This is all about hating Hillary. Hate is the only thing the GOP has (besides corruption indictments and pottygate)going for it in 2008.
I can just smell the carnage in November. Republicans are really running scared. I confronted my mother-in-law about why she detests Hillary so much. I pressed her on why she thinks she shouldn't be president. I asked her to give me 1 reason ..blank stare and the ineveitable …."well I just don't like her".
When you have nothing, and your party has no ideas and nothing but failed policy…blame a Clinton! It is so much easier than being educated, isn't it?

File this one under "Who Cares"

This is too nauseating to contemplate, considering who got him the job at NATO! I want this guy for president slightly less than I do Hillary! Which is not at all.

I am so glad to see a decorated General endorsing Senator Clinton. He knows her well and the experience factor is a character endorsement.

I worked for Clarke in Europe when he was the top military man. He would be a disaster as SecDef, just as he was as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and Commander of American forces in Europe. I worked with 6 top commanders in my 25 years as a military officer. Clarke was the worst.

wow hillary got Gen.clark a 25 year friend lol… cnn should ask former joint cheif Gen. hugh shelton what he thinks of Gen.clark O thats right Gen.Shelton fired him.

I would not be at all surprised to see Gen Clark have a significant role in Barack Obamas' presidency either. Mr. Obama is about filling positions with qualified competent people, not just old frat buddies.

"People who think they can support our troops and still be against the war are naive." – That sounds like it falls under this quote: "Why of course the people don't want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

Hillary and Rudy probably are the two best candidates for President from an experience standpoint. They both have been in or near executive positions and have performed highly. So, I think either one of them would make a fine president. Hillary, in my opinion, has the upper hand over Guiliani because she was in the white house for 8 years, participated in 2 presidential and 1 senatorial election; she has a lot of experience which will enable her to sheamroll over Rudy J. Plus, I think Rudy was been artificially elevated to some kind of 9/11 hero; his resume might be a bit exaggerated, but he too would make a fine president. If I had to chose now, I would chose Hillary for President, so long as she promises not to pursue a radical feminist agenda.

It saddens me that a four star general will shoot our troops in the back.

If were let Iraq become a free haven for Al Qaeda, supported by Iran (soon to be a nuclear power) and the oil money from Iraq, the results will be, not could be, catastrophic. The first thing that comes to mind is suitcase nukes in the hands of terrorists. It's a no brainer. I have yet to see the liberal media address that.

People who think they can support our troops and still be against the war are naive.

Posted By Michael James — Illinois : September 16, 2007 12:56 am

Michael, it's obvious that you are a committed and fervent Obama supporter.
Your lengthy replies are well thought-out and seemingly well researched to a fault. They are so complete that they could come directly from the Obama campaign, especially the cherry-picked polling, anecdotes and quotes on the military.

I commend you and the Obama campaign in your valiant efforts to continue in the face of double-digit deficits in the poll numbers and the efforts of former senator Edwards to overtake him for number two.

Sue in Michigan, I never said anything about liking Junior Bush. I dislike both the Bushes and the Clintons.

People have to realize the George H W Bush is currently not a candidate for president again and stop wasting their time and energy comparing the current candidates to him. That is just misleading and angering the public. How about comparing the candidates to each other, and looking at their merits and where they stand on issues.

Hillaryt Clinton has no experience. 8 yeas as a house wife in the White House doesn't count. She managed to get elected senator of New York on her husband's name. ow she's running for president, on her husband's name.

As senator of New York, she named a post office. And brought the #1 outsourcer of US jobs to india into New York. She voted for the war in Iraq that she now claims tobe so opposed to. And she voted for an immigration bill nobody wants.

The Clintons also have ties to the Bushes. They vacation together and have financial dealings. The Clintons are no better than the Bushes.

The past 20 years have been Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. Voting for Clinton again is not change.
And change is what we desperately need now.

CLINTON & CLARK 2008!!!

Wesley Clark, the hero of Waco, the guy who bombed the Chinese Embassy, the guy who ordered the British to open fire on the Russian military, and the guy who endorsed Cheney and Rumsfeld in Arkansas in 2001. The original poster child for bad judgement. One more losing candidate endorsing another.

Maggie from Grain Valley, MO touched on some things to which I would like to respond.

Hillary’s war vote cannot be written off as simply being misled by Bush. Hillary has said: "I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority."

Here is the truth, as reported by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta in The New York Times Magazine earlier this year. The full text is available at the URL below:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50712FD3F540C708CDDAF0894DF404482

It is a long article, so go to the sub-heading "A forgotten vote" for the details. "Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting — and that she now says she had favored all along."

"The long-overlooked vote was on an amendment introduced by Carl Levin and several other Senate Democrats who hoped to rein in President Bush by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force… The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin's words, "urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution." That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option." In light of this, for Hillary Clinton to say, with a straight face, that it's all Bush's fault is completely disingenuous.

Furthermore, Barack's experience doesn't start with his election to the US Senate. This whole experience fallacy is being propagated by the Clintonistas because they know Barack is the superior candidate. She can't win on substance, so she needs some sort of generic way to convince people to ignore all of the ways in which Barack is better than Hillary. For starters, he's actually held elective office for a longer period of time than has Hillary. You can learn a great deal about Barack’s background by going to his website: http://www.barackobama.com/about/ and you can see a nice chart summarizing the more than 800 bills he sponsored in the Illinois State Senate at the following URL: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

How do Hillary's legislative accomplishments, if any, stack up to those of Barack Obama? Is she counting her years as first lady as part of her experience? If so, then why can't anyone look at her records from that time period? Why will Hillary not release her tax returns or her earmark requests as Barack Obama has done?

Prior to taking public office for the first time, Barack was a community organizer and, after earning is law degree, a civil rights lawyer in Chicago. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. The bottom line is that Barack Obama has the right kind of experience, the right judgment as well as the right temperament and character to be a great president.

Even if one were to concede that Clinton has more experience (which I do not), let's talk about the record of those with experience in terms of the Iraq vote. Iraq is a case study on the kind of decision-making a president faces — serious consequences at stake, imperfect information, and passionate voices on both sides. Despite all of that, Barack had the foresight to know that it was a bad move. That kind of judgment and foresight is what I want in my President, which is why it should rightly be be considered evidence of his ability to sift through the complexities a president faces and make the right decision. We don’t know all of the tough decisions the next president will face, but we do know that Barack has what it takes to make such decisions.

The prescience Barack Obama demonstrated on the Iraq vote is highly preferable to looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know now…" as Clinton has said now that the political winds have shifted. Barack had the same general information a lot of us did. He listened to the case outlined by the Bush administration and, instead of supporting Hillary's position, he chose wisely. Hillary didn't even bother to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate. Hasn't her "experience" taught her that you need to read the fine print? How naive of her! Oh wait, it probably wasn't naiveté on HRC's part since there's that pesky issue of voting against the Levin amendment.

I don’t want Hillary to apologize for Bush’s erroneous war, but I do want people to stop allowing her to mislead them about her calculated move to vote with Bush. She has no one to blame but herself since that vote was an attempt to make sure that she wouldn’t be vulnerable from the right on the issue later on during the presidential campaign.

Now that it's fashionable to be against the war, she is simply trying to triangulate. For the moment, she's doing a very good job of that since a lot of people seem to be buying it, but I'm not one of them.

Maggie from Grain Valley, MO touched on some things to which I would like to respond.

Hillary’s war vote cannot be written off as simply being misled by Bush. Hillary has said: "I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority."

Here is the truth, as reported by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta in The New York Times Magazine earlier this year. The full text is available at the URL below:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50712FD3F540C708CDDAF0894DF404482

It is a long article, so go to the sub-heading "A forgotten vote" for the details. "Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting — and that she now says she had favored all along."

"The long-overlooked vote was on an amendment introduced by Carl Levin and several other Senate Democrats who hoped to rein in President Bush by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force… The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin's words, "urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution." That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option." In light of this, for Hillary Clinton to say, with a straight face, that it's all Bush's fault is completely disingenuous.

Furthermore, Barack's experience doesn't start with his election to the US Senate. This whole experience fallacy is being propagated by the Clintonistas because they know Barack is the superior candidate. She can't win on substance, so she needs some sort of generic way to convince people to ignore all of the ways in which Barack is better than Hillary. For starters, he's actually held elective office for a longer period of time than has Hillary. You can learn a great deal about Barack’s background by going to his website: http://www.barackobama.com/about/ and you can see a nice chart summarizing the more than 800 bills he sponsored in the Illinois State Senate at the following URL: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

How do Hillary's legislative accomplishments, if any, stack up to those of Barack Obama? Is she counting her years as first lady as part of her experience? If so, then why can't anyone look at her records from that time period? Why will Hillary not release her tax returns or her earmark requests as Barack Obama has done?

Prior to taking public office for the first time, Barack was a community organizer and, after earning is law degree, a civil rights lawyer in Chicago. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. The bottom line is that Barack Obama has the right kind of experience, the right judgment as well as the right temperament and character to be a great president.

Even if one were to concede that Clinton has more experience (which I do not), let's talk about the record of those with experience in terms of the Iraq vote. Iraq is a case study on the kind of decision-making a president faces — serious consequences at stake, imperfect information, and passionate voices on both sides. Despite all of that, Barack had the foresight to know that it was a bad move. That kind of judgment and foresight is what I want in my President, which is why it should rightly be be considered evidence of his ability to sift through the complexities a president faces and make the right decision. We don’t know all of the tough decisions the next president will face, but we do know that Barack has what it takes to make such decisions.

The prescience Barack Obama demonstrated on the Iraq vote is highly preferable to looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know now…" as Clinton has said now that the political winds have shifted. Barack had the same general information a lot of us did. He listened to the case outlined by the Bush administration and, instead of supporting Hillary's position, he chose wisely. Hillary didn't even bother to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate. Hasn't her "experience" taught her that you need to read the fine print? How naive of her! Oh wait, it probably wasn't naiveté on HRC's part since there's that pesky issue of voting against the Levin amendment.

I don’t want Hillary to apologize for Bush’s erroneous war, but I do want people to stop allowing her to mislead them about her calculated move to vote with Bush. She has no one to blame but herself since that vote was an attempt to make sure that she wouldn’t be vulnerable from the right on the issue later on during the presidential campaign. Now that it's fashionable to be against the war, she is simply trying to triangulate. For the moment, she's doing a very good job of that since a lot of people seem to be buying it, but not me.

Sad that he seems to think it's okay for the BUSH and CLINTON family to pass the white house back and forth for the past 25 years.

This Video Is Showing That Obama can be president because two fmr presidents were
where he is right now, lessons prove experience makes an either worse president( nixon, bush, vp dick cheney, defense sec.rumsfeld)

Maggie,

In response to your post…

First, Obama has more time as an elected government official than either Senator Clinton or former Senator John Edwards.

Second, in regard to his stance at the time of voting for the war… in a speech by Obama in 2002:

"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." -Barack Obama

Do you still think he'd have voted for an Iraq war with the words above?

Clark evidently thinks hillary is going to get the nomination, and is hoping for a job.
hillary will NOT make a good president; she had a chance when she was running her husband's terms.
he could have taken care of al quaeda but did nothing. anyone watch 'path to 911?? do it.

And Bill W, what has Little Bush done for us exavtly? Let's see, taken away rights, held prisoners against the Geneva convention, made up a war so his Halliburton buddies could get richer, sent troops to be killed (more than were killed on 9-11) not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraquis who are either dead or displaced or just terrified, eliminated the surplus, made a mockery of the Constitution–and you dislike the Clintons?

Response to George : September 15, 2007 2:13 pm, who requested some documentation and information on endorsements.

I see that others have already provided links to the story on the military contributions, but here’s another one: http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=300

I readily admit it’s not a huge amount of money or a huge number of contributors, but Obama is ahead of everyone from either party by a substantial margin. Are you trying to say that Clinton would enjoy more support from the military than Obama? If so, please provide your evidence. In any event, I’m sure if it was Hillary Clinton leading in contributions from the military, it would be front page news everywhere.

Despite the small sample size, the support from the military for Obama dovetails nicely with a Zogby poll from early in 2006, in which an overwhelming majority (72%) of American troops serving in Iraq thought the U.S. should exit the country within the next year.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

As for endorsements from generals, I don’t know of a complete list anywhere, but I know of at least two generals and plenty of others with significant national security and/or military experience:

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Former Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Former Director, Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command. He had a 32-year Air Force career. As a fighter pilot, he flew 274 missions over Iraq during and after the first Persian Gulf War.

General Merrill “Tony” McPeak; Chief of Staff, United States Air Force (1990-1994).

Dr. Richard Danzig; Secretary of the Navy (1998-2001)

Dr. Tony Lake; National Security Adviser(1993-1997); Director of Policy Planning, State Department (1977-1981)

Dr. Susan Rice; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs(1997-2001); Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs, the National Security Council, (1995-1997); Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping, National Security Council (1993-1995)

http://www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/national-security-and-military-leaders-praise-barack-obamas-.html

Zbigniew Brzezinski; former National Security Advisor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070824/pl_bloomberg/ank76qu5lafs_1

Ted Sorensen; John F. Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, legendary speechwriter, and "alter-ego."
http://www.charlierose.com/activity/most-popular/page6

There is also Patrick Murphy, the only Iraq veteran currently serving in the US House of Representatives.

Murphy joined the Army in 1993 and later become a West Point professor and a Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps attorney. He earned a Bronze Star as a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, serving in Baghdad in 2003 and 2004.

“Sen. Obama truly wants to unite America, and, speaking as a former captain in the 82nd Airborne Division, I know that he has the judgment we need to be our next commander in chief,” Murphy said Tuesday.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/congresss-only-iraq-war-veteran-endorses-obama-2007-08-21.html

As for labor union endorsements, ask Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean how that worked out.

Maggie, Grain Valley, MO,

Hillary Clinton attacked Lou Dobbs just few days ago in effort to pander to Hispanic audience during recent Dems debate…she was very specific about Lou Dobbs and it was also addressed on his show several times last week…

A Clinton and Clark ticket is a definite winner!

…the Good General also voted for Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. and with a great enthusiasm cheered the entire Bush Jr. administration… for Clinton's he is just another Arkansas connection ready for an ambassadorship…

"So did you forget that under Bill we had a budget SURPLUS, jobs, peace, and a strong economy?"

Yes, but 99% of that work was done by the 12 years of Republican administration that preceded Bill Clinton – maily by Ronald Reagan and some by daddy Bush. Bill Clinton has little to take credit for there, except, I guess that he didn't p*ss it all away. He got all that handed to him from the previous administration.

And he was still a scumbag who had multiple affairs, shady land deals, rented out the white house, stole from the white house, and (allegedly, because it was never proven, though highly probable) sold presidential pardons.

But he was charming enough to get away with all that and still have frothing-at-the-mouth supporters for him and his wife. A real politician – and one I can do without, thanks.

"What has our country come to…Hilary Clinton as commander in chief. She and her husband 'loathe' the military."

And don't forget that hubby Bill didn't serve, either. Just like W. The Republicans took John Kerry, who did serve, and got a purple heart, and turned his military experience against him with the "Swift Boat" ads. I can only imagine what kind of negative ads the Republicans have in store for Hillary. And every bit of it pure truth.

This is just one more nail for her presidential coffin. She is an evil woman with a lousy history who polarizes
the nation, and is not electable. She should quit now and keep all the campaign money for herself instead of throwing it away on a doomed presidential campaign.

Actually Wes Clark is one of the few people in the political game whose opinion I value.

He certainly carries more weight than Oprah or Magic Johnson or anyone from Hollywood.

Of course he may be angling for a job as Secretary of Defense, but what the heck, he'd be the best one since Cap.

Wesley Clark has lost my respect with his "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton.

It amazes me that people are still so upset about Bill's (personsal)indiscretions when GWB has basically committed treason against this country and yet smirks his little smirk and tells us he knows best and is keeping us safe!
I believe Hillary would be a fine President, and would do something besides spend money we don't have (we are in debt to China up to our eyeballs for this war). So did you forget that under Bill we had a budget SURPLUS, jobs, peace, and a strong economy?
Now, with our installed by the S.C. President, we have none of the above. And don't go ranting about 9-11-the more I read about that, the less I believe from Guiliani or anyone else about that day. Read about WTC7 and go from there.

Scott, KY, do you make friends for your benefit only? Do you think Clark is an unmanly fellow? I have met 15 Generals(BG, MG, LtG and General) and have a great friendship with them since 1986 to present. These Generals are liberal, borad-minded, accomplished and kind to Community people regardless your rank or position. Their character is elegant than common people, they are the great leaders that's why they are GENERAL. I hope you open your eyes before you say.

Clark's backing means nothing. He was a clinton stooge in '04, swo who else would he endorse – Iraq aside…

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

I voted for your hubby 2ce will vote for you in the next election…y're the BEST we're looking at to vote for! you should ask Obama to consider running with you…

It really galls me to read attacks on Clark and his record, just like those paid-off Swiftboat Veterans who attacked Karry. We are talking about men who put their lives on the line for their country, were wounded doing so, and who did more than any of the cowardly Chickenhawk Republicans (see Dick Cheney) and their children (see Mitt Romney). At least the Democrats put their lives and their children's lives where their mouths are and have served IN COMBAT as well as their children as compared to those Republican cowards who are willing to sit rich and fat and watch everyone else's family member die. As for Clark, while I don't agree with his endorsement at this point, he has at least fully supported the Veterans and soliders unlike the "talk a log, do nothing" Republicans, you just have to read votevets.org to see that.

Christian, FL, I think you worry too much, anyway do you worry about Hillary or Obama? If for Hillary, it is unnecessary to worry, Hillary will win without Obama. If for Obama, I remind you " Obama is not running for VP" by his speech. Hillary has plenty of brilliant, experienced, strong, powerful and professional people around her and The Clintons.

Claude, AZ,I think you confused a lots. Obama's Military endorsement shouldn't publish because military belongs to government, they couldn't endorse Democrats openly. Obama doesn't have 25 years relationship with any Generals by his career and experience. Also you didn't say "FoxNews is clearly supporting GOP. That's sad."
Is it fair? "CNN has failed to mention that Obama has received more military financial contributions to his campaign, more than any other candidate." If it is true where did you get that information and how did you know about Obama so much? Doesn't make sense to me. I think CNN is the most trustworthy, I love CNN.

No offense people but if you vote for Obama or Clinton you might as well shoot your self in the head cause we will all die.Plus why would we vote for Clinton when her husband sold military secrets to the chinese…whos to say she wont follow in his footsteps

With all due respect to GEN Clark (Ret.), he is not among the most popular retired 4-Star military men. In fact, he's got plenty of baggage, and an endorsement by him is "nothing special."

"Does Hillary Clinton trust Bill even after he betrayed her? If she does, what kind of judgement does that show."

Yes she does, and it shows compassion and forgiveness, humanity, and that like many others who have been through a crisis, in their family, in their marriage or in their own personal lives, that we can survive and come through stronger and better.
I think that that is an admirable quality, in a leader, and in a person.

CNN: I knew you read comments before posting, but I didn't realize you remove some of them once posted. I sent in a comment a few minutes ago. You posted it. I read it. And now it's been deleted. What's the deal? It wasn't vulgar; only direct and opinionated.

Go Hillary Go!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't it amazing how much you can learn just from reading the "comments".

Some of you, (those most nasty about Hillary) might want to think a bit more about voting for her, othersise you might well end up with Rudy G. We know he saved the world on 9-11 because he keeps telling us. NYC may be big babe, but it ain't the same as running the USA! Bill committed an indiscretion–over and done. Rudy, maybe he just marries his little 3rd rate romances.

Edwards? He was the first to start mudslinging and he was putting down his own party. I've always thought it was only necessart to cut someone down when you were a bit ubcertain, and you wanted to make yourself look bigger. Of course his wife has joined in the melee. Yeah, she has cancer, I'm sorry about that, bit lady, I can't let you pick my President. Edwards started losing me from those two points, and obviously he won't be able to keep her nose out of our business if he's elected.

Obama? Now here's a real laugh! Way back when Oprah appeared on Larry King Live. (with her latest batch of new best friends of course) SHE brought up the subject of who she'd like to see run ~ her dear senator Barack Obama. She says this is the first time she's ever endorsed anyone. I'm sure the fact that he's black had nothing to do with it. Now they're seen walking with his arm around her shoulder. (Gotta protect her from the adoring masses. Who wanted to know if he was black enough? You just might find out. Obama–"I need to go to the boys room" Raises hand and asks "Oprah, may I?

Michelle? She's the new look of beauty magazines, she does it all, knows it all. True, she's intelligent, highly successful, but she needs to find Elizabeth and the two of them need to calm down. Everyone was SO concerned that Bill would be a problem. You were wrong on that one too.

Now, let me clear up this BS about voting for the war. Hillary voted for it, just as many others did. Why? A.E. Neuman there told a few REALLY BIG LIES. You want HER to apologize for HIS lies?

Obama may have been against the war but HE DID NOT VOTE AGAINST IT! Why? BECAUSE HE WASN'T ELIGIBLE TO VOTE!

Hillary was not in the WH as president, but she has served in the senate, was the wife of Arkansas government I won't list everything, no need to. Obama? Isn't he still in his first term?

Don't think a military man will make a good president and keep us out of war, because he understands war. Anyone remember A really good military man named Dwight D Eisenhour?

One last thing. The "party" who says Hillary is a "fat slob, who's always eaten out of the public trough? (not verbatim) When did you visit that "trough" and find her there.? You called her a pig that got fat at your expense. Maybe you and a few others should watch CNN. I highly reccommend Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs and Anderson Cooper. They aren't paid to take one side over the other, they can, however, challenge. You know, Just KEEPING THEM HONEST.

show W. Clark that his 25 year relationship with Hill and Bill is the only reason he's making this edorsement by sending Obama's stock through the roof. Go to http://www.spigit.com to get Obama stock. Here is a change to speak back though with a capitalisitic voice.

Wes is applying for a job here. She's ahead in the polls, so why not try his luck with her?

Does Hillary Clinton trust Bill even after he betrayed her? If she does, what kind of judgement does that show and why should we trust her? These people, General Clark included, are a bunch of professional politicians who make a living trying to deceive voters. Don't buy it!

It should read " Clinton get 4-star liberal endorsement"

A RETIRED 4-star general, who became a political talking head and then a presidential wannabe now endorses a political opportunist, who is more left of centre than most Americans really know. Whoa!! Hillary became a NY Senator, and when asked if she had bigger plans in mind, said no! Her only goal was to serve the people of NY. When Obama said he was running for President, Hillary changed her mind and said she, too, is running. Hello? Fidel Castro must have seen something in her and Obama to say that the two are 'invincible'. Hmmm! Lean left, America. Communism and socialism are finally welcomed to Washington!

From the comments posted, it is very clear that the "United" States is actually quite divided. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, and I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. However, all candidates should be given a chance and should not be bashed for irrational and personal reasons. (Same goes for the unnecessary Bush-bashing)

Too bad Stabenow has successfully screwed my state over the past few years with an uninterrupted chain of bad decisions.

A large percentage of the comments here state that CNN is pushing Hilary more than the others that are running. Yet CNN posts your comments, seems you are being heard anyway. No supposed news source has dealt with real news since the era of the old newsmen such as Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite. It's all showmanship and acting by the news anchors and reporters, going with the most noted people for their news stories, sad, very sad. The news media is now so embedded with their corporate ownership and the military that we don't get news, we get entertainment and propaganda.

Thank you General Wesley Clark .For endorsement,of Senator Clinton,She will make a Wonderfut President Of The USA. Raymond&JUliette R Griesemer

One commentors says:

"…Please consider what's important to you and the issues that are important to you…".

Hopefully, "what's important to you" includes a fair amount of consideration of gender equality, or perhaps even 'quotas'; and for the needs of the rest of the world as well. It is time isn't it? After all the traditional role of men in the family has been to provide. That of women has been to manage things.

Even a stark raving idiot like Clark can be taught to say "thank you."
Posted By Walt, Belton, TX : September 15, 2007 4:37 pm

If this man is an, "idiot";

General Wesley Kanne Clark (born December 23, 1944) is a retired four-star general of the United States Army. Clark was valedictorian of his class at West Point, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in PPE, and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master's degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom."

What does that make people like you?

George,

Here's your proof on Obama leading military donations to date(USA Today). Do HRC supporters read anything else but CNN? Figures.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/war-critics-obama-ron-pa_n_64417.html
Posted By Kim, Mpls, MN : September 15, 2007 3:44 pm"

More obnoxious disdain from a supporter of the man who will bring us all together. Did you bother to actually go beyond the SINGLE paragraph in HufPo, to the actual totals that you feel are so important?

"Obama, who has never served in the military, has brought in more contributions from uniformed service members—about $27,000…Ron Paul, the only Republican who opposes the war, has brought in the biggest haul from the military since the start of the 2008 election cycle in January—at least $19,250. Republican John McCain, a Vietnam War prisoner who backs the administration's policy in Iraq, has raised $18,600."

If it's symbolic significance you're looking for, I guess that you can take some there.
I find this at least as significant; How Clinton, Obama, etc. are viewed by the party they belong to;

"Senator Hillary Clinton attracts 40% of the vote from Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Barack Obama is the top choice for 20% while John Edwards attracts 16%"
"Among Democratic contenders, this week’s polling brought few changes. Hillary Clinton is viewed favorably by 81% of Democrats and unfavorably by 17%. Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats have a favorable opinion of John Edwards while 21% say the opposite. Barack Obama’s numbers are 62% favorable, 30% unfavorable."

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/presidential_favorability_ratings

See how Clinton supporters DO read much more than CNN, or HufPo.

General Clark said “The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad," he endorsed the right candidate if we want to bring about change, if we want to stop good american solders from dying senselessly. The only people who say different only care about the oil not the 3775 confirmed dead american solders, and certainly not this BS Terrorist excuse. Every agency in the government except the white house has excepted that there weren’t any terrorist until we got there. This war is a failure and gwb’s presidency is not just a failure but horrible burden on this country. And if we really want change for the better Gen. Clark is right ditch the fat old white guy and vote a president with some real stones.

Clinton 08!!!

Oh yeah? Well Garrett Babb and all of his friends endorse Ron Paul. Where's the article on that? Look, if you need movie stars and political heavyweights' recommendations because you can't make your own decisions, then just don't vote. Please consider what's important to you and the issues that are important to you before you go with whoever the media deems "most popular"

When Bill Clinton made Clark into a four star general he fulfilled the old adage that any idiot can get promoted. When Clinton fired Clark for being incompetent, it showed that even Clinton could recognize incompetence.

Even a stark raving idiot like Clark can be taught to say "thank you."

Why would anyone vote for Hillary Clinton who could not even set up a satisfactory health care plan for her DH when he was in office? All she is going to do is tear our military apart just like her DH did. That is why the military was in such bad shape when Bush took over. I don't endorse what Bush is doing, but this gal is worse.

My dream ticket would have been Obama/Clark. Obama doesn't have enough foreign policy experience you say? How about a four-star general to ask for advice?

I can see through HRC's political game. She basically outright called Gen Petraus a liar and she got called on it. In order to minimize the already in process backlash from the Republicans and the military she pulls Clarke out of her pocket. Nice timing don't you think?

Think people, this means nothing.

Like it or not, Hillary has climbed another step on the staircase to the White House.

Oalala … whoever, I just want to have a smart, intelligent, great leader for America. Someone who can recover the US' negative image in the international arena at the moment. Well, someone who can say to the world that the US is not merely an arogant "police" of the world but the country of great and cultured cum civilized people. Do we have one in store?

George,

Here's your proof on Obama leading military donations to date(USA Today). Do HRC supporters read anything else but CNN? Figures.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/war-critics-obama-ron-pa_n_64417.html

The President do not need to know jack about the miltary. That is why there are Generals in the military. These Generals make about 120Grand a year. But however the presisdent needs to know world politcs. This current government scores a F minus. Bill scored an B plus maybe an A minus. Back then our diplomcy was meaningful. Today other contries just laugh at us. So bashing someone becuse of no military strenths is just stupid. I think our government is by the people for the people. Not a facist by the military for the military. I serve in the military and still serving. I serve it to protect "for the people by the people." I dont not serve it "for the miltary by the military." Which this adminstration seems tring to do. Military dont dictate policy they only enforce the policy the people tell them to enforce. Any one rember Germany before WW2. It was a Democracy that hittler convinced his people to change for the military by the military. How did that turn out? Military has no place in politics in deciding what laws there should be. But having a military back ground is not bad either.

I am so sad you gave up – and to her? You've got to be kidding – hoping to be her VP? Pathetic. Go home. Signed -a guy who has spent as much time as you have trying to make a difference – but still am. NMH

Clark only supported Clinton because they are both from Arkansas. Boo! Thank GOD you didn't win the Presidency when you ran, because you would have been yet another Arkansas man trying to seed the Office of the Presidency to Hillary. Booooo!!

oprah endorses obama because he is black. now clarke endorses hillary–ostensibly because she is white.

what's not to love about america??
Posted By david, chattanooga : September 15, 2007 3:18 pm

i absolutely agree with david from chattanooga. clarke is only endorsing hillary because she is white, the same way oprah endorsed obama because he is half-black. this really needs to stop. it doesn't matter who endorses who. just vote for whoever you want. endorsements shouldn't matter.

oprah endorses obama because he is black. now clarke endorses hillary–ostensibly because she is white.

what's not to love about america??

George:

Your documentation for Obama leading the military donations is below.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542&page=1

Who cares about Wes Clark? He amounted to nothing in the last election. Hillary is a lost cause.

What has our country come to…Hilary Clinton as commander in chief. She and her husband 'loathe' the military. She is an overweight slob (not just physically), eating from the public trough her entire adult life. She has no concept of the military or of discipline,leadership etc. The nuclear suitcase in the hands of another Clinton. What is wrong with you people?

fair to assume that Clark will get a cabinet position:

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/09/15/general-clark-endorses-hillary-clinton/

Barack enjoys strong support from the military, as evidenced by him being the candidate ( out of all of the Republicans or Democrats) receiving the most contributions from military people.
Posted By Michael James – Illinois : September 15, 2007 1:27 pm "

Documentation please.

Strong support? Who are the Generals supporting Senator Obama? Are there as many of those as there are UNION ENDORSEMENTS?

You Clinton bashers are two faced. First you bash her because she was only Bill wife and that does not count as experance or serving in the white house.um ok fair point Then in the same breath of air you bash her for what her husband done. And put what her husband has done on her record. LOL so which is it?? Egg heads doing the same thing Bush is doing (CHERRY PICKING) cherry picking the bad stuff off of bill record and place it on hillary but all the good he has done for the country dont count. Why she was only first lady then. HIPO CRITS

Another reason for Bush/Cheney in '08.

.

Whoever gains the White House in 2008 will no doubt have to confront the most difficult issues of our time; a declining dollar, a bankrupt federal government ($70+ Trillion unfunded liabilities), the prospect of Peak Oil production, outsourcing, unemployment, a declining educational system, corporate greed on an unimaginable scale and failing social cohesion. As a conservative, I don't envy any new president given the potential problems they face. At least let us do our best to elect a person with whom the American people can trust. Is this possible? Only time will tell.

Jen got it right when she said:

"Surprisingly, Hillary did not benifit from this 25-year friendship with a four-star general by casting a good vote for Iraq back in 2002.

Hillary won't make any better of a President than the current one. I won't vote for someone just because they're here on CNN every day– that doesn't mean crap about their capabilities as a potential President.

I'll cast my vote for someone who might actually have the brains to do something right. The first time. Hillary voted for the war. John Edwards voted for the war. Obama is already talking about war in Pakistan and he isn't even President. Enough said.

DENNIS KUCINICH in 2008
http://www.kucinich.us

This guy is actually the fist US military commander who under Bill Clinton lead illegal (against UN charter/approval) NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 based on lies (sounds familiar?) that there were "hundreds of thousands" of dead Albanians…. Both Clinton and this guy eat from the same pot. Cooked by Albanian-American PACs. Having these people decide our future will just bring us closer to confrontation with a more serious forces in the world then dubious Al Queida, like Russia.

it irks me that hrc gets all the endorsement headlines. cnn is a joke. hmmm…who does Time Warner want as president? that's all i need to know….

To comment on the greater strategic scheme of things:

I think Wesley Clark would be a strong name for Defense Secretary, but not running mate. Whether Hillary likes it or not, she will most likely be forced to accept Obama as her running mate if she wants to win the general election. With him, the ticket will inspire black voters and keep a hold on the young vote; as well, many people who are reluctant to support her, and yet support him, will vote for the ticket.

Friends for 25 years? He does realize that she didn't even READ the intelligence reports before voting for the Iraq war right? As a General, does he really think that's a responsible course of action to protect the country? I doubt it.

Goodness gracious! Obama has received about 5 major endorsements just this past week and I only found out by taking out my reading glasses after noticing something in fine print at the bottom of the obscure sites somewhere. Every time Hillary gets an ant of an endorsement it is bullhorned on every news site but when it comes to Obama it is not. What bias. His campaign should do what Hillary's does — find a writer affiliated with that newssite and paper and write their own articles about Obama and trumpet their own endorsements, like Clinton, because I see by leaving it up to others, it is either negative or if newsworthy it is altogether ommitted about Obama.

General Clark has held some important positions, but this endorsement is no big deal.

Clark shares common background with Bill Clinton, who has known Clark for over 40 years. That Clark is supporting Bill's wife should come as a surprise to no one.

Barack enjoys strong support from the military, as evidenced by him being the candidate ( out of all of the Republicans or Democrats) receiving the most contributions from military people.

I guess it must be because she is WHITE, right. Why isn't he supporting a man? Clarke must be a racist, blah blah….
Isn't that the arguement used when Oprah endorsed Obama?

Let us see how many Hillary BIGOTS argue that point.

Can anyone dispute that General Clark is informed and qualified to evaluate the Commander-in-Chief capability of the candidates?

I don't think anyone is forgetting the election. I think that this is a great endorsement for HRC as she would be good for the country. We need change and getting a smart educated woman into the W.H. would be a good start. She would have to set the bar high being the first female president but I think that she could do it. She couldn't afford not to.

Clarke would be a disaster…just like he was as a candidate. Havn't the democrats learned that simply having a military record…although admirable…doesn't make you a good candidate (John Kerry).

I worked for General Clark in the early 2000's when he was in charge of the Army in Europe. He was a lousy general, and worked his people to the bone for what they knew was his own political agenda. We were relieved when he left, and glad when he retired. By endoresing Hilary he is putting his political self back into the race. He can smell her nomination, and is positioning himself to be a significant member of her team, whether SecDef, SecState or UN Ambassador. I don't believe he is strong enough to help her campaign as a potential VP candidate, but he is liberal enough to join her effort. He was no friend of the ordinary soldier. Watch out for this guy, he's very arrogant and has an agenda of his own.

Surprisingly, Hillary did not benifit from this 25-year friendship with a four-star general by casting a good vote for Iraq back in 2002. All politics, sad.

"She'll be a great leader for the United States of America, And I Think she'll be a great commander in chief for the men and women in the armed forces."

Wes nailed it!

Will the Hillary-haters attack THIS General, and question his integrity?
We shall see…

I had so hoped he'd run again, he's got actual in-hand planning for Iraq and the occupation and final withdrawal, unlike our current administration. I just fear Hillary is not electable, too many people don't like her and don't trust her. Better he endorsed Obama. Oh well. Another election that will likely end up either "pick the lesser of two evils" and either way we'll still get a corporate ass-kisser in the White House while the Middle Class gets beaten into the Working Poor.

Much less of a joke than Bush & Cheney. That's no joke, that's blood on your hands. A war based on lies and U.S. forces dying for it. That's impeachment, or life in prison with no hope of parole!

Here's my hope if Hillary wins:
Bill Richardson as her running mate
Bill Clinton as Secretary of State
General Wesley Clark as Secretary of Defense.
I can't think of a better team to get us out of the mess the Bush administration put us in.

Pardon me, but Wes Powell ain't nuthin' there little pal from TX

At least Clark gave his opinion from retirement and didn't foist his choices on us like Sandra Day O'Connor did. First she sticks us with Bush by handing him the 2000 election, then she retires during his tenure, also leaving us with a conservative, right wing court! Thanks a bunch, Sandy!

I appreciate General Clark's opinion – especially about Clinton's potential as Commander in Chief. As former Commander in Chief of NATO, he certainly has a lot of credibility with me!

Republicans hate Clinton because her husband was the best president we ever had! Too bad he wasn't in charge the last six years!

This is surprising, as Clark and Bill Clinton never saw eye to eye on anything. It's true that he would make a great running mate for her; and if she is actually as unwilling to choose Obama as the rumors suggest she is, Clark would more than make up for his absence.

Looks like old General Clark is in line for a Secretary of Defense position under a Clinton Presidency. Hopefully he will do a much better job then he did against Al Quida.

25 years eh? I guess it's his turn to scratch her back…

No man in the united states will vote for Hillary Clinton as their commander and Chief. I hope Mr.Clark is only doing this for the money. I really, really do…

WHO CARES???

no surprise here … lets move along …

Yeah…she's known him for 25 years. I wonder what kind of relationship he has with General Petreus…probably rocky. I find it interesting that CNN didn't mention Obama's military endorsement from Former Chief Of Staff, General Merrill Anthony McPeak of the Airforce. This happened four days ago. Also, CNN has failed to mention that Obama has received more military financial contributions to his campaign, more than any other candidate. It is very clear to me that CNN is a bias organization and is clearly supporting Hillary Clinton for president. That's sad.

imagine that, a retired general endorsing his twenty five year old friend. i guess that's the privilege of being a retired general. just say someone will be good for the country, and well, shoot, let's forget the election and just declare her president. what a joke.

Wesley Clark would be a powerhouse of a running-mate.