Well, so much for the speculation that Clark might be named VP.
I know its a conventional joke to say how everything is bad news for the democrats, but this actually is bad news for the Democratic Party.
How about Jimmy Carter? Michael Moore? Or anybody else that the Republicans don't like?

This surprising. Is there some sort of tension between Clark and the Obama camp? Over what? Is Clark radioactive? Does this all go back to that remark about the "money people"?

Just another reason NOT to vote for Obama. The guy has no clue.

Don't be obtuse. All politics are local. Clark is from Arkansas. Too close to the Clinton's. Show some critical thinking about stuff, America the Dumb.
signed, America the not Dumb.

Holy mackeral. They're going to need a bigger bus in ObamaLand. Unreal - Gen. Clark coul dhave brought in millions of supporters.

After the way Obama's treated him I wouldn't blame them if they stayed home next November.

Is Obama that determined to LOSE the White House for the Democrats this year????

Chicago Injury Lawyers Reach Bus Accident Settlement
In Chicago, Illinois bus accident attorneys from Cain and Abel, P.C. have reached an insurance policy limits settlement for client WESLEY CLARK stemming from a campaign 2008 crash. The client was supporting the candidate while speaking to the Media in a bus lane. He was hit by the Barak Obama campaign bus that was completing a U turn ; one of many on its route .
That is the last thing our client remembers until he woke up uninvited to the Democratic National Convention .

If the reason Obama is rejecting Clark is because Clark is "too close to the Clinton's" how is that putting country first for Obama? Oh. Right. It's not.

If Wes Clarks office said this they have to be questioned further. I refuse to believe that Wes Clark would instruct his office to tell the press that he should stay away.
Is he speaking? No. Maybe they should replace Bill Clinton to give him a speaking spot..or Chelsea?
This is rumor-mongering by Steve Clemons. He is trying to make something out of nothing. Clark has been saying for weeks that he was scheduled to be at a conference in Italy for months. Obama probably told him he is not the VP nominee and so if he prefers Italy to Denver..go ahead. That becomes some kind of snub? Ridiculous. Wes Clark is doing a fine job advocating for Obama as recently as yesterday. No tension. No drama..as much as some would like to create it.

I think this a mistake by omission, not a reason NOT to vote for Sen. Obama. I think Gen. Clark would have brought a lot to the administration, which capacity notwithstanding.

I believe he's the only Democrat, speaking freely, who hasn't caved to the chorus of wolves who are the self-determined arbiters of appropriate speech. He should not have apologized for his statement about McCain (correct to any thinking person), and he didn't. I wish more in positions from which to speak had Clark's balls.

Hope this hypithesis is wrong.

Hoping for Obama/Clark.

Somebody call Clark's office. This smells like BS.

If this is true, then Obama and those who advise him must be obtuse beyond comprehension. I support Hillary Clinton, 18 million plus supports Hillary Clinton...should we all stay home. Obama...you motherfucker!!!

FAKE!!!
I don't believe this Article. The Author is a staunch Hillary Supporter, just trying to stir up phony drama.
I don't believe Obama would be so dismissive of someone who has been such an Outspoken Supporter.

So before you all start passing judgement on Obama just remember his words "you will know who my VP when I say it!"

Untill this all these "speculation" articles are In my humble Opinion Bull SH!T!

james -- Barack Obama's team has not asked Wes Clark to play any role at the convention. No Role. Thus, there is no reason for Clark to go. This is not rumor-mongering...this is a fact. Obama's people didn't say "stay away" -- they have just given him nothing to do there. That's significant.

And thus, Wes Clark is not going.

I think that the decision by the Obama team to not ask Clark to do anything during those convention days should be revisited.

Onyx -- read my site, perhaps search hillary and IRGC -- and you will see that I am not and was not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Rather than screaming on the blog here, perhaps you should do some due diligence to discover whether what I write in the article is true or untrue.

I have just spoken to Wesley Clark's office again - - and was told that General Clark's schedule is tight but that he would make himself available at the Convention if there is a constructive role that he can play. As it stands, General Clark has not been invited to play a role. . .and thus there is no reason for him to go.

I don't believe a word of this at all.

Bleh, I think this is VERY bad news for Progressives, and a sign that
Obama is losing control of the convention.

Can anybody imagine that Clark is any more polarizing for the right
than Hillary and Little Bill? At least Clark is RIGHT. I will be very
interested in the various opinions on this one. I think Clark's
Military Experience would have attracted many sick-of-it
Republicans and Independents. Perhaps having cajones disqualified
Clark from the Democratic convention.

THANKS, and hope it's not true...

Watch the Olympics, go for a walk, enjoy the remainder of summer, or spend your time commenting about what is going to happen in 10-14 days with all the rumors,etc. above. We will know soon enough. But if you want to speculate, why isn't this just as plausible: Clark is the VP choice and all this is smokescreen to keep it secret.

Alegre, shut your PUMA ass up.
And I don't believe this until Clark or Obama says so.
Unsourced bullshit.

Steve,

This is what I don't get. Why would Clark, who has spent so much time this year stumping for Hillary, now Obama, and numerous congressional races, not attend the DNC convention? Clark has been extremely active politically this year for democrats. Regardless of whether he has a formal role, one would think he would make it a priority to attend the convention.

And you should update the original post to reflect that you have re-contacted the office and got another responce.

Who, specifically, are you talking to? And "Obama people" don't solely set the agenda for the DNC convention schedule btw.

kestrel and others -- I remain supportive of Barack Obama. I want his team to reconsider the decision to not ask Clark to play a role.

Wesley Clark's office is the source for this article.

best, steve clemons

an update:

I have reconfirmed with General Wesley Clark's office that he has not been asked to play a role at the Democratic National Convention. His staff have told me that while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked.

-- Steve Clemons

Um, Steve, not for nothin', but what did you expect them to say, "Wes Clark is going to speak as the VP nominee, but please keep that secret until Obama announces his choice, thank you."

and Alegre, still supporting every bit of baseless conjecture...I would have thought the failed Clinton campaign would have taught you something.

I'm kind of sorry for you. You can still just stop, you know, you used to be somewhat reputable.

I think your update really changes the tenor of the original post. There is a big difference between them saying he is not going to attend and them saying his schedule remains tight but he is willing to attend and play a role if asked.

OK, based on Steve's multiple comments, I'm a little bit confused by what is being reported here. Did the Obama camp actually tell Clark that "there is no reason to go" to the convention? Or is it just the case that he has not been given any speaking role as of yet, and he has therefore concluded on his own that there is no reason to go? And has he been told definitely that he will have no speaking role? Or is it just the case that he has not yet been invited?

If this pre-emptive criticism of Obama is just part of a lobbying effort by Clark's people for a prominent convention role on Securing America night, it seems a bit ham-fisted and irresponsible.

All the hysterics about Clark's being thrown under the bus, or an absurd backlash against every single human being from Arkansas, don't seem to be based on any actual evidence. What bus? What backlash? I wasn't aware that there was any kind of serious rift between Clark and Obama. And lots of people who supported Clinton are appearing at the convention.

But I'd like some more background. Is there some particular Clark statement that Obama's people are worried might prove to be a distraction?

It is not necessary for anyone to be angry with Senator Obama. He will choose who he feels is the right person to be his Vice President.

I, too, wish he would choose General Clark. Having said that, it must be acknowledged that General Clark's first loyalty went to the Clintons. That may be a deciding factor in Senator Obama's decision, like it or not.

And for the people I see here commenting, who remain as remnants of the Hillary camp, the very, very few "PUMAs" who will find any reason to slam Senator Obama, I contend you have said enough at Wes Clark's own website to cause anyone, including Senator Obama if reading that general discussion thread, day after day, to take notice of the vitriol and lies spread about Senator Obama since early in the primary season. You have done more harm to General Clark by spreading lies and distortions of the truth concerning Senator Obama. Clarksters were always known for defending lies and focusing on the truth. Shame on all of you. General Clark should have shut down his general discussion part of the Securing America website, long ago. None of you speak for General Clark and your self-serving ugliness has shamed all the rest of the Clark supporters!

You can't have it both ways, as I've read you say on his general discussion that you are glad if Wes doesn't get chosen for VP, and then come here or at Daily Kos or anywhere else and say Obama is the wrong candidate if he doesn't choose Wes Clark. You all have been doing this kind of thing for months! You all thrive on distorting who Senator Obama is with every twist and turn.

Hillary Clinton lost the primary and Senator Obama won the nomination. He has the right to choose whomever he wants... but I do hope he will consider General Clark.

A shame, Obama and all his minions wouldn't amount to a pimple on Clark's ass when it comes to being a strong militar man or, for that matter a patriotic American. Americans should see Obama for what he is; just another chickenshit democrat willing to appease his neoconic masters. Maybe he shold look to his opponent and see that we already have a Bus- hugger.

This is exactly the kind of half-baked opinion that creates unnecessary trouble. By admission you don't know the whole story. If the MSM is remiss because it refuses to print the truth, how is your view of a situation you only partly know about, helpful. You guys can be too full of yourselves and inappropriately sure of the rightness of your own views. Give it a rest.

I would love to see General Clark as Obama's VP. I would love to see General Clark be honored with a significant role at the convention. Perhaps he would have been had not Hillary Clinton's people pushed for her so hard that there is no more room at the inn so filled with Clintons. What a shame this is.

Dan -- Thanks for your reasonable questions.

The background of this story is that I am organizing a Middle East policy event in Denver during the Democratic convention. I am doing the same at the Republican convention.

General Clark is one of those I had invited. My staff followed up with his office, and he was told that General Clark would not be going to the convention. After a bit of surprise and further discussion, my staff member sent me a note stating that Clark had been told that there was "no reason to come."

I was surprised by this and then called Clark's office and spoke with multiple people. I received the same message that my staff member did.

Essentially, the Obama team have not asked Wesley Clark to play any role at the convention. There has been very little contact between the Clark office and the Obama campaign since Clark's comments about McCain's lack of command experience on a TV show that the Obama campaign asked Clark to appear in at the last minutes.

Thus, Clark has decided that since he has not been asked to play any role at all on any of the days of the convention, he has better ways to spend his time. I think he has maintained a positive, pro-Obama demeanor through all of this -- but in my own view, Clark should appear in some role at the Convention and he does matter to many Dems.

I have no idea if the Obama team is throwing Clark under a bus -- or is just accidentally neglectful.

What I know for a fact is that Clark has not been asked to play a role at the convention. If there is nothing for him to do there, then there is no reason to go. The Obama team did not explicitly tell Clark not to attend the convention -- they just have given him no role.

As one of the top ten most identified Democrats in the nation -- I find that odd and hope that the Obama team will revisit the decision.

I spoke with a Clark spokesman today who told me that General Clark has a tight schedule but that he would rearrange that schedule to appear at the Convention if asked to do something that might be constructive and of service to the Democratic Party. If asked.

That's the whole thing - no big drama....I just accidentally ran into this stuff because of my own invitation to Clark to do something....

best,

Steve Clemons

Jo Martinson -- your note is odd. What part of this story do I not know? I know everything I wrote...it's confirmed. See my last note above.

-- steve clemons

and one more thing...anyone that thinks Obama doesn't want Clark's services is a damned fool. Just last month the two were together at Obama's heavily publicized national security meeting. There are photo's on the internet of Clark sitting right next to Obama, on his left. I guess that's what Obama does when he snubs people, he invites them to his table.

Think a little, sheesh.

I anticipate some quibbles about whether Clark was actually told not to attend or whether he just got into a snit and decided by himself not to go.
Though he is trying to make this into his own decision, it sounds to me like he got a very, very clear message from a major player in the Obama campaign organization that he was not welcome and should stay away.
It's an absolutely stupid move on the part of the Obama campaign.
Now this will hit the talk shows by Monday, and they all like Clark. So now there will be lots and lots for them to talk about because kicking Clark out of the party fits right into the "out of touch" frame, the "small cabal running everything" frame, and the "democrats don't respect the troops" frame. The pundits will just LOVE it.

Here's what is really happening. They're playing a semantics game. Clark will be the VP. But it is 100% true He will NOT be attending the DNC convention. Instead, he will give his VP acceptance speech from NATO headquarters in which he will address America's need to use multilateral diplomacy to address the current security situations around the globe.

Source: My imaginative arse.

Brad -- thanks for your comment. I did not mean to change the tenor of my note. Clark not being asked to play a role at the convention is akin to being asked to remain distant. That is the way that General Clark's close team and friends are perceiving this diss. It is negative -- and I think unfortunate.

Wesley Clark will not be the VP candidate -- and he will not be whisked in at the last minute. If the Obama team does not in fact change their minds about the fact that they haven't scheduled him to do anything, he will be a non-person at the Convention.

This shouldn't be allowed to happen without comment.

-- steve clemons

I believe what you're saying but it doesn't make any sense. Clark's
stock just went way up with the Georgia crisis. After that no one is
going to care about the McCain comment. Obama needs his
experience and credibility on this issue.

It is supposed to be a salute to the troops night and they would
exclude their own general? They would steal his slogan and not
include him? Now that's just plain rude.

When something doesn't make any sense you have to wonder. Is
this a decoy? Is there something about Clark that they know that
we don't know -- something like Edwards???

CathiefromCanada -- the Obama team did not tell Obama not to go to the Convention. They told him he would have no role at the Convention. His team appropriately interpreted this to mean that they were not wanted -- and fundamentally there is no reason to go the convention.

your larger point is exactly on target.

best regards,

steve clemons

Steve, in a response you just said "Clark will not be the VP candidate"

Do you know this for a fact, and have you specifically been told this by someone who would know?

How do you know that Obama has picked his VP?

Nonsense: "There has been very little contact between the Clark office and the Obama campaign since Clark's comments about McCain's lack of command experience on a TV show that the Obama campaign asked Clark to appear in at the last minutes." (author of this post)

Clark's comment, June 13, 2008,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5bYzL2y7xQ

"Obama meets with Clark for advisement, June 18, 2008:
Democratic US presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks as retired Army General Wesley Clark (R) listens during Obama's meeting with generals and other military flag officers at a military and foreign affairs round table discussion in Washington June 18, 2008."

http://securingamerica.com/node/2963

More subjective interpretation = not proof of anything:

"CathiefromCanada -- the Obama team did not tell Obama not to go to the Convention. They told him he would have no role at the Convention. His team appropriately interpreted this to mean that they were not wanted -- and fundamentally there is no reason to go the convention." - Steve Clemons

So you are basing your interpretation on how you think someone else interpreted what you say is "no role in the Convention" which you earlier reported was a message that said "no reason to come."

Shoddy conjecture, that is all that this is.

Clark = dud.

See him in person and you'll be sorely disappointed.

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/3a8e12f7-7b09-445c-b5ce-9ec7741cfe41.html

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/152a0326-5e10-4655-be9f-498447facf8c.html

jryanlamar -- find me something in July or August. The comment about the relative contact between Obama's team and Clark's was made by Clark's staff.

Conspicuously absent from the comments or the original post is some input from career military officers. Gen. Clark is among the most reviled of careerists to have served in recent years. While he is certainly personable and at least modestly intelligent he is viewed with suspicion by the warriors. From his earliest days at West Point throughout his rise to four-stars, he curried favor and played the politics rather than the mission.

He is, of course, joined by an AF parallel, Tony McPeake who is equally despised as having done more damage to the AF than any Chief of Staff in the past forty years.

It is only the lack of common military experience in the nation today which allows such individuals to be given credibility.

My God, Clark is so conniving that even Obama seems to have noticed.

jryanlamar -- nothing shoddy on my end. the words "no reason to come" were said by Clark staffers as shorthand for the impression they were getting from the Obama team. I removed the quotes from the words -- though they were said to me -- because they were the words of Clark staffers and not Obama's team. Clark staffers do believe that the message from the Obama camp is that there is no reason to go to attend the convention because General Clark will have no role.

I think he should have a role....

best regards,

Steve Clemons

I think that Howard Dean owes us an explanation. NOW, if not sooner. let's back up and look at 2006 and upcoming this Nov, and wonder what his goddamned fifty state strategy would look like, if it weren't for the General?

Well, at least the families of the journalists killed by Wes Clarke's Nato bombs may be relieved that he's not going to benefit politically from that slaughter.

Also the many thousands of other families whose loved ones were blown to pieces by "The Perfumed Prince" and his merry band.

Obama is best rid of the leech.

Brad -- my sources are insiders near/around Obama - - but even they do not have a perfect read. I sort of get shadows of shadows.

So, my assertion that Wes Clark will not be named Obama's running mate is based on lots of conversations with these people. I hope I'm wrong.

Based on my conversations with these folks, the leading candidates are Bayh, Biden and Daschle -- and Jack Reed is a dark horse.

I don't hear much about Sibelius or other candidates. Might I be wrong? Absolutely.

Politics is full of surprises -- and is a game based on one's ability to sort through information, get information, and to separate bad from good information....so one makes the best hunches on all of this as one can.

On that basis, I don't see Clark coming out on top of the VP list -- even though I know that the netroots and out in the country liberals would love him. I would be pleased to.

We'll know Monday or Tuesday this week whether I'm right. . .or wrong.

Thanks for the clarification Steve. To my mind, there is a big difference between telling Clark that he is not going to be invited to speak and that he therefore has no reason to come to the convention - which would be a sort of in your face insult and message that he is not welcome - and simply not having invited him, as of yet, to speak. Even if they never invite him to speak, that certainly wouldn't mean he is not very welcome in Denver. But as far as I can tell, the speaking schedule is still in the process of being created. Some very major figures were just announced on Thursday. Isn't it a bit too early to be complaining about being dissed?

I remember the incident of Clark's statement about McCain, when he said being shot down in combat did not qualify someone to be a commander in chief. I know the Obama team criticized that statement, because it deviated from the Obama team message, but it doesn't seem like a big enough deal to keep Clark away from Denver. Not unless there are some other issues we don't know about.

GUARANTEE he's veep. 'not going' is their way of saying 'not available'. think he's gonna sit in on your little middle east sideshow after he gets the nom? HA. relax guys. vp clark indeed. :D

obama loves to shock and awe. he rarely shows his hand.

You screamers are hilarious. You don't understand what this blog and Steve Clemons are up to.

It's clear to me that Steve found out some information that no others really had in hand. He found out not only that Wes Clark wasn't attending the convention but that the General really wanted to and wasn't being asked to do a damned thing. In the high court of politics at a Convention with a top Dem like Clark, that's a big DISS.

So, what does Steve do? He lays out the info and riles folks up (as they should be) and then offers the Obama team an olive branch that says FIX THIS.

You guys are all wrapped up in whether this is real or not -- IT'S REAL. Clemons calls folks up and talks to them as he says he did today. Clark would have Clemons killed if he misspoke on something of this importance.

So, wake up folks. This is a great post. We now know that Clark is NOT going to the convention. We know that Obama's team, or some of them, don't really want to give Clark a reason to go to the Convention. BUT, Clark wants to help and be there.

So, Obama campaign readers, FIX THIS. Get Clark on the program.

Clemons never throws grenades without a reason and a strategy. Clemons is saying he wants Clark in.

TWN is a get things done blog.

Another BIG Obama mistake. These keep adding up. Obama is going to LOSE!

bullshit. far more likely clemons got fooled or is doing a great cover job. if they anounced clark was going the question would be 'in what role?' which they can't answer if he's veep.

Ed -

"While he is certainly personable and at least modestly intelligent he is viewed with suspicion by the warriors"

Are you kidding me??? Number one in his class at West Point and Rhodes Scholar qualifies as a bit more than modestly intelligent

Dan Kervick -- the point you make is noted by me. I want to emphasize that it folks close to Clark and who work for him are the ones who have told me that the "message" they are getting from the campaign is not to come -- not by words "don't come" but by words "we have no role for General Clark" -- or approximately those. I do get the difference...but diplomatic tact aside, the Wes Clark team is not getting the onramp from Team Obama to be able to attend the convention. He won't go without a role of some sort in the program....and there's plenty of time.

To your issue of is it too early to be upset about him not being on the schedule because it's still coming together.

My answer is no -- but I am hopeful that they can now reconsider their neglect of him in the program and invite him in.

I know what I know from talking to people close to Clark who communicated with the Obama team and DNC who told Clark's people that he would have no role.

So whether or not the process is finished or not, the key thing to know is that Clark's people have been told (at this point) that he will have no role.

So, it's the right time to raise this and hope for reconsideration of that position.

best, steve

Obama is really becoming a divisive figure in the Democratic Party. He's also told Charlie Rangel he's not invited to speak at the Convention. I can't believe Democrats are going to end up with this loser. What a shame. Well, this Democrat isn't voting for him.

I think most of you are missing a bigger point: Wesley Clark was in charge of U.S. refugee camps for Haitians who were escaping from Duvalier rule in the 80's and 90's (the treatment of the refugees was despicable) and is a war criminal because of his actions as supreme Nato Commander during the war in Yugoslavia. Please read this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen09172003.html

"the key thing to know is that Clark's people have been told (at this point) that he will have no role."

the key thing to know is that Clark's people have STATED THEY HAVE been told (at this point) that he will have no role.

:)

come on. 'securing america's future'? they made it too obvious now they've trying to ccover to avoid it going on the news beforehand.

Sorry, that should read NATO.

And ignore the fact that Wes Clark is a war criminal?

You're not really much different from the Bush gang are you Steve? You just think you can run the murderous imperial operation with more panache.

No thanks! I'd rather have the real thing.

It appears to me that Steve has confirmed numerous times that General Clark's office has confirmed that General Clark WAS NOT ASKED TO BE PART OF THE DEM CONVENTION.

Period.

A very popular figure among dems for both Hillary and Obama and even among some repubs WAS NOT ASKED TO BE PART OF THE CONVENTION.

The question is WHY.

More important than asking Obama to revist that decision is demanding the Obama camp be asked to explain WHY.

And the nonsense that he is not invited to particpate because he supported Hillary is just nonsense since Hillary herself will be there.

So what is it Obama?

Is it that the (accurate) remark he made about McCains POW experience not being a adaquate qualification for commander in chief and setter of foreign policy is offensive to the neo and wing nut votes you hope to attract? If so will you make US policies acceptable to the wing nuts too or are you just fooling them for their own good?

Or is it Clark's remark about the money men in NY, taken to be Jewish neos ( also accurate) as source of influence for Iraq and now an Iran war is offensive to your financial backers?

It has been suggested by Obama surrogates that what Obama has been demostrating is his flip flops and under the bus tossing from primary to general is his "pragmatism" about how to gain office and govern thereafter. I wonder to which issues will he apply his "pragmatism" in behalf of America? Will it be slective as in the case of US-Isr-Pal and his own ambitions?

The public is tired of having to "guess" which shell the pea is under.

BWTTGASO

wes is no more a war criminal than mccain is an inept pilot who stunk in naval school, crashed planes, and revealed secrets to the vietkong manchurian candidate.

wes neutralizes mccain's 'but i was a pow!!' bullshit.

If this is true, it shows Obama has sense.

A president doesn't need a military adviser who gives only politically popular advice.

I am frankly recycling this comment from the real SecuringAmerica where I've blogged for years.

No Clark eh? But look who Obama chooses to run around with Air Force uniform Project Runway wannabe McPeak whispering in his ear.

Republicans usually pick up ten points in the polls in the last month- the fact that the O! & McCain are purportedly neck & neck at this point considering recent history with a split party to boot should have everyone quite worried.

I think if Barack Obama were a 1/8th as wise as he is over-ambitious...If he actually possesses 1/3rd of the potential we are told over & over again he has (because he's got no actual accomplishments to point to to prove it)...

And if he were a heckova lot less stage managed, he might have a chance of going to the best people available instead of pre-emptively shunning & snubbing the people who have an actual track record of success. Because frankly there aren't that many. Instead of treating them as competition to be eliminated, he would show he's big tent minded for something other than Republicans. Wes Clark could make Barack Obama a great president. But the O! is a fool, end of story.

In PA I am seeing proBO ads where all the people are from Indiana or Ohio (pointing so stupidly to Bayh) & they are keeping Barack's face out of the ads & going for the domestic angle.

Think back to WKC's argument at the DNC Winter Meeting in 2207- a soldier, fighting for his country.

O! operatives reading- compare the famous blue state red state speech with the reclaim the flag speech at the 2004 convention & you tell me which one has held up better. Which one is more relevant to the office of POTUS?

Lost in some blue state red state fantasy, these New Left Democrats are lost in a fuzzy dreamworld of Hope & Change while Rome burns. They don't have a clue- they are not going to field someone like WKC who is an anti-neo-con silver bullet- they are going to run a timid campaign based on having read What's the Matter with Kansas, have Evan Bayh (who makes Steve Clemons & the left apoplectic!) as your VP unless they are so brazen as to recycle John Forbes Heinz Kerry.

General Clark has spent a lifetime immersed in the fine details of America's national defense. The O! seems to have only the vaguest idea of what that might entail. General Clark is an expert on all of the complex underpinnings of the delicate geo-political world & how they intersect with major world institutions, etc. - I mean, there is NO comparison between what the philosophical slant of WKC could do to correct our course. The O! should surround himself with the best & brightest- evidently, that is not going to happen.

What a moron, and that's putting it as kindly as I can. Nobody has worked harder for Democrats- who apparently don't deserve it. After seven years, they have internalized the abuses of their evil twin brethren across the aisle & merged into a giant purple stupidity machine.

I thought they wanted to try to win this time.

Is it possible that the Dems are hoping Chaney comes out with one of his famous "he's a good man" statements about Clark like he did with Joe turncoat?

That would be rich. Tricking Chaney into supporting Clark as Obama's VP. LOL

another source said clark 'cackled hysterically' at someone pointing out the night's title to him. he asked back 'what a oincidence' (paraphrased).

think about it. why would he laugh so happily. does that sound like a guy taking a MASSIVELY INSULTING snub via 'securing america's future WITHOUT the guy that uses that catchphrase'?

you guys are so gullible i'm sure.

Well, I'm still totally mystified. Assuming you are right, Steve, and that Clark is not getting an on ramp, and Obama's team is signaling that Clark will have no role at the convention, what possible reason could there be for these attitudes?

I guess I'm just clueless. Everybody else here seems to have some dark theory about what is going on, and about the nature of the relationship between Clark and Obama. But I'm totally in the dark. If you or someone else knows what is going on, I wish they would speak up and fill me in. I see a lot of shooting from the hip and random griping about everything from Charlie Rangel to Haitian refugee camps, but no authoritative informative.

Anyway, I don't think this is not a constructive way to go about this. You have launched a thread that has produced an outburt of anti-Obama venting and hysteria based on some pretty thin stuff about how Clark's people "feel" dissed. But there is no context, background or interpretation. Has anybody on Clark's team simply called the Obama campaign and asked will Clark or will he not have a role at the convention, and if not, why not? What answer did they get?

General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others. General Clark spoke the truth when he commented about McCain's time as a POW was not qualification for being Commander-In-Chief. Whether serving an active role or not at the DNC convention, General Clark belongs at the event. He is one person who truly supports the troops---Is there a "Support-The Troops" activity planned for the DNC convention?

sorry, it was an aide, not clark directly. still, on aug 11:

For what it's worth, an aide to Gen. Clark could not restrain near-riotous laughter when asked if there was anything behind the connection.

"I don't think it's anything more than an interesting coincidence," the aide said in between convulsions. "It's just because his PAC was named so well!"

really? wow his aide sounds sooooo depressed about clark being 'shunned' over it.

you think they want the news out 2 weeks in advance?

"General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others. General Clark spoke the truth when he commented about McCain's time as a POW was not qualification for being Commander-In-Chief."

General Clark is an idiot and that's why he is not invited to attend.

If true, this should not be surprising. Clark came out first for Hillary. That disqualifies him for Obama (assuming he has any self respect), no matter if he switched sides when he saw who would win.

Obama has plenty of early supporters and always neutral people to choose from. He won't reward early "betrayal."

The only exception to that is he might go with Hillary herself, if he can keep her in a traditional "funerals and state dinners" role.

But good as we think Clark would be... you makes your bets and you takes your chances. He made his bet and lost.

other mike, clark coming out for hil first is not a disqualification, it's an asset. he wants to prove he can win over clintonites. wes is perfect for veep, and this is just an attempt to save the surprise for last. no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise imo.

KayCeSF -

You're more than welcome to post that at SecuringAmerica.com since as you note, is it still open for comments by all. If Clarkies were noted for defending against lies and focusing on the truth, I would say that the pro-Obama segment did a damn poor job of that over at DU and Kos when anti-Clinton statements there were posted. And that includes spreading some lies about Wes stating that he claimed that Obama was unfit to be CIC (something to this day we have to try to shoot down).

Anyways, I know that there are segments of the DNC that are trying to follow the Republican playbook of purging any dissenting opinions (i.e. - anybody who supported Hillary), but I don't think that Wes will follow that lead being the leader he is.

This has to be a head fake of some kind. I just don't believe that the Obama camp would entirely exclude Gen. Clark from the Denver convention, It makes no sense: Obama is smarter than that.

Besides, if you read the entirely of Clark's controversial remarks, he was absolutely correct!

What kind of reporting is this?

"Clark WAS INFORMED by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come".

Are we just supposed to take your word that you happened to have stumbled on a message from Obama's people to Clark?

If this is true, I am pissed!
Gen. Clark is the perfect candidate for VP! He can help Barack smash the Repugs! All the other choices are second rate. Grow som ball BHO!!!

Diamond -- why of course, yes, would be my answer. If you read the bits above, you would see that I had other reasons to contact General Clark regarding the convention -- and I happened to have been at the right place at the right time to learn this interesting news.

Wesley Clark's office called me immediately when I posted this piece just to make sure that my understanding of events and conversations with them were their understanding as well -- and we are on the same page. They have not asked me to change any of the substance of my piece.

And frankly, I think General Clark's office, his staff people, and his friends very much hope that the DNC program committee revisit this decision and offer him a reasonable role during the many long hours of the convention.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

I'm a veteran and I would love to see General Clark involved, but I'm also a progressive democrat who will not get trapped or join the clan of democrats (many here I can see) that want to tell Obama who to pick and how to act. If Obama was all White instead of half-White, would they still be telling him what to do, and how to act? One think I do know, democratic voters do not know how to unite, and that is sad!

I'm re-entering my comment, since I had one typo (in case some democratic or repugnikkkan yahoo wants to make issue of it).

---I'm a veteran and I would love to see General Clark involved, but I'm also a progressive democrat who will not get trapped or join the clan of democrats (many here I can see) that want to tell Obama who to pick and how to act. If Obama was all White instead of half-White, would they still be telling him what to do, and how to act? One thing I do know, democratic voters do not know how to unite, and that is sad!

Clark would bring out MILLIONS of voters???? You're kidding, right? Wacky Wes won exactly ONE primary in 2004 and probably didn't get a quarter million votes total.

Steve,

I'm not sure which is more disturbing: Clark's current absence from the convention line-up OR all the ppl who apparently think you're just making this all up out of whole cloth. As if you had nothing better to do with your Saturday afternoon/evening.

So let me ask... Is this really about Clark's alleged gaffe re: McCain's lack of CiC credentials, or is there some other kind of behind the scenes dramz to which we're not privy? If it's the former, I find myself quite concerned that the Obama camp lacks the stomach for challenging McCain on his perceived strengths moving forward.

Anyway, thx for the reporting.

-Eric

P.S. How would you feel if Biden is ultimately chosen as VP? IMO, he's looking like the most palatable option of the remaining short-listers being bandied about.

But enough about this...back to my dirty martini! Have a good one!

A golden pen for the article and author! The koolaid children are upset because their messiah is being vetted. Oh, well....that is politics. The extreme radicals think that there will not be an investigation on the "passport incident" and the "birth certicate discovery". I see ahead "jail time for many who were involved in this deceit". And with pleasure I will see the ex-hillary clinton people laugh at the idiots like Dean, Pelosi, Dodd, Richardson, Kennedy, Kerry and yes...the cheater..Edwards, and say" That is all folks......say porky pig!!!!!!!!

¨it must be acknowledged that General Clark's first loyalty went to the Clintons. That may be a deciding factor in Senator Obama's decision, like it or not.¨ -- KayCeSF

That is the dumbest thing I have seen in a blog, ever.

Actually, Gen. Clark´s first loyalty is to the United States, period.

Defoliate --

I think if I were you, I'd be a lot more concerned about what the dialogue looks like on General Clark's own public board, including a few of your own "choice" comments, rather than worrying about what is said at Kos.

Nuff said.

Wesley Clark has always been foremost the darling of the media, mainly for his opposition to Bush policies and only lastly for any sort of military competence. Now that the media has slighted Clark for the holy Obama, it will quickly pull the curtain on any statements from the former General. Perhaps Clark can make a living selling souvenirs in Kosovo.

Perhaps the Obama camp just found out that General Clark was removed from his post as NATO chief one year early by President Clinton's Secretary of Defence. For incompetence. More than one NATO general simply refused to obey his commands. The real question is, with a record like that, why has he been allowed to hang around so long?

The WC has been flushed, well done BHO, well done indeed.

Gosh.....let us see...the fighthesmear...was bascially put on to remove rumors...yet...Obama has one major rumor not posted. Mr. Half muslim radical extremist that calls his phoney christian religion a religion and have us Judeo-Christians laughing at the comparison, believes that the people do not see through his deceit is finally being vetted by the pen soldiers of the internet. Good! Let Obamanation and all the books come out within sept through Oct, and then let the October surprise turn off the voters more! It is about time to stop this madness of spellbound idiots that are thinking of flowers and bees and not of our turmoil in our country. Let those same idiots stop smoking crack, stop running around like looneys with "yes we can" faces! No we won't- the polls are saying- the American people will not be swayed by "false hope" and some guy who rather surf in front of the cameras in Hawaii- while the Russians are invading the oil in Georgia. Wake up idiots!

Erik, Biden makes a lot of sense, but 2 sitting Senators = Change? Will Obama toss his slogan under the bus?

LOL. when mccain is insubordinate he's a 'maverick'. when it's clark he's 'incompetent'?

right wing fairy tales would be funny if so many idiots didn't believe them.

If anyone, let me repeat myself ANYONE, thinks that Obama is a progressive, you're tin foil hat is on too tight.

This punk (who I was enthusiastic for back in Jan-March) sold out his grandmother for gawd sakes. What is the matter with you people? We are SCREWED for another 4 years no matter who wins.

And yes, I don't see Obama the Liar as any better than McSame. As a matter of fact, if Obama is the man he says he is since April he'd be the perfect running mate for McSame.

If anyone, let me repeat myself ANYONE, thinks that Obama is a progressive, you're tin foil hat is on too tight.

This punk (who I was enthusiastic for back in Jan-March) sold out his grandmother for gawd sakes. What is the matter with you people? We are SCREWED for another 4 years no matter who wins.

And yes, I don't see Obama the Liar as any better than McSame. As a matter of fact, if Obama is the man he says he is since April he'd be the perfect running mate for McSame.

warrior, mccain has clearly violated te logan act over georgia. why no one is calling him on it is bewildering.

msm doesn't love obama. they love the buffoon mccain.

Bob Sakowski --

I didn't mean anything untowards by that comment. I only tossed it out as perhaps one variable in choosing a VP. I frankly don't think it should or will have a thing to do with it... but who knows?

I agree with you! Wes' allegiance has always been to this country first, foremost, always.... And that's why I value his voice so much. :)

Are you people just plain stupid? I was a supporter of General Clark when he ran, but anyone claiming he can bring in millions of votes is deliusional. He is a great public servant but has his own baggage from the end of his service and caused more than a little trouble when he questioned Sen. McCain's service. I think he was right, but Obama is trying to stay away from giving the repugs ammunition. If you say you won't vote for him because Clark isn't at the convention you are a phony and weren't going ot vote for him anyway. Report back to McCain HQ that you earned today's salary.

Steve, between your reporting of the facts as you learned them from the inept crew at WesPAC you do General Clark a great disservice with this. It makes him look whiny and petty. I don't know who other than Catherine you talked to over there but it does not surprise me one bit they were all too anxious to share with you. What a disaster that group has turned out to be. Talk about crisis management, it begins at home.

HAHHAHAH!!! One of the Clintoon's @skissing political generals, and totally useless. Maybe he can make it selling insurance.

Bob Sakowski, Thank you for this:

"Actually, Gen. Clark´s first loyalty is to the United States, period."

The actual true statements really stand out in this jumble of distortions called "comments" today.

I think he's too 'scary progressive' for the Obama campaign. He's a self avowed and unapologetic liberal who - when faced with political ill winds blowing his direction - refused to throw Michael Moore under the bus, even when it meant political damage to himself. He speaks out loudly and frequently about the dangers of PNAC and their target list of nations - to people who might otherwise not be informed about it. This threatens the boyz in the five-sided building and the status quo at Defense and in Washington. But it doesn't stop him. He won't back down.

Oh, and for those who may be seeking some banning of the blog or commentary over at General Clark's website-- I'd abandon that idea ... After shedding his own blood for it, General Clark has far too profound a reverence for free speech than to ever ban it on his own real estate. And furthermore, he is exceedingly proud of his blog and his bloggers. He's professed that many times to me and continues to do so.

Wes Clark is the original "hold their feet to the fire" guy when it comes to holding our leaders accountable, regardless of party. He encourages everyone to not fall into blind obedience ... to do homework and to never stop questioning.

----------------------------

"Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic; than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable... I think that's the duty of people in democracies, to hold their leaders accountable." ~ Wes Clark

This whole thread reads like an outbreak of mass insanity. It's worse than that. Steve has created a viral Saturday blogospheric kerfuffle that is nothing but a game of Telephone based on a single context-free, poorly explained and imprecise statement by some apparently miffed Clark staffer. And it's posted without any background, and without a sought response - not even a "no comment" - from the Obama camp. Plus, we have two conflicting accounts. According to one, Clark was *told* "there is no reason to come" to the convention. In other words, he was told to stay away. According to the other, Clark has not yet been invited to speak at the convention, and he and his people have concluded *on their own* that their is no reason to come. Of course, many thousands of Democrats who are not speaking at the convention are nevertheless going to Denver attend it.

I feel like I'm reading a Lyndon LaRouche blog, or watching middle schoolers pass notes in class about how Billy hates Kailie because he didn't invite her to the prom. Pretty damn irresponsible stuff.

He tossed a great General that gave us our last miltary victory when Russia is invading under the bus.

OMG.

Steve,

Thank you for drawing attention to this.

It is perhaps the most disturbing news yet in string of troubling signs.

Obama, Kerry and the others were wrong to distance themselves from Gen. Clark when he showed the courage to take on the false idol of McCain the "military leader."

And they are certainly wrong now not to position him prominently at the convention.

I have been inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on how he runs his campaign; my feeling was he had earned it -- but this is way off the mark and out of touch ...

He has been listening to the weak-kneed a little too much, I am afraid.

Thanks for all the tremendous work you are doing w/ Washington Note.

Best,

Richard Power

Gen. Hugh Shelton, who relieved Clark of his command of NATO during Bosnia, informed the campaign that if Clark is the nominee he would go public with exactly what "issues of integrity and character" led to Clark's firing.

Obama won't touch him with a 10 foot pole. He's radioactive at this point.

"General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others. General Clark spoke the truth when he commented about McCain's time as a POW was not qualification for being Commander-In-Chief. Whether serving an active role or not at the DNC convention, General Clark belongs at the event. He is one person who truly supports the troops---Is there a "Support-The Troops" activity planned for the DNC convention?"

Puh-leeze. "The Troops" know that Wesley Clark is a piece of sh*t who'd sell the military down the river for a chance at some political job. Obama's people have figgered out that he's a Clintonoid. Yeah, he's a real hero. Wiki him up. I'm one of the troops and have been my whole life. He'd make the Messiah B. Hussein Obama hated by the military even more.

"General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the
convention." (Steve Clemons)

This is what General Clark`s office have told Steve, and there is
no reason to think that Steve is not reporting this as accurately
as he can. Actually, I`ve never seen Steve repeating exactly
what he`ve heard again and again in this manner; he obviously
wants to get this right.

What Clark said about McCain as a POW and his qualifications
as a future US president does not seem to be a good reason not
to give him a role "of any kind". So if he`ll not get any role at
the convention, one would guess that there are reasons
(reasonable reasons, or bad reasons) that the public are not
aware of.

"no role of any kind"...

Perhaps I am ignorant regarding Clark`s position, but here is
my question: Are there only two choices here:
(A) offering Clark the role of VP candidate or
(B) nothing?
Or does the formulation "no role of any kind" hint at other
possibilities?

Would General Clark have rejected a role as Secretary of
Defense? Would he have rejected other suggestions?

If the answer is: he would have accepted it – the whole affair is
even more strange.

All this leaves us with four possible explanations, as far as I can
see:

1) Obama has simply made a mistake or bad judgement
(Steve`s assumption).

2) There is something we don`t know about the recent/current
relationship between Clark and Obama (I assume that Clark`s
biography, past mistakes and alleged mistakes were well known
to Obama a long time ago), that makes Obama keep a big
distance to Clark, not wanting to offer him any role,
whatsoever.

3) Clark has made it clear that he does not accept anything
except becoming the VP candidate, and Obama has chosen
someone else as VP.

4) Obama has actually chosen Clark as his VP candidate,
whispered this in his ears, made him promise not to disclose
this to anybody except his wife (not even his office, since
Obama does not yet want to show his cards). His staff people
know nothing, inform Steve accordingly, and he reports what he
hears from an office that has not yet been informed.

5) Clark will be invited tomorrow.

Just my two cents. We`ll soon know, regarding the fourth or
fifth alternative. And don´t waste your time questioning Steve`s
credibility in this case. I`ve never seen him so anxious to give a
correct report.

"General Wesley Clark is a national hero who is liked and respected by veterans and others."

No, he isn't. He's almost universally reviled by evryone in DOD. He was an overbearing, arrogant micromanager. I know several people who worked on his staffs at SOUTHCOM and EUCOM, and everyone hated the SOB. He thought he was God's gift to the military. He only got as far as he did through politics -- kissing ass, for you civilians. As demonstrated by his incompetence during ALLIED FORCE in Kosovo, he has no idea how to conduct a major operation.

There were cheers in EUCOM when he got canned. Couldn't have happened to a nicer snotweasel.

Well, if anyone besides myself has waded through the hundred some odd comments on this thread, I'm curious if anyone else reached the heartsinking realization that 85% of the general populace are blithering dolts.

Steve made himself quite clear, on numerous occassions explained how he arrived at this "information", and went the extra mile to verify that he was not misrepresenting what he was told, and what he passed on to us.

WTF do you people want, an affidavit? A sworn statement from the three parties?

And why would it suprise you for Obama to cast aside a broker of the truth? Anyone with half a brain should be scared shitless at the prospect of EITHER of these candidates managing to slither their way into the Oval Office. These are dangerous times, and these are dangerous men. People like Clark, Paul, Wexler, etc. do not fit into the plans of McCain's and Obama's string masters.

Meanwhile, the machine manufactures a new Cold War.

Maybe we really are going to fry this planet.

What an amazing time we are able to witness. Gads, would you have believed it twenty years ago?

Wesley Clark has the stench of Clinton pond scum all over him. Clark is "in bed" with the Clintons - yuck. That is probably on BIG reason the Obama people want nothing to do with him.

In 2004, Bill Clinton pressured Kerry to put Hillary or Wesley Clark on the ticket.

It is not going to happen in 2008 either.

POA,
I had it in my mind, but forgot the obvious sixth (or first!) option:
Not choosing Clark is another part of his "move towards the
center". If so, it may suit powerful interests of different kinds, but
it will probably result in Obama loosing the election.

If he for example says that he was strongly against the Iraq
invasion, "but don`t worry, my VP candidate voted for the
invasion, and may even support an invasion of Iran", Americans
will probably see it as the joke it is. There are limits to how much
you can talk about "change" and surround yourself with status
quo people. We`ll see...

BTW, I assume you know the old Chinese curse: May you live in
interesting times.

Now I'm sure it is Obama/Clark 2008. The Good General shores
up the coalition on 3 fronts, Clintonites, military and older voters.
You read it here first...

Can't you just feel the unity?

Looks like another circular firing squad!

People who don't know their own history may be doomed to repeat it.
Slick Willie FIRED the then General Wesley Clark during the 2nd half of his 2nd term. To read the content of some of the more interesting (read ravening howls of outrage I tell you, outrage) entries, one might think that Clark and the Clintons form some sort of cabal within the current cabal that is the People's Democratic Party. Not even close.

Clark is a military adventurer in the mold of Swift Boat John Kerry. Not actual military adventure, mind you, but political opportunism, cynically trading in the compromized good of his military "career" for a shot at the Big Brass Ring.

It is always amusing to watch the moonbats attack each other in the interest of "solidarity". This, of course, will not happen one the Annointed One becomes the all powerful, last elected President; he will ensure that you all work either together in harmony or you will bedome resident in his new Denver holding pen/gulag model society.

Fevered dreams.

How could Obama team not invited Clark at the convention? That day is intended for veterans and Wesley Clark represents the veterans, the men and women who dedicated their service for the country. If I were a democrat, I would not vote for Obama. This is a sign that he disregards the service of Clark being a veteran and an active democratic surrogate.

Now is the time for this buffoonish character to turn his skills to making moonshine or sone other hillbilly pursuit.

I've seen seme pretty ignorant comments on the internet, but the ones villifying a true American hero and patriot are the scummiest of the scum. What it amounts to is they don't know squat about Wes Clark, but are just mouthing the bull shit put out (and debunked time and time again) by their neo-con puppet masters.

"Looks like another circular firing squad!"

Hey, no problem, WigWag. I'm sure you'll succeed in turning it into a circle jerk instead.

Steve-

Thanks for this thread and your great work on Washington Note.

POA-

I share your sentiments. As a Clark supporter I was really hoping that Clark might be the VP, but seemingly little chance of that now.

"String masters" is right. Imo in America today the real choice is between "Empire" and "Republic" but unfortunately all the candidates favoring "Republic" have been eliminated. Which means the changes implemented since 2000 will not be rolled back. The Republic is dead, long live the Empire.

Memorandum:

To: Super Delegates
FROM: WigWag
Re: Democratic Nominee
DATE: August 16, 2008

The Democratic Party is in disarray. In a year in which our candidate for President should sweep to victory, we are witnessing, against all odds, an election that we could actually lose. This is almost unimaginable given (1) the policy failures of the Bush Administration; (2) President Bush's unpopularity; (3) the results of the generic Democratic versus Republican polls in the presidential race and (4) our anticipated victories in the House, Senate and gubernatorial races.

While Senator Obama currently holds a razor thin lead in the popular vote and a stronger but precarious lead in the electoral vote, it is universally acknowledged that he should be far ahead of where he is now; especially in light of the fact that the Republican attack machine has not even started yet. And remember in the last several presidential cycles the Republican candidate always does best in the month before the election.

It is also shocking that the Democrats have lost the edge in the money race. While Senator Obama, the DSCC and DCCC have far out raised their republican counterparts, the Democratic National Committee (under Howard Dean) has done such a poor job at fundraising compared to the Republican National Committee, that the over all monetary advantage once held by Senator Obama has all but vanished. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the fundraising for the Republican convention in Minneapolis has been spectacularly successful while fundraising for the Denver Convention is hopelessly in the red. The DNC (unlike their republican counterparts) will need to spend many millions of dollars subsidizing the Democratic Convention, which will limit still further any financial advantage that Senator Obama should have had.

Senator Obama himself has been a terrible candidate. Between March and June, Senator Clinton won most of the primaries and caucuses. And of course, she won almost every large state that Democrats usually rely on for victory. Senator Obama amassed the largest number of pledged delegates by relying on caucuses that discriminate against older people and working people; and in any case, his early victories were followed by a string of losses. As everyone acknowledges, from the time he became the presumptive nominee, his attempt to move to the center has been handled so awkwardly that the Senator has become the focus of ridicule. Thank goodness he is being sustained by allies in the press, or his plunge in the polls would be even more precipitous. Between the PUMA movement which is growing rapidly and working class voters who claim they will not vote for Senator Obama, it is hard to remember a time since 1968 when the Democrats have gone into a convention more divided.

It is crucial to remember that neither candidate won enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In fact, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are separated by less the 150 pledged delegates. This means the Super Delegates will decide the nomination. Senator Obama won the mist pledged delegates. The rules may have been unfair, but the Senator played by the rules. If the Super Delegates vote for the candidate who won the most pledged delegates, Senator Obama will win. Senator