To repeat; as a former Clark/Obama and Obama/Webb promoter, I am now convinced that the Obama/Clark presidential ticket would be very hard to beat in November.

Thanks for making this video clip available to us.

Steve

Wes Clark would be a superb choice for Barack Obama's running mate.  Now that Webb's out, unfortunately, I'm all for Obama/Clark!

Although Clark would be on my own "short list" of about five or so, he has been inspired of late.  And he doesn't roll over for the fawning, lapdog embrace of the radical right frame.  

I think that the activist base of the Democratic Party will be excited, energized, etc.  I see no downside to picking Clark, lots of upside potential for Obama...

activists will be "excited, energized, etc."   and his selection has major "upside potential" .... and the radical rights in the media will find their attempt to "Dean Scream" Clark out of consideration for the V-P slot did not work    

Great post!

I've been dismayed ever since Cheney, searching eight years ago for Bush's running mate, ended up picking himself.  There's something fundamentally wrong with a President ceding too much power, and 9/11 and its aftermath proved how horrible the consequences can be.

After Bush's lowest point in Iraq, when the Dems won big in the '06 elections, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group advocated against the surge, Bush couldn't even go to Cheney or Rumsfeld any more, his wise old men having been discredited.

The lying lawyers in the White House had built up the notion of Commander-in-Chief to Omnipotent Emperor in Time of War, which happened to be a Global War on Terror with no end in sight!  But, it was obvious to everyone at this point that there was no way to credibly claim Bush was up to this job.

It was a brilliant move on the part of the chickenhawk neocons to put up Petraeus as the latest savior for the empire.  Now we see even war hero McCain doesn't understand what the surge was.  It's obvious that all McCain has left is to lionize Petraeus even more.

Don't put it past McCain, who probably does know better, to argue that in these extraordinary times someone like Petraeus should be able to trump even the Commander-in-Chief.  As the warmongers increasingly sense defeat, they'll pull out all the stops to claim electing Obama would be a disaster.

I hope as the voters become more comfortable with Obama, they'll realize that the Republicans are merely projecting their own inner guilt and fear about what a disaster they've been.  

relentless attacks this week.  These attacks are unprecedented by a candidate.  Usually the candidate uses surrogates or sympathetic PACs step in.  Now we have the GOP candidate for pres, acting in a most unpresidential way.  And the media, including, and especially Couric, but also Williams, Gibson, CNN, and most of MSNBC have been only too happy to use the same lines of attack.  It's going on on NPR as well.   Everyday this week, NPR ran stories critical of Obama, his trip, and his policy, using the McCain frame, and even McCain himself blasting Obama, without giving the Obama side a change to rebut.  The line has been that it was a photo op week for Barack but "nothing of substance."  

Every single outlet has repeated the unprincipled statements of McCain, including the ones which outrageously suggest (in so many words) that our candidate is a traitor.  As Scott McClellan admitted what we all here long knew --that FOX uses White House talking points, every single media outlet unashamedly does the same thing. That Couric, Scarborough, or anyone else could keep parroting McCains' lame and desperate  flailing shows just how far down the all-propaganda-all-the-time road they are.  

behind Petraeus.  And he's essentially making the argument that you can't argue with anything Petraeus says or does.  Otherwise "you don't support the troops."  Now if you don't buy into McCain's near-crazed hammering on the escalation, and his wound-tight demand that Obama embrace this re-labeled escalation, you "don't support the troops."  And if you say anything (Sunni Awakening (including payoffs), Shia stand-down, or anything else besides the troops contributed to any improvement in Iraq, then you are "disrespectful to the troops."  This is nonsense.  And it's a sure sign that, if selected (he won't win if there's an election), McCain would further aggregate power and limit free expression.

McCain should be honest enough to admit that he and Obama simply disagree about military strategy and what's in the best interests of the country they both hope to lead.

McCain "evolved" almost instantly from the "maverick" "reformer" who complained about the "agents of intolerance" and dirty tricksters who helped get the completely unqualified Bush the GOP nomination in 2000 to the wannabe GOP frontrunner for 2008, pandering to that same unevolved base.  

McCain's credibility ought to be shot.  He ought to be the last person who should be listened to on whom should be the next President.  

It is the height of recklessness to tear down the nominee of the other major party, particularly on questions of war and peace.  I don't even think it's smart politically, because it presumes the undecided independents are so stupid they'll believe whatever he says.

Speaking of McCain's words, McCain must never be allowed to get away with arguing that, if elected, Obama should let Commander Petraeus make the decisions.

From April 14, 2004 on Hannity and Colmes:

I begged and pleaded that we send more troops. Secretary Rumsfeld said, 'Well, our commanders on the ground haven't asked for them.' It's not up to the commanders on the ground. It's up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions. That's why we elect them and have civilian supremacy.

that anyone who disagrees with his ideas regarding Iraq must either be an idiot or totally self serving (e.g., his line about how he'd rather lose an election than lose a war, while Obama would rather win an election and lose a war - horrible).  Actually, no John, lots of people who aren't idiots OR self serving disagree with you on a lot of things...including Iraq.

...are saying McCain should drop it, because he's starting to sound pathetic.  I mean seriously, the only thing I've heard from McCain this entire past week has been Surge Surge Surge, or that the media loves Obama.  That's all he's got.

I mentioned it to my wife last night, and the very next news clip was McCain parroting that same tired rhetoric. She just looked at me and laughed.

http://news.aol.com/elections/...

Apparently (not sure I believe this--it may be the media trying to get Obama's base upset), the VP selection team is floating the name of Republican and GW Bush former cabinet member, Ann Veneman.  :-(  This is appalling.  If Democrats give away the No. 2 slot, I would be speechless.  And that only happens about once every two or three years.  :-)

But, seriously, we should write the campaign and tell it why this is a bad idea.

Obama's proposal for a timeline (while outrageously purporting that Obama "wants defeat").

This is priceless:

I thought that was the worst thing in the world?

h/t MyDD