Clinton Picks Up Support of Wesley Clark, Debbie Stabenow
Hillary Clinton's campaign announced some big endorsements today, one from retired Army General and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark, the other from Michigan U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.
"Never before have so many Americans had our well-being so closely tied to world events," Clark said in a statement on his PAC's Web site. "Our economic and national security has become more complicated than ever before, and we deserve a leader who draws on wisdom, compassion, intelligence and moral courage — in short, we need Hillary Clinton."
"Hillary Clinton has the experience required to walk into the Oval Office on day one and start delivering the type of change our country needs," Stabenow said in a Clinton campaign press release. "She understands the challenges facing our working families, and she has fought her entire life to make sure they have the tools they need to achieve the American Dream."
Comments (35)
bberger wrote on September 15, 2007 10:55 PM:Hurray for Clark- He is truly a man with a deep and genuine love of country!
Teaeopy wrote on September 15, 2007 11:52 PM:Forget Clinton and Obama, I want to see Clark and Brzezinski go head to head. Just kidding, kind of. Actually, the two of them should contribute to heightening the quality of debate on foreign policy and military matters.
Daniel wrote on September 16, 2007 1:50 AM:Recent developments in Florida, however, have to worry the Clinton campaign. Florida Dems are now ready to back down and make the primary meaningless, reducing the already dwingling possibility of a successfull Florida firewall strategy. Now, Clinton is at the mercy of bad showings in the early states, and things like the SEIU moving forward with an Endwards endorsement are not a good start for that.
moondancer wrote on September 16, 2007 8:48 AM:I guess this is a down payment for a VP slot. As a default dem though, I have serious reservations about Clinton, smart, great campaign machine, but most "beatable" of the dems.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 9:36 AM:Oh, nothing like garnering the support of General Wes Clark to start up the Hillogynists on this board to start whining all the Fox news points.
Let's start with "she's the most beatable of the Dems." Unlike all the other Dem nominees, Hillary has been fully "vetted" by the Republican slime machine over the last 15 years. Despite this, she leads the Republican possible contenders in all the reliable polls. Despite her so-called negative in this area, these numbers will only go up as she gets more exposure as the Dem nominee. charms the "mushy middle," and women (the largest single voting bloc by far) get more excited about electing the first woman president in our glorious history.
If Hillary can build and hold double-digit leads against the excellent Dem nominees like Obama and Edwards et al, how do you think she'll do, really, in head-to-head with any of the Republican lightweights in the current political climate?
Finally, I've asked this before. What states that Kerry-Edwards took in 2004 will Hillary not pick up as well or better? Add Ohio (and certainly Arkansas if Clark's on the ticket) as well as some other purple states in 2004, and you've got a Democratic landslide.
Take heart, ye Hillogynists!
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 9:47 AM:Point of clarification on my last post:
Where I said "these numbers will only go up."
My point is more clear if I would have said "her lead in the polls will only increase."
onceler wrote on September 16, 2007 10:16 AM:
not wanting Hillary Clinton to be the nominee does not make someone a misogynist. stop implying that it does, colonpowwow. there are perfectly legitimate arguments to make against her as a candidate.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 10:39 AM:onceler
I'm only speaking to the irrational Hillary-haters who pounce on every Fox talking point and completely ignore her lifelong record as a Democrat supporting progressive social causes, comparing her to Lieberman, calling her a cold, calculating, shrill harpie - just short of coming right out and calling her a (rhymes with "buppity itch").
Of course there are legitimate reasons to support another candidate and criticize Hillary (her vote on the Iraq War authorization and the Patriot Act come to mind).
But you know who I'm talking about - the blogosphere on both sides of the spectrum is lousy with them.
So re my made up word - Hillogynists - If the shoe fits . . .
colonpowwow, can you explain to me why you use such a term as 'hillogynists' or a phrase such as ' whining Fox news points'? It seems to me that you are intentionally insulting folks who aren't primary supporters of Hillary Clinton. What do your insults accomplish except to increase the alienation and concerns a lot of democrats have about a Hillary candidancy?
This is not some collegiate football game, is it? This is not just about a 'win' in the general election, and then 'all is fine and dandy'. This election is about the next four years of an America facing crises domestically and internationally. This important election deserves our deep attention as voters, which I believe involves more than cutesy sloganeering, counter-productive insults, and band-wagoning based upon vague assertions not supported by facts......
.....unsupported 'facts' such as "Hillary has been fully vetted by the republican slime machine over the last 15 years." I am not a Hillary supporter precisely because I have been studying her actual Senate record which is quite empty of substance, but does contain some worrisome instances of Hillary working against 'Made in USA' products. If I can do that 'vetting', surely the republican opposition can do the same in a general election. So, thorough 'vetting' of Hillary is [intentionally, as in 'keep the powder dry'] not complete at this point, and by the time of the general, that more thorough vetting might surprise and distress a lot of democrats.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 10:58 AM:
Donna G.
Please see my post that was almost simultaneous to yours.
Maybe "vetted" is the wrong word for you for some reason. What I'm saying is that the Clintons have been pounded and "swift-boated" for 15 years by the right wing noise machine and there isn't much more they can do or say that hasn't already hardened the hearts of those not inclined to support any Democrat. I think Hillary can drum up support among Democratic leaners as well or better than anyone else, she has a double-digit lead on Obama and 20-some point lead on Edwards, for Jah's sake!
Regarding insults, which candidate (and by extension, their supporters) has been insulted most on these boards. Is it even close?
I guess regarding insulting a politician and their motives - IOKIYNFH (It's okay if you're not for Hillary).
NCSteve wrote on September 16, 2007 11:19 AM:The statements purportedly released by Clark and Stabenow illustrate my number-one problem with Hillary. If I didn't know who was purportedly saying it, it would be impossible for me to distinguish between statements that supposedly come from her, statements that purportedly come from her campaign spokespersons and, now, even statements that come from her endorsors.
"Strength," "experience," "Day One," "leader," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All of them sound like over focus-grouped buzz-word laden pap written by a (large) committee of mediocre Inside-the-Beltway Dem consultants. Even what she supposedly "spontaenously" says in the debates sounds like this.
This is what people mean when they rap her about "inauthenticity." Where is the real person behind all the layers of packaging and what, if anything, does she actually still believe in at this point? Is she really just afraid that if she lets people know who she really is and what she really thinks, they won't elect her? Is it just a case of a smart person who's worked in this mileau for so long that she's internalized this way of communicating to the point that she does not even understand how it sounds to people outside of DC? Have the successive beatings we've took between 94 and 06 just caused her go all Willie Stark?
I don't know. I do not know who she is. Try as I might, I still have no idea why she wants to be president. Most impoortant of all, I do not know if she knows why she wants to be president anymore.
To cap it all off, from a tactical standpoint, the kind of "selling a product" crap that she does is the Repulicans' forte, not ours. They are so good at it that they can actually fake authenticity. (DC-Insiderer lobbyist career politician and sometimes actor Thompson is the down-home commonsense outsider, barely closeted facist Giuliani is a "liberal" Republican.) We have never beaten them at that game and I'm not seeing any sign she can do it this time. Maybe she can win, but if she does, it won't be because of her "perfect" campaign.
Having said all that, Clark would be a great choice for VP for her. He'd bring more to her ticket than any of the other candidates for President. I'm sure Clark thinks so too.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 11:40 AM:I'm sure if Wesley Clark and Debbie Stabenow had endorsed (insert NCSteve's preferred candidate's name HERE), with the exact same words (his insults to Clark and Stabenow notwithstanding), he would be delighted and would be touting said candidates' "Strength and experience blah blah blah."
There is nothing especially negative or different about any of the Democratic candidates this time. They are all excellent IMHO, and I will cheerfully vote for whoever my fellow party members choose. I have voted in every presidential election since 1968, have worked on three successful campaigns in Wisconsin (two state senators and one mayoral), and I've liked Hillary Clinton since I first took notice of her in the early 90s.
Like I said, nobody has been insulted more on these boards than her (and by extension, her supporters), and I, for one, am gonna start pushing back hard on some of the BS when my detector goes off.
anonymouse wrote on September 16, 2007 11:58 AM:I still cannot support someone who will not admit that she had made serious errors in judgement when she voted to support the war (she still won't even admit that) without even bothering to read the facts. Committing others to their deaths is serious business. I'll bet she never missed any dinners or fundraisers at the time.
Why in the world would "We the People", who are so angry at Bush for lying (I mean misstating) to us about reasons to attack Iraq... and to this day refusing to admit a multitude of mistakes... why would we then want to elect his clone, who has been involved in numerous lapses of judgements and, like Bush, will not even admit their faults.
I for one do not want another Bush in office... even if it is a Democrat and a woman...
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 12:13 PM:anonymouse
If you think Hillary is "another Bush," you obviously would be remiss if you didn't vote for Ralph Nader. I hope he takes some time away from watching his stock portfolio online and runs again, giving you and your ilk another opportunity to help elect a President Thompson or something.
Please don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. The rest of us lifelong progressive Democrats will still be inside preparing to toast the election of the first woman president in our country's glorious history.
donna wrote on September 16, 2007 12:17 PM:My impression is that Hillary has offered Clark the vice-presidency or some great plum. As evidenced from her campaign's recent accusations of anti-semitism against Brzeninski -- obviously with the sole intention of smearing Obama -- Hillary is signalling loud and clear that she will not have Obama on the ticket.
First John Edwards and now Hillary have shown they are more than willing to exploit racial and ethnic fears and distrust to gain power. Is this what we need in a country and world that desparately needs healing? As a jewish woman, it doesn't give me any comfort to have noticed this terrible flaw in Hillary. No matter what other policies she presents that I agree with, I am truly disappointed at her lack of recognition of what her role as president will require. We need a healer now -- it is a matter of survival. The more I see of Hillary's divisive posturing (and Edwards' also) the more I realize that the only viable democratic candidate capable of getting this country and world on a peaceful track is Barack Obama.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 12:35 PM:
donna
So now Hillary is an anti-Semite and has struck a secret deal with Wes Clark? And perhaps she's a not-so-closeted racist as well because she's telegraphed to you that she's not picking Obama on her ticket.
Have you sent your observations to Matt Drudge yet? I'm sure you'd find him to be most sympathetic to this factual analysis of yours.
Uh, in case anyone was wondering what I mean when I call some posters on this board Hillogynists . . .
dajafi wrote on September 16, 2007 12:49 PM:Pretty clearly, the best reason to support Sen. Clinton is that she most upsets the worst people in the country--maybe to the point that some of them would just up and leave.
But spite voting really should be left to the Republicans, who are so fully motivated by their hatreds and fears. Particularly since, in this instance, their loathing of her completely ignores the fact that of the serious Democratic candidates, she's by far the least progressive and the most likely to perpetuate, if not the Bush/Cheney policies, the premises on which those policies are based:
1) There are virtually no restraints on the power of the executive branch
2) By virtue of our unmatched power, America has the right to intervene in the world however, whenever and wherever we see fit
3) The current economic order in the United States is perfectly moral and does not require any serious revision--nor does the theory and practice of politics in America, so fully informed by that economic order
4) History is always someone else's fault
Will she be better than Bush/Cheney? Of course. She's vastly smarter, works much harder and will surround herself with people of much greater talent and integrity. But the changes will be at the margins; what really will happen is that the country will slow the pace at which it's going tohell.
Hillary Clinton is, above all, a fearful politician. She's afraid of the big bad press, the people who (moronically) would have castigated for a want of toughness if she hadn't voted for the AUMF, the ones who still jump at every opportunity to write about her cleavage, or Bill's horndoggery, or Whitewater (you know that one's coming back in some way), or "Travelgate."
She's put this fear at the center of her political being and let it guide her public persona. So she speaks in generalities and focuses, it would seem obsessively, on the blocking and tackling of politics: campaign logistics, message discipline.
(Here's a fun game: just try and find a Clinton campaign statement that doesn't include the phrase "strength and experience.")
The question NCSteve asked is the key: why does she want to be president? I don't have the first clue. I just know it won't be good for the country--it will mean only the perpetuation of the disgusting politics of these last 15 years, while the serious problems of our time continue to go unaddressed--if she succeeds.
dajafi wrote on September 16, 2007 12:50 PM:Pretty clearly, the best reason to support Sen. Clinton is that she most upsets the worst people in the country--maybe to the point that some of them would just up and leave.
But spite voting really should be left to the Republicans, who are so fully motivated by their hatreds and fears. Particularly since, in this instance, their loathing of her completely ignores the fact that of the serious Democratic candidates, she's by far the least progressive and the most likely to perpetuate, if not the Bush/Cheney policies, the premises on which those policies are based:
1) There are virtually no restraints on the power of the executive branch
2) By virtue of our unmatched power, America has the right to intervene in the world however, whenever and wherever we see fit
3) The current economic order in the United States is perfectly moral and does not require any serious revision--nor does the theory and practice of politics in America, so fully informed by that economic order
4) History is always someone else's fault
Will she be better than Bush/Cheney? Of course. She's vastly smarter, works much harder and will surround herself with people of much greater talent and integrity. But the changes will be at the margins; what really will happen is that the country will slow the pace at which it's going tohell.
Hillary Clinton is, above all, a fearful politician. She's afraid of the big bad press, the people who (moronically) would have castigated for a want of toughness if she hadn't voted for the AUMF, the ones who still jump at every opportunity to write about her cleavage, or Bill's horndoggery, or Whitewater (you know that one's coming back in some way), or "Travelgate."
She's put this fear at the center of her political being and let it guide her public persona. So she speaks in generalities and focuses, it would seem obsessively, on the blocking and tackling of politics: campaign logistics, message discipline.
(Here's a fun game: just try and find a Clinton campaign statement that doesn't include the phrase "strength and experience.")
The question NCSteve asked is the key: why does she want to be president? I don't have the first clue. I just know it won't be good for the country--it will mean only the perpetuation of the disgusting politics of these last 15 years, while the serious problems of our time continue to go unaddressed--if she succeeds.
Kjoe wrote on September 16, 2007 12:53 PM:I long for the good ole' days back in August---when Obama could actually get his name mentioned in a story on tpm that was not, essentially, about Hillary Clinton.
Who got to you asswipes---and what did it take?
Jan wrote on September 16, 2007 12:55 PM:First of all, let me just say that I agree with every post of colonpowpow.
so, moving on...
If you don't know the value of ****GENERAL Clark's endorsement, you didn't serve in the miltary in the 90's. Yes, Wes Clark is a friend from Arkansas.
But he also graduated first in his class at West Point, is a Rhodes scholar, and has a highly-regarded reputation within the military as a brilliant military (not political) strategist.
And, of course, he commanded the multi-national force that brought about the regime change of a rogue dictator -- without losing nearly 4,000 American military lives.
This endorsement speaks directly to those of us with experience in the military, especially in the 90's.
The message is: "Democrats are better at this. Proof? Look at a regime-to-regime-change comparison between General Clark on the one side, and Generals Powell, Pace, Miers, and now Petraeus on Iraq."
Clark wins.
Therefore all Democrats (and, yes, epecially HRC for the endorsement) WIN!
--------
Debbie Stabenow's endorsement has a very significant audience as well but I've already taken up too much time.
I'm surprise more of you don't get into the startegy that takes place in political campaigns. It gives a lot of voice to how a candidate would gather support for any initiatives they might want as President.
The HRC campaign has been flawless at this... building support within her own party without getting into the trenches with anyone except George W. Bush.
General Wesley Clark is a great endorsement to draw the military vote towards Democrats.
colonpowwow,
For the record,my candiate preferences, which I never keep secret, are, in order:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Hillary
4. Dodd
The idea that no one had been insulted here more than Hillary is, in my view, a case of selective perception. There are numerous posters on this board who invariably respond to any mention of Obama's name with everything from juvenile insults (*cough*pacc*cough) to out and out vitriolic slander.
And, with respect, I think your mission to engage in "pushback" would be more effective if you would actually explain why you think the arguments made are wrong rather than resorting to strawman arguments, ad hominum attacks on the motives those who criticize her or dismissivly characterising a valid pointof view as an "insult" or a "Republican talking point."
I, for one, was expressing a genuine concern I have had about her since her vote for AUMF, and one that only seems to be getting worse as the campaign progresses. Accusing me of carrying water for another candidate is confusing cause and effect. The fact that I am a supporter of Obama does not, for example, cause me to go off on Edwards, notwithstanding the fact that Obama would likely pick the vast majority of his supporters if Edwards withdrew.
Either respond to the arguments actually made or tell us why why you like her and why we should. Lashing out doesn't get it done.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 1:39 PM:I think the question of "why does she (anyone) want to be president?" is a stunner.
Why would anyone think they should be or want to be president?
Could it have something to do with the fact that she's been encouraged to run by Democrats, her friends and party insiders (including her hubby) since the early nineties - along with every poll showing her as a frontrunner all along?
Hillary is a lifelong progressive Democrat (warts and all). 90% plus liberal rating. If you examine even Saint Russell Feingold's record, you will find some votes you disagree with.
Why shouldn't Hillary want to run for president? That's the question. She's leading every other Democrat in an excellent field by huge margins.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 1:52 PM:NCSteve
First of all, can I join with any others in rueing the day that some people discovered the phrase "ad homininum attacks?" I do not engage in them, I don't insult anyone personally. My posts are merely my OPINION (does this really need to be stated?) that people attack Hillary in a particularly irrational way. Where are all the "anybody but Obama" or "anybody but Edwards" posters. As I said before, cyberspace is littered with the "anybody but Hillary" posters.
I support Hillary because most of those liberal progressives who I hang with and admire (aka Democrats) do (see all recent polling data).
I also support Hillary because (despite her votes for the Iraq War authorization and Patriot Act which I despise), she is a solid lifelong liberal progressive Democrat with the best chance of winning (again, IMHO) the election, withstanding and pushing back the rightwingers with the alliances and power she's forged in her political career, and she'll make an outstanding president, just like Bill did. BTW, I didn't like Bill when he won the nomination, but I happily voted for him and he won me over quickly. I hope you experience a similar journey with our first woman president.
Anonymous wrote on September 16, 2007 2:01 PM:This is a joke, right?
"The idea that no one had been insulted here more than Hillary is, in my view, a case of selective perception."
What a friggin' case of "selective perception"!
NC Steve -- I can tell you why *I* support Obama, more clearly and more factually than most Obama supporters can articulate why they support him...
And I support Hillary Clinton!!!
Obama supporters: "I support Barack Obama because of this horrible thing I believe Hillary Clinton once did. Everyone who supports HRC in spite of what I think of her is ."
Edwards supporters: "I support John Edwards because of this horrible thing I believe Hillary Clinton once did. Everyone who supports HRC in spite of what I think of her is ."
Republican trolls: "I support Obama (or Edwards) because of this horrible thing I believe Hillary Clinton once did. Everyone who supports HRC in spite of what I think of her is ."
I do NOT find the same vitriol from Richardson, Biden, Dodd or Kucinich supporters.
Talk up Obama and Edwards, and let's see how it goes.
But re-read this post for any proof you need -- it's either a slam against Clinton or a Clinton supporter defending her against that slam.
Where's the "Why I support Obama" or "Why I support Edwards" posts, without having to mention a word about Clinton???
I defend Clinton constantly. I have yet to criticize any other candidate in order to voice my support.
We should all try it.
I think we would all like it.
Sorry, I don't like anonymous posts. That last post was mine, and the no-name was an accident.
Sorry!
Kjoe wrote on September 16, 2007 12:53 PM:
I long for the good ole' days back in August---when Obama could actually get his name mentioned in a story on tpm that was not, essentially, about Hillary Clinton.
Who got to you asswipes---and what did it take?
Yes, Yes, YES! Kjoe you are dead on target. The site is pro-Hillary without a doubt and there is indeed a blackout on Obama...not even his picture on the site for days and weeks. I consider it absolutely astonishing how thoroughly bought and sold so much of the media is and even blogger sites such as this.
Huffington Post no longer posts articles critical of Hillary and they spin and contort Obama statements, actions, positions and policies out of context. The media bias is overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary.
Obama is a far better political candidate in terms of elected experience, judgment and policy position. The media even failed to discuss how he said Petraeus was not at fault for having to pursue a failed strategy by promoting tactics that were meaningless when the overall strategy is afailure. We were not shown these statements but treated instead to Hillary's claim of 'stunningly disbelief'...basically an innocuous statement lacking in insight and her typical unwillingness to do or say anything that is not supported in the polls. Hillary took the cheap political road of attacking Petraeus rather than the Bush administration's war policy.
I suspect that is because she actually supports the adminisrations policies as Guiliani emphasized his webcast.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 2:49 PM:Jan,
Did you know that Hillary is leading the entire lefty blogosphere on a "blackout" of Barack Obama?
No? Well ask elrapierwit. I'm dropping a note to Matt Drudge.
Hey Colonpowwow,
I didn't accuse Hillary or Wesley Clark being anti-semites -- you are responding hysterically. My point was that Hillary used her supporter Alan Dershowitz to call Brzeninski an anti-semite and by association implied that Obama is a hiding that he is one too. I am surprised as anyone that she has chosen the low road on this. Hillary seems to be running on last election's theme of fear -- the tactics of the neocons and republicans. I find it dangerous and unhelpful in a time when we need to find better solutions to dealing with the troubles in the world. I think Obama is the best candidate for our times. He is trying to run an inclusive campaign -- not trying to pit one groups interests at the expense of anothers. I think he is going to try to engage the world in a more respectful and productive way. This is why I support him over Hillary or Edwards.
I happen to agree that Clark is a great endorsement for Hillary, and I wrote the post I did because I had a flash that this is who she will chose as VP to bolster her foreign policy credentials. Up until now, I had figured that Obama would be chosen as VP if he didn't prevail in the primary -- but I don't think Hillary can thrown out a smear that Obama is taking advice from "anti-semite" and then go on to pick him as a running partner without alienating the jewish voters she is trying to court.
So my message was really to Obama supporters --please get out there and work damn hard to make sure he wins this primary. There won't be a consolation prize for second place.
Anonymous wrote on September 16, 2007 3:29 PM:Hi anonymous donna,
Upon rereading your original post, I see you did not actually call Hilary anti-Semitic.
Rather than turn this into a Monty Python episode of why someone accusing a non-anti-Semite of accusing another anti-Semite of being an anti-Semite is actually accusing the accuser of being an anti-Semite . . .
Let me offer my most hysterical apology for misreading this part of your anti-Hillary post.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 3:33 PM:That was, of course, me - anonymous colonpowwow
;-)
colonpowwow,
Thanks for your refreshing clarity in response to some of the post we find on this site.
donna wrote on September 16, 2007 6:17 PM:Dearest Anonymous PowWow,
Here is some clarity: If Hillary wants to personally make the case for her foreign policy and explain why she is the best candidate to represent Jewish interests, then let her state it in clear language for the whole country and world to hear. But that is not what she did. She didn't respond to the substance of Obama's foreign policy speech. She instead used her proxy to advance the slur of anti-semitism based not on what Obama said, but on his association with Brzezinski. Maybe you're not jewish -- but I am and I know that when that nasty meme starts circulating, reason just shuts down and fear wins. No doubt that was what Hillary was hoping for.
You all can be the judge if this is a good thing for our country.
colonpowwow wrote on September 16, 2007 7:48 PM:donna,
Despite the irrational Hillary-hate, you seem like a nice enough person who is generally concerned about issues facing the Jewish communitiy.
That said, respectfully, I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Sorry.
kjoe wrote on September 16, 2007 10:06 PM:I can kind of relax---dial it down a little. There is an old saying---"give them enough rope. they will hang themselves.
Hillary--leading by 20 points in most national polls--has this healthcare thing----it might be the blunder we have anticipated---not because of her inexperience---but because of her long record of bad judgements.
colonpowwow wrote on September 17, 2007 9:04 AM:Thanks for coming on at the end of a thread about Hillary getting endorsements from key Democrats and taking the time to indulge in a little bedtime Hillogyny.
Good luck with that Hillary collapse thing. For my part, if she starts to fall in the polls (to only a 10-20 point lead over the next two closest candidates, it will only motivate me to work harder to ensure the election of the first woman president of the United States. About time, don't you think?
