Some Clark Supporters Are Annoyed At His Clinton Endorsement

Ret. Gen. Wes Clark writes to his WesPac flock about his decision to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton:

As should have been expected, the range of reactions to his announcement has been as wide as the range in types of supporters he has pulled together over the years. Because, this has turned into a major issue for so many within the Clark Community Network, I want to take this time to remind everyone of WesPAC's Mission Statement. It's a lot more comprehensive than simply taking back the White House.

A few days later, he wrote this:

I know many of you aren't willing to throw your full support behind Hillary yet – and I understand that too. I know that each of you have to make your own decisions about who to support in the primary, though I hope many of you will join me in supporting Hillary by the time all is said and done.

The Clarkers seem pretty mad at the boss.

Nocore writes: I've spent over 4 years advocating for Wes with great passion. I've spent longer than that advocating against Hillary with great passion.

Arlene in Florida spoke for many:

I adore General Clark even though I do not post on the blog. While at work, I looked at MSNBC and read that our hero is endorsing Hillary. General, I support you 150%. That being said, I as a Dem cannot stomach Hillary.

Comments

The truly fascinating thing about the netroots in '04 was that they were divided between supporting a Clinton proxy and a DLC centrist governor.

Iraq trumped every other element of politics combined in the '04 race for the netroots.

Posted by Petey | September 20, 2007 3:30 PM

one thing is for sure. he will be the veep. he was great on john stewart and absolutely the best voice of opposition to the iraq war--i mean petreaus was his captain. given the current inertia on iraq, given the fact that it is by far the biggest political issue of the day whoever wins the nom, he will get the vp nom

Posted by JC | September 20, 2007 4:39 PM

Most of General Clark's supporters were expecting him to enter the Presidential race. Getting the news of his not running and his endorsement of another candidate that they were prepared to help him run against required quite an adjustment.

These are grassroots supporters, not professional bloggers. I think it's only fair to give them a chance to adjust.

I tell you, I'm one of his supporters, and I had been prepared to not like Hillary because she was the rival. Since his endorsement, I'm surprised at how often I find myself defending her. I hadn't much thought about that attacks against her, because she wasn't my candidate. But the more I look at these attacks, the more I realize that a vast majority of them are completely unfair.

I think others will come to this realization as well.

Posted by Reg NYC | September 20, 2007 5:23 PM

Same sentiment, but I'm in for SecDef.
He wants to show the rest of these bozos how to execute the successful regime change of a rogue dicator without the endless lost of troop lives. He's already done it once.
General Clark has a reputation in the military as a brilliant military strategist, and he will help us end this national nightmare in Iraq.
I sure like Senator Clinton's choice for generals better than President Bush's.

Posted by Jan | September 20, 2007 5:29 PM

Are you kidding me? Clinton will choose better generals than President Bush? I assume you smoke crack.

Posted by michael | September 20, 2007 5:58 PM

Yeah, Bush has such a great reputation for picking competent subordinates.

Ha ha ha ha...

I'm retired Army and I can tell you that ever since Bush came to power, he has placed political loyalty over tactical competence in all his senior military officers. Rumsfeld even interviewed every nominee for 2-star or better personally to make sure they favored Bush policy. The military is going to suffer for this politicization for the next generation of officers.

Say what you like about the Clintons. Bill knew what he didn't know and pretty much left us alone to do our jobs the way we saw best.

Posted by Ret LTC | September 20, 2007 6:18 PM

It's safe to say smoking crack would likely lead to better foreign policy decisions, compared to this President's decisions. In any event, it couldn't produce a worse result.

Posted by Betty | September 20, 2007 6:26 PM

General Clark is not an ideologue nor are his supporters. There has always been a very broad range of thought among the members of the Clark community. Not all are as moderate; not all are as liberal; not all are as progressive - and he is all of those things depending on the specifics of an issue - as he is. Not all are even Democrats. Supporters have never been expected to agree with the General, just to think through his positions and join him if we can. Mostly the community is working through the harsh reality that we may never see the Wes Clark presidency we've struggled for years now to see and the country is the loser. Senator Clinton probably understands all of this, understands how human political supporters are when it comes right down to it.

To assist you in your own understanding, here is another Clark Community Network thread. It has a somewhat broader representation of reactions than you have apparently seen.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13387#comment-241836

Posted by Anna | September 20, 2007 6:33 PM

They should be mad. Clark is one of the few mainstream pols to blast Iraq from the start, and now he's backing "pro-war" Hillary. Buddies come first, I guess.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | September 20, 2007 7:05 PM

Wes Clark just lost my respect with his "endorsement" of Hillary.

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by Peter | September 20, 2007 8:07 PM

Oh, we can only hope that Hillary gets voted in so that Officers in our Military can then be waiters serving chips, dips, and bottled water at her dinner parties as they had to do in Bill's presidency. And for (Ret) General Clark to endorse that, I know why he has lost the respect of his fellow soilders.

Posted by Gary | September 21, 2007 2:01 PM

I agree heartily with Anna on this. I am an editor on General Clark's blog and when you cite that "Arlene in Florida spoke for many" you have made an error I'm afraid. We have a comment rating system like many blogs with a "four star" rating being the highest. The one you've pointed to as representative of the community at large received only two votes on a day when hundreds were present and blogging about the endorsement.

We are one of the more diverse "candidate" (yes, I still call him a candidate) blogs on the internet with ardent but varied political passions comprising the mix. A potpourri of parties, races, ages, and cultures.

I would recommend you delve more deeply into the Clark Community Network - for example, today's top rated diary by an Indigenous Blackfoot Indian Clark supporter is extremely worthy of note.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13417

It's truly a group that defies pigeonholing. Like the General himself, we are many-faceted and do not walk in lock step.

Posted by ms in la | September 22, 2007 12:59 AM

Right=wing lies, Gary. No military service members ever waited tables for the Clintons, and Gen Clark has nothing but the greatest respect from those of us who know him and what he has accomplished.

Posted by Ret LTC | September 22, 2007 9:06 AM

God Damnit General Why TF didn't you RUN FOR PREZ!
I am beginning to thing Clark is a right wing black propaganda plant.

Posted by ix | September 24, 2007 3:19 AM