, and indeed, Bush’s whole foreign policy “vision”.
I think Clemons is right in as much as his entry could really shake up the race….
……..I’m must concerned about getting the Democratic contenders to shape up. I think with Hagel in the race — they will have little choice but to mimick his views on the Iraq War and foreign policy.
Wes Clark played this role on being the first significant political player to endorse direct negotiations with Iran.
Hagel will stir the pot in good ways. Americans need to get to know him to see if the other issues they care about mesh with the Senator’s views — but on foreign policy and national security and Iraq — I think he gets it right.
With Hagel in the mix, the current Dem contenders will have to face
national security head on, instead of the usual sound bites and we all
know how much they prefer to retreat to the safe cocoon of domestic
politics.
Read more at A Time To Lead
Obama calls Iran threat to U.S., Israel | Chicago Tribune
Seeking to woo Jewish votes and contributions, Sen. Barack Obama told an audience in Chicago Friday that he considers Iran “one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace” and pledged he would try to end that nation’s uranium enrichment program. <
> “My plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran — something this administration has finally embraced,” he (Barack Obama) said. <
Your plan, Senator Obama? o’really?
Read more at Wes Clark, Protect Our Civil Liberties
- - - - -
If you have a blog or website, please go to StopIranWar for this blog ad to carry on your site. Let's stop a third war before it starts if we can.
Concerns have been expressed (I know, I’ve seen them) that General Clark might have trouble finding talented political staff still available to work on his campaign for President, because Clark will be entering the race for the Democratic nomination several weeks or even months later than other Democratic candidates. This is a concern that never seems to come up regarding Al Gore, when people assert that he may still make a late entrance into the Presidential race; it is only raised about Wes Clark. And that is probably because in 2004, when Wes Clark entered the race late in September, he had to cobble together a campaign staff quickly from national political operatives who were not yet spoken for at the time, and that became problematic for him.
Fair enough as far as that goes, but a wrong lesson can be drawn from Clark’s 2004 campaign experience. Obviously entering a race in September is a different matter than entering a race in, let’s say February. The truth is there are many good potential campaign workers and managers still out there to hire to guide a Presidential run, though not all of them have previously established strong national reputations. While John Kerry got the pick of the litter of national Democratic campaign advisors when he became our nominee for President in 2004, there are some who now say he might have been better off with a runt.
Read more at A Left Turn FOR CLARK
While his supporters sit on the edge of their seats pleading for an announcement of a second presidential primary run by General Clark, he will not be moved. He has said several times, when pressed, that partisan politics will have to take second chair to the more immediate issue of impending war with Iran. "Once a person becomes a candidate, then everything they say becomes viewed through a political lens. I don't want this viewed through a political lens. This should be viewed as a policy issue."
The Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies of Tufts University held a conference last week, "The War on Terrorism: Where Do We Stand?" where Seymour Hersh gave closing and chilling remarks.
Calling President Bush a "total radical," Hersh worried, "There's nothing more dangerous than a radical who doesn't have information, doesn't learn from information and doesn't learn from the past.... The fact of the matter is we have a government that will do what it wants to do for the next two years. The worst is yet to come. It's sort of like we're essentially powerless [and] just play it out."
I was reminded of General Clark's challenge in one of the 2004 primary debates to the candidates who had jobs in Congress: "Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it."
It's three years later and Clark's early warning is the here and now.
Read more at A Wes Clark Democrat
No I'm not talking about the approaching Academy Awards Ceremony, and the golden Oscar I have to assume that Gore is favored to win for "An Inconvenient Truth" for best documentary. I'm talking about the gentle glow of praise and respect Al Gore is now enveloped in emanating from grassroots Democratic activists, and in particular the netroots. Most of us like Al Gore, we genuinely do. For one thing, we all know that he was robbed. Al Gore should be sitting in the White House now, not the Son of a Bush who currently resides there.
But it's more than that. Al Gore is at the top of his non-political
political game right now. He is far along on a high profile mission to
stop Global Warming and save the planet. How can you not love that? Al
Gore is providing important leadership on a critical issue. For now
Global Warming is Al Gore's signature issue and none of us are second
guessing him on it. We all applaud Al Gore for what he is doing.
I'm not saying that a deep commitment to stopping Global Warming is all that Al Gore has to bring to the political table. Gore is a serious and thoughtful man with real leadership experience. The thing is though, that as long as Al Gore hovers above the daily political fray with his eyes fixed on Earth's eco-sphere, he is safely out of the line of intramural Democratic fire.
From the few recent comments that Al Gore has made regarding the current situation in Iraq, his position seems to be very similar to that taken by Wes Clark for example. Unlike Al Gore though, Wes Clark has been highly identified with an Iraq position precisely because he has talked and written a great deal about it. Unlike fighting Global Warming, there is not near unanimity among Democrats about the best policy for dealing with America's occupation of Iraq right now. Anyone who stakes out a clear and highly visible position regarding Iraq is going to get dragged through the mud by someone. Clark certainly has, but not Al Gore.
-Read more at A Left Turn FOR CLARK
A few points being offered up around the web for why Wes Clark should not run for president in 2008: He can't win because Democrats won't vote for a military guy; he can't win because he has no experience in governing; he can’t win because he’s a genuine liberal Southern general; he can’t win because the election will be about domestic policy; he can’t win because he can’t handle the bumps of a presidential campaign; and, somehow or other, he's going to ruin any chance of becoming Secretary of State.
I wouldn’t use such a positive assertion that "Dems won't vote for a military guy", period. I think it much rather depends on what people (i.e., Democrats) perceive as "a bona fide guy". In fact, I see no electability issue whatsoever for the primaries if the proposition is "a bona fide and competent guy (who happens to have had a career in the military)".
Read more on A Wes Clark Democrat
First watch this Segment of Wes Clark on Charlie Rose dated September 23, 2002.
Watch here or here
As you clearly see and hear, General Clark was not for going into Iraq at the time, and felt that the U.N. should be totally involved, in addition to NATO....and that our priorities should have been getting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and working on strategies to fight a sensical war on terror utilizing our Allies as much as possible! In fact, the General clearly states towards the end of the Video, that a thorough Weapon Inspections program should be the goal, and it would most likely do the trick.
This video really tells the tale of the General's position on Iraq right prior to the IWR vote. He was definitely for the Levin Amendment to go the the UN and come back to congress for a vote....and since this was BEFORE the Resolutions existed, I'm sure that he was the one that provided the insight that led Sen. Levin to formulate the only Resolution that should have passed if congress would have been doing its job back in 2002.
Too bad that so many Senators and Representatives caved in and gave Pres. Bush a blank check instead!
If only we could turn back the hands of time, we could have avoided
the biggest strategic blunder known as Iraq, and if not, we could have,
at least, put Wesley Clark into the White House in 2004 as a minimum!
Read more on RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets
