Bush's Third Term

This year, we're facing the most important election in a generation. As Americans, we must ask ourselves which candidate will bring about the change our country so desperately needs. In my opinion, Barack Obama is the only candidate with the judgment to move our country forward.

The disastrous consequences of George W. Bush's poor judgment over these last 7 1/2 years are all too apparent. Now, John McCain is offering 4 more years of Bush -- while Barack Obama offers the change in direction our country so desperately needs.

Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Barack will engage in the diplomacy that is necessary to bring stability to the Middle East. Just like George Bush, John McCain repeatedly resorts to saber-rattling and threats about invading Iran while revealing a startling ignorance of the basic issues that define the politics of the region.

Barack knows we have to invest in renewable energy to end America's dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming. And like George Bush, John McCain is in the pocket of big oil.

It's about judgment -- and I think the answer is clear.

While I respect John McCain's service, I know exactly what he stands for -- Bush's third term. And in national security terms, John McCain is largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. John McCain is calculating that he will use the national security debate to his advantage. He's wrong.

Like Bush, McCain has always been for the use of force, force, and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. When John McCain talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes irresponsible comments about bombing Iran, he reveals his own disrespect for the office of the presidency.

And while he's all too willing to continue putting our troops in harm's way, John McCain initially refused to support providing benefits like the new GI Bill to our veterans because he believes that providing good education opportunities to our troops will hurt retention. That's ridiculous.

We need new leadership in the White House -- not George Bush's third term.

Last week I sat down with Barack Obama. I know he's the right person to lead our country forward. Now we need to come together and support his campaign for change.

As I see the sacrifices our troops and their families make every day; as I see Americans buckling under the weight of record high gas prices; and as I see families struggling with sky rocketing health care costs, I know this:

We simply can't afford another 4 years of the McCain-Bush-Cheney agenda.

We must change the course of our country's future. We must elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

Comments

[raresilk]

My dad is a retired Marine Corps major, a helicopter pilot who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross twice. When I look in his eyes I see the same thing I see in Gen. Clark's eyes. True leadership. It is not boastful, because it holds itself to the highest standards and knows how hard they are to meet. It is not sneering and superior, because while subordinates may be forced to follow such a leader they will never respect him. Only a respected leader can command the highest performance from a unit or a nation. No one will respect a man who sings "Bomb Iran" like war is a big joke, or calls his wife a cunt. We have had enough of a low, vulgar, underachiever in this nation's highest office. We have seen what that has reaped for us.

Gen. Clark, like Sen. Obama, has the qualities of a true leader. They are both strikingly similar in this regard, and as equally opposite to the sneering, sniggering, who's your daddy, blowbags that constitute Bush and his pal McSame. The people who are for McCain - well, I honestly feel sorry for them if they can't see how badly they're being duped. Fortunately they will lose.

OBAMA/CLARK 08!

[saltysea]

yayus!!!! Obama/Clark 2008!

[elcojonu]

The General is a solid person and a great leader; I would follow him into combat anyday, anytime; but, I don't like Generals(or Admirals) mixed-up in politics; it demeans the uniform and brings the military too close to civil government.
The General could play a VERY MAJOR role in our Defense and Diplomatic Policies (a la Gen. George Marshall).

[ProgressiveinBerlin]

Eisenhower worked out pretty well.

He invested in the infrastructure the country needed and warned us about the military industrial complex under which we are now suffering.

If only we had taken his advice, we might not be in a situation where our future has been given to Haliburton and KBR in a no-bid contract in exchange for nothing but death and debt.

Obama/Clark '08!!!

[NotMcCain]

I used to agree with you. But after Bush and the neocons (and before him, Reagan and the neocons), I'd rather have a prudent military man like Eisenhower or Clark in the WH--someone who understands the costs of war and proceeds with caution instead of bravado.

Spare me from the swaggering machismo of Bush/Chene­y--callous­ly proving their "toughness" with the lives of other people's children.

General Clark does not sing songs about "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". He doesn't dream about the benefits of "100 Years of War".

Moreover, he was great in the last few weeks pointing out that McSame's PR isn't true--being a POW doesn't give one either military or foreign policy expertise. This is a point he is uniquely qualified to make--and gutsy enough to make.

I think he'd be a terrific VP--exactly the wise, rational, brainy "close advisor" that Obama is looking for.

[Marlyn]

"I think he'd be a terrific VP--exactly the wise, rational, brainy "close advisor" that Obama is looking for."

YES! My mind reels at the idea of TWO honest men leading our country.
Obama/Clark 08

[ProgressiveinBerlin]

Man, I hope Barrack chooses this guy to be VP.

There's been a lot of speculation about Bush and Cheney trying some sort of October surprise attack against Iran.

Who would be better to have in the war room than General Clark? He's a gentleman, a genius and will follow Obama and/or lead our nation loyally and ably till the end.

I don't buy into this idea that Obama needs someone to make up for national security/foreign policy shortcomings. On the contrary, choosing the General would be more like when Clinton picked Gore on the basis that they both represented the same movement.

Obama and Clark are two of the only true democrats (not bluedogs) who are willing to step up and be tough on foreign policy, yet still true to their dem roots and beliefs.

Plus, he's so well-respected that he'd definitely swing much of the south and bring a lot of states into play where democrats usually never DREAM of having a chance in the fall.

There's NO ONE I can imagine being as good a vice presidential candidate as General Wesley Clark and I hope that the media, the American people and most importantly Senator Obama himself realize what a perfect match the two of them would be. Once you consider Clark, every other possibility pales by comparison.

The perfect team to get this nation back on the right path.

Obama/Clark '08!!!

[Marlyn]

"choosing the General would be more like when Clinton picked Gore on the basis that they both represented the same movement."

Yes, that is the essence of it, the perfect blend.

[ChazAtlas]

I am on record saying a long time ago that Wesley Clark would have been an excellent choice for Al Gore if he had run in the 2008 contest. This was a while before Obama had announced his bid. I think Clark would be an excellent Vice President. If not that a great candidate to head Homeland Security. Actually they should get rid of Homeland Security and make the FBI and CIA work the way they should be working. Regardless, Clark is more than excellent as a VP contender. Check out some of his speeches on YouTube.

He never spoke ill of Obama even though he was a Clinton supporter. He has excellent military credentials and he too was against going into Iraq. He minimizes McCain's military background as well. Sure McCain was a P.O.W. for years and God bless him for serving. But McCain never led troops or headed up an operation as Clark did. He is a good looking guy from the South, what more could you ask for?

[Marlyn]

"Actually they should get rid of Homeland Security"

Yeah. Homeland Security is George W. Bush's promise to us of smaller government, and don't forget that the GOP says "government never works". (True, if it is being run by the GOP.)

[mmerose]

General Clark, you show some nice teeth by identifying McCain's unreasonable threats as a sign of "disrespect for the office of the presidency­." Thank you, it's an interesting point. You remind us that the title "commander in Chief" is very special. Subordinate troops must go to war when ordered, but the buck has to stop at a metaphorical set of scales where the option to not make war is weighed fully.

You also remind us of the tragedy of the Bush presidency from day 1, herded into office with the snarling hounds of The Project for a New American Century, salivating to debase the American military for their Ivory Tower pipe dreams of an oil empire in Iraq. Every minute of George Bush has, indeed, heaped disrespect upon the office of the presidency.

[theone718]

Obama/Clark 08! You can't find a better ticket than that one.

[mosh]

"Last week I sat down with Barack Obama. I know he's the right person to lead our country forward. Now we need to come together and support his campaign for change."

How can we support Obama's campaign for change if he doesn't change his vote on FISA? For that matter, how can you? Because he's the lesser of two evils? Because the means justify the ends?

Obama missed the perfect opportunity to make a rousing speech and show real leadership by upholding the rule of law and voting no on FISA. Wouldn't it have been thrilling after almost 8 years of thugs in the White House to see the democratic nominee vote on principle?

What's Obama going to say now - that, as dictators go, he promises to be benevolent? Really, General Clark, you DO know better.

[FACINGREALIT]

Al Gore was a man of principle; John Kerry was a man of principle - yet Bush won (twice) Now you have another man of principle and yet you STILL find something wrong - Go Figure! It is people like you that have deserved the last 7 1/2 years!

[michaelgp72]

Amen to that!!!

[vippy]

Bush did not win the elections, he stole them. Gore and Kerry won but we were fooled.

[Marlyn]

mosh, you are mixed up when you say, "Because the means justify the ends? ".
Reality is all about "the means". The "end" is a goal, an idea in people's minds, but not reality.

The END never justifies the MEANS.

As to "change his vote on FISA?", I agree with you. I wish he would stand up for principle. I had HOPED that he would.

[NotMcCain]

FISA rules out civil, not criminal, prosecution (watch John Dean on Olbermann Monday to see).

Don't worry about it. I think Obama's judgment on this is a win.

[speakingtruth2power]

Wes Clark seems like a good choice for Sec/Defense, except he's not yet eligible for 2 years.

Wes seems like a good VP candidate w/ military credentials except he's a recently GOP/DLC.

Wes would be great at Homeland Security whether we want to change it, keep it or disband it.

Wes should be an strong asset for Obama & US, somewhere in the Cabinet of loyal Americans.

[Marlyn]

"Wes seems like a good VP candidate w/ military credentials except he's a recently GOP/DLC." ???

I disagree that Wes is "recently GOP". Since he retired from the Army, he has NEVER been GOP. Yes, Clark supported Hillary, but his loyalty did not stem from the DLC, but rather from serving under President Clinton. and being from Arkansas.

[Nyla785]

Just look at the MANY recent flip-flops of McCain's since he's been running for president. If anyone can call that anything OTHER than a Bush term #3, I don't know what. McCain has voted 100% this year with Bush, 95% previous year. Any questions??

[Marlyn]

No.

[HelenBack]

Clark speaks with reason, logic and experience. In 2004, I believed he represented the candidate of "change." Moreover, with additional political seasoning he now expresses himself better on the stump and the talk shows. He has slapped down right-neck talking heads like Limbaugh and O'Reilly and makes McCain and Lieberman's scare tactics look foolish.
Does he deliver a state as a VP candidate? No, but does any VP candidate deliver a state guaranteed? Certainly his pluses outweigh his minuses. Clark has to be on a VP short list.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrSvSB6HwG4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3JpoOz5NLg&feature=related

[Marlyn]

"I believed he represented the candidate of change."

Yes, change away from George W. Bush and his illegal invasion of Iraq.
And Wes Clark delivered the OTHER great speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Obama/Clark 08 ... dream ticket

[wrabbitt]

As a vet i i respect you opinions. My war was 68/69 but, things are no better today.

[michael429]

Mr. Clark brings nothing to the ticket....­he does not have the potential to deliver a single state...he is not an effective campaigner­....and as a career soldier is lacking the necessary experience and temprement to be effective in the executive branch....­with few exceptions, notably Eisehower and Washington­...general­s have been pretty bad as politician­s......it is clear that he is lobbying for the job...and i would not be surprised if many of the comments are not friends of Mr. Clark trying to help him with this effort.

Webb would be a far better choice and offers the potential to deliver Virginia..­..he is both an experienced military person and a successful politician­.....Joe Bidon would be the idealistic choice since he is clearly qualified to be president.­....and even Claire McCaskill would be a superior political choice to Clark.....­but maybe the best canddate that offers the combination of all of the above is Bill Richardson­....

Soldiers are accustomed to being promoted..­..not elected...­.unfortuna­tely the bring that mentality to the electoral process...­.at least Colin Powell was reflective enough to realize that.....

[StephenJK]

Hillary Clinton is the most obvious choice. Whether you or the hillary haters like it or not.

[littleblackcat]

Only in your opinion, my friend, only in your opinion. I don't hate HRC, she just isn't the "obvious choice". She has too much baggage and her biggest piece of baggage is Bill.

[snarkopolitan]

Bill would have to release the list of donors to the Clinton library, which he so far refuses to do. That takes Hill off the list, no matter what people think of her. Then there's the thorny problem of the millions of dollars in speaking fees, which can be seen as attempts to buy influence. Then there's Bill's inability to maintain a diplomatic silence, or indeed any silence at all. That also takes Hill off the list, regardless of one's opinion of her. She's married to a continuous sideshow.

Also, just because someone is a Democratic darling and Dems love her 300%, does not mean that the rest of the country wants her. Add to that how Obama might be seen as weak if he picks her, and that two junior senators from the Midwest do not a balanced ticket make (I know she's officially from NY, but really) and there you have it, reason after reason not to pick Hillary, none of them predicated on hating her.

[lthuedk 1]

Too much corporate baggage.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/Freedom_of_Choice.html

[NotMcCain]

There's no evidence that any VP "delivers a state". John Edwards didn't deliver NC and Gore didn't even carry his home state of Tennessee.

Clark's poise, judgment, and military experience will be a help around the country. And he's southern (Ark.) without Webb's conservative "baggage".

We need Biden, Webb, and McCaskill in the Senate. (And Biden's ego is unsuited for VP). Clinton? She may be in the cabinet, but her finances will never be vetted for VP.

No, I don't know him personally (like, I'm sure, everyone else posting an opinion). But I was impressed in 2004, and even more impressed with him together with Obama.

Obama / Clark '08 -- that sounds unbeatable!

[Marlyn]

"as a career soldier is lacking the necessary experience and temprement to be effective in the executive branch" ???
OH SURE!!!????

General Wesley Clark was the Supreme Commander of NATO during the Bosnian conflict. Under his command, ethnic cleansing by the Serbs was stopped, without losing one American life.

... uhh ... what kind of experience were you looking for?

[Doubtom43]

Personally, I'd much prefer Clark as president with Obama as his understudy. The Democrats would probably get 16 straight years out of that combo.

[richfair]

PLEASE - get the word out: GENERAL Wesley Clark is the PERFECT vice presidential candidate for OBAMA! Isn't this easy to fiqure out?
Let;s see McCain or any surrogate come up against an Obama/Clark debate. A charismatic leader and a war - experienced General...­. McCain and the Republicans will have no where to go with that duo!

[theone718]

I TOTALLY agree with richfair. General Clark is my NUMBER 1 PICK for the VP slot. He should get the nod and I hope to see that happen.

[richfair]

I AM NEW TO THIS "REPLY" PROGRAM: BUT, perhaps my reply didn't take.
I simply said that we need to get the word out to the Obama folk and everyone:
GENERAL Wesley Clark is the PERFECT Vice-Presidential candidate. With a charismatic leader (Obama) and a General (Clark) how can McGain and any surrogate debate them on any issue?
Obama will win - I am sure - no matter who he picks - but Clark is an outstanding man.

[NotMcCain]

General Clark--4 star general, former Supreme Allied Commander--thinks Obama would be GREAT as Commander-in-Chief.

If Clark, with his terrific experience and expertise (military, foreign policy, and economics) has confidence that Obama doesn't need to "understudy" anyone, that is a pretty powerful statement for all to see.

"Judgment, charisma, experience, and intellect". How can McSame compete on ANY of those with Obama/Clark?

[Timma]

I agree with the overall tone of General Clark's arguments - But there will never be such a thing as energy independence. Oil is a global industry for the United States as with any other country. We need to step away from the idea we can be energy indepedent.

[klmebane]

we have to become energy independent. oil and natural gas are finite resources, which means eventually we will have used them all up... waiting until we reach that point seems more than a little foolish.

[jimdog1954]

You're a little nearsighted, Timma. We have the technology today to convert to solar, geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric generating plants. The problem is that our elected royalty has sold out the American people for a shipload of oil bucks. We ABSOLUTELY MUST get the oil lobbyists out of Washington. They are a bigger threat to our national security than all our other enemies combined.

[littleblackcat]

jimdog1954, you have that right on! Except for one thing, we did not "elect" bush, those "elections" were stolen.

[Marlyn]

ABSOLUTELY

[allamericanboy]

To jungfan ....... I'll be your dittohead. Every word you spoke echoes my sentiments exactly. Gen. Clark is a leader I'd follow almost anywhere, and I greatly appreciate his extreme civility to Sen. Obama through every step of the Clinton campaign. Obama is my guy for President this time, but Gen. Clark will always get my vote for anything he seeks.