Clark attacks Obama by comparing him to JFK...talk about spin!

[calteacherguy]

That’s when he (Clark) brought up JFK, recalling that Kennedy’s meeting with Nikita S. Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, on June 3, 1961, early in Kennedy’s term, had dire consequences. Khrushchev came out of the meeting judging Kennedy a weakling. “And that led to the Berlin crisis,” Mr. Clark said.

The journalist Elie Abel, in his book, “The Missiles of October: The Story of the Cuban Missile Crisis,” recounted the American-Soviet face-off this way:

“There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure at their Vienna meeting in June 1961, and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions… There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the President’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.’”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/a-jfk-comparison-for-obama-that-is-not-a-compliment/

This the politcs of distortion and fear, and it pains me to see Clark playing it. I boggles my mind that such a student of history would say something like this in 2008, and make such a ridiculous comparison. It seems almost Republican-type tactics.

[Progress And Change]

1. "decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions"

Sounds like Obama...

What did Clark distort?

[calteacherguy]

2. He's trying to create fear.

Out of Obama's JFK-like, inspirational qualities. It's disingenuous and frankly it's pathetic.

Especially from someone who knows better.

[Progress And Change]

4. how? he was making a point about the importance of experience

Obama is nothing like JFK. JFK had plenty of experience; Obama does not.

[calteacherguy]

7. That's not what he implied here.

He basically said, inanely, that JFK's youth was the cause of the Cuban Missile Crises and that we should fear electing a youthful President who would be perceived by the world as weak.

:puke:

Where's my politics off hope?

[Progress And Change]

8. youth isn't the issue. inexperience is

[calteacherguy]

10. Clark basically trashed JFK.

And said Obama is like JFK.

[Progress And Change]

12. no, he pointed out the importance of experience and then cited Obama's inexperience

[calteacherguy]

14. All I can say, dude...is read what he said. nt

[1932]

18. He's actually saying that if you are "too liberal" your enemies think you won't fight.

He doesn't say what 'liberal' means (or what he thinks Kruschev meant) but it's obviously whatever Kennedy was, and Kennedy put people before Wall Street, was an anti-imperialist who criticized US/CIA intervention abroad, and didn't trust the US military.

I'm starting to understand why Clark thought it was so important to run against Edwards in '04.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. That is Bullshit

Here you go again playing your unique role of translator of Clark for people who you don't trust can read themselves. Read the story folks.

What you are referring to has nothing to do with what Clark said. The author of the story added in the reference to Khrushchev saying he believed the American people were too "liberal" to fight - that wasn't Clark's reference and those weren't Clark's words. Clark cited reports that Krushchev misjudged JFK as being someone who was weak, that's all, and that lines up with other accounts I have read about that first meeting.

Who the hell knows what meaning Krushchev assigned to the word "Liberal" and why? You sure don't and nowhere does Clark say or imply that if you are "too liberal" your enemies think you won't fight.

[ClarkUSA]

9. Ted Sorenson - aide to JFK for 11 years - disagrees with you, Mario.

Sorenson's YouTube endorsement of Obama's candidacy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hupgC1d-St8

Ted Sorensen, the speechwriter and special counsel to President John F. Kennedy endorsed Senator Barack Obama tonight and compared
Obama’s campaign to Kennedy’s run almost half a century earlier.

“The campaigns are comparable,” Sorenson said in an interview after his speech, which was delivered to a closed $1,000-a-head fundraiser
at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, and which left guests buzzing over what several said was an implied comparison to Kennedy. “They say he’s too
young, he’s too inexperienced, his demographic is wrong to get elected. They’ve decided in Washington that he doesn’t have a chance. But
the campaign isn’t going on in Washington. The campaign is going on in the grassroots.”

Sorenson also sharply rebuked legislators who voted to authorize the Iraq war, a group that includes Senator Hillary Clinton and former
Senator John Edwards.

“Members of either party who authorized this disaster should be accountable,” Sorenson said. “ didn’t have to vote for it, and moderate
his position, and come up with an alternate strategy . He didn’t have to come up non-binding resolutions and so forth.”

Sorenson suggested a campaign slogan: “Obama: Right from the start.”

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1209

[Progress And Change]

11. JFK can't be compared to Obama

JFK had a lot more experience than Obama. He overcome any fears of inexperience generated by his youth by simply pointing to the facts. Kennedy went to Washington the same year Nixon did. Obama cannot do this because the truth about his inexperience cannot be hidden.

Mario?

[calteacherguy]

13. Did you read the OP? Clark is comparing Obama to JFK, drawing an equivalency.

Clark:

JFK=bad
Obama=bad

[Progress And Change]

15. they can't be compared on experience, talent, or achievements

Clark was citing JFK as an example of a problem that could have been avoided through experience. That does not erase JFK's years in Congress and Obama being in Congress for a couple of years and then moving to Iowa and NH.

[BeyondGeography]

21. LOL...It's either the new one or the old one

Lends a drafty sort of presence to every thread...

[JI7]

3. isn't comparison to JFK considered a good thing ?

[calteacherguy]

5. Yeah, makes your head spin, doesn't it?

:crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

6. Here's the background to your OP...

After the lecture, Mr. Clark said talking to adversaries can work when a president is “speaking with the voice of experience” — something he
contends Mrs. Clinton has. But “when you have leaders meeting early without adequate preparation, you can get some adverse outcomes,”
he said, referring to Mr. Obama.

Yeah, Hillary's "voice of experience" was really right on the money in when she voted for IWR and supported the Iraq war. No "adverse outcomes" there, eh? :eyes:

[ingac70]

16. I hope the next time I am "insulted"...

it is someone comparing me to JFK.

:crazy:

[sandnsea]

17. Khruschev miscalculated, so is Clark

Too bad. But that's what happens when you get in cahoots with the Clintons.

[1932]

19. That's what happens when you believe that Vietnam was winnable if only

politicians didn't respond to public doubts by not letting you go in with full spectrum dominance, and if public opinion were manipulated more effectively (eg, by demonizing Mao and China).

[itsrobert]

20. Time for Hillary to get a new calculator

I guess that's what she gets for buying a cheap knockoff from her Chinese backers.

[ChiciB1]

22. Why Do You Find This Statement Relevant?? Clark Has Always Aligned

himself with the Clintons. While neither Clinton nor Obama are my candidate of choice, posting this information about Clark may be viewed as a ploy to detract attention away from the Oprah/Obama Glitz Fest! Obama has every right to run his campaign and employ any means he feels will be helpful to him, I see this as more as a gathering of "fans" rather than voters myself while admitting that it will sway some voters to Obama. My grandson was an Obama supporter and this will be his first time to vote, but he's young and fickle and has changed his mind! And he actually asked me who and what Oprah has done.

It remains to be seen what affect Oprah will have for Obama. I like Obama, but he's runs down the middle too much for me, plus I think he needs more texturing. This is not a slam against him, but even WITH Oprah I don't feel he will carry in the GE! Even here, although Clinton is my LAST choice I'd have to give Clinton the edge. My preference is that it's neither one of them though!

[BeyondGeography]

23. Wes is a great guy to have on your side

He just happens to be on the wrong side right now, IMO.

His supporters and admirers, if they're being honest with themselves, will acknowledge that he's also not the most polished guy on the stump; part of his charm, actually. This is another one of those head-scratchers that he is particularly adept at supplying.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. "Politics of distortion and fear"? "Republican-type tactics"?

Get a grip. Yes it is true that Wes Clark is not supporting the person who you support. Yes it is true that Democrats campaign AGAINST each other during primaries. Yes it is true that all candidates, your guy included, say things about their opponents attempting to make people think, "Gee, maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to support that person." Politics is politics, remember?

What type of student of history are you? Haven't you heard that analysis about the first summit between Khrushchev and JFK before? I certainly have, many years ago. You act like this is all a pure fabrication. Has it occurred to you that perhaps that really was Khrushchev's reaction to that summit, which would make it a historic fact? Have you studied the pattern of the first terms of U.S. Presidents? They get tested. They often are met head on very early in their administration with a foreign policy crisis, and they often stumble at least slightly before they get their sea legs under them.

This isn't fiction. It is a valid line of argument in favor of experience in the oval office. As such it is one of very many arguments pro and con that can be made regarding our candidates. There is a counter balencing argument that can be made forsupporting a candidate with a youthful and fresh new perspective on the world.

You and I obviously differ on how important seasoning is for a potential president, and what constitutes it. That's fine, but don't twist an argument in favor of hands on experience into "the politics of fear". That is trash talk coming from you. There are reasons why I supported Clark in 2004 and why I wanted either Clark, Gore, or Feingold in 2008, and "seasoning" was always a big part of it for me. Not so important for you? Like I said, fine we differ. But how you twist a discussion of the value of experience into Republican-type politics is mind boggling to me.

Right now I favor Biden and Clinton and Richardson for the nomination, and the reasoning that Clark presents plays into that. I like Obama a lot. I don't think he is ready. Does that make me someone who embraces the "politics of fear" who is embracing Republican like politics when I express my opinion?

[calteacherguy]

26. The kind of "experience" Hillary has having been a President's wife

does not make her a superior candidate. The "experience" she has is not important to American right now or to the world.

You think she won't be "tested?" She's already been "tested," and she failed the test on the IWR vote, Kyl-Lieberman, and many other questions.

I stand by my post an analysis of Clark's tactics. They stink. Do you seriously believe the Republicans aren't going to use exactly the same kind of argument against Clinton, that she'll be perceived as weak and untested in her first term. Hell, all Democrats are "weak" according to them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Though Obama in general has run a very good campaign

The entire line of attack he embraced by trivializing Clinton's experience as "First Lady" has made him look foolish in that instance. Firece partisans of Obama flock to that stand, but it flies in the face of both reality and conventional wisdom. The public knows better. Not all first ladies are "created equal". Hillary Clinton is no Laura Bush, and Eleanor Roosevelt was no Mamie Eisenhower. Hillary Clinton was a central part of Bill Clinton's Presidency, for better or worse, which is how and why she became such an early target of the Republican hate machine.

Many of us here on DU talk about how the Bush Administration has poisoned the world toward America, and we discuss the need to turn that dynamic around. You can close your eyes to this fact if you wish, but both Bill and Hillary Clinton are extremely popular (as American leaders go anyway) across most of the world. That is highly relevent.

I think Hillary Clinton voted the wrong way on Kyle-Lieberman, but no I don't elevate that vote to the status of "the test". Do you know how many Democratic United States Senators endorsed Joe Lieberman for President over Ned Lamont AFTER Lamont won the Democratic nomination in the CT primary? There were only five, five Democrats who turned their back on the official candidate of the Democratic Party in order to stand by Joe Lieberman instead. What type of type of test do you think these men failed:

"Senators Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, Barack Obama, and Ben Nelson were the only Democratic Senators who endorsed Lieberman's independent run."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_primary%2C_Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006#_note-thehill

There would not have been a Kyle-Lieberman Amencment if Obama had not gotten his way in 2006. Do I hold that against Obama? Yes, actually I do, but I do not write him off because of that. I don't equate Obama backing Lieberman over Lamont in the 2006 General Election with him wanting the views equated with Lieberman to prevail over the views equated with Lamont, and I don't equate Clinton voting for the K/L amendment with her wanting war with Iran.

I will tell you something really radical. I acutally prefer that the next President of the United States be adaquately prepared to do the job. I honestly think experience is relevent. I don't think inexerienced people are "weak". I think they are inexperienced. There are plenty of strong people who are inexperienced and weak people who are experienced, the two terms have different meanings. I am ready to defend any candidate that the Democrats nominate against charges that they are weak and I have no doubt that Republicans will make that charge against any one who we run. But given the choice, and that is exactly what primaries are about - getting choices, I want to back a Democrat who has what I feel is sufficient experience.

Clark did not call Obama "weak". He said he has less experience on the world stage than Hillary Clinton does and he said that can be important. If Hillary Clinton became President of the United States leaders of foreign nations are not going to forget who she is married to. They know that Hillary and Bill worked as a team, and a number of them dealt directly with Hillary when she lived in the White House. Bill got tested after he took office. He was tested in Bosnia, he was tested in Somalia, he was tested in Rwanda, and he was tested in Haiti, and he made a number of Rookie mistakes with serious negative implications that had nothing to do with whether he was weak or not.

Bill Clinton went through a learning curve and leaders around the world came to respect him, even if (like with Krushchev and JFK long ago) they did not all initially respect him. Hillary Clinton will not be greeted by the world as a newbie in the White House should she get elected in any where near the same manner that Obama or Edwards would.

[BootinUp]

32. Nice post Tom.

We need more smart political analysis like this and less of the pure partisan back biting. More and more threads just dismiss discussion of issues and make unsupported claims based on who a person supports instead of what a person offers in the way of ideas.

[calteacherguy]

34. I understand your point of view, but we just disagee fundamentally

on what are the most important criteria for the next President of the U.S.

"Many of us here on DU talk about how the Bush Administration has poisoned the world toward America, and we discuss the need to turn that dynamic around."

I feel that Obama is best equipped to turn that dynamic around. Also, Obama is going to have a great team around him, as would any of our candidates. One thing I feel that is valuable in Obama's character is that he listens to a wide variety of viewpoints before making a decision, and he's not bound by old ways of thinking. This becomes apparent in different approaches Obama and Clinton would have towards Cuba, for instance (just one example that happens to come to mind at the moment). I think Obama has more of a potential to change the nation and the world for the better, bottom line. And, I believe he is far more electable and inspiring than Clinton. That's important. So is his honesty, integrity, sincerity, proven judgment.

Everyone when evaluating a candidate weighs the pros and cons of each. We just give things different weightings, and thus draw different conclusions. It's why we have a primary process.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. I understand your point of view also

And you make a nice case for it in this post. Rest assured if Obama becomes our nominee I will be out there fighting for him.

[calteacherguy]

43. And if Hillary becomes our nominee I will out there fighting for her.

Nice chatting with you, Tom. I always enjoy your posts.

[madfloridian]

27. Playing the fear card. That is a right wing talking point about liberals.

Khrushchev "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the President’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.’”

Using Khrushchev to attack Obama?

Guess he is playing the VP role already. That will turn many off.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. But Clark did nothing of the sort

You are not quoting Clark here. You do know that, don't you?

[madfloridian]

30. Clark quoted that author....

"That’s when he (Clark) brought up JFK, recalling that Kennedy’s meeting with Nikita S. Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, on June 3, 1961, early in Kennedy’s term, had dire consequences. Khrushchev came out of the meeting judging Kennedy a weakling. “And that led to the Berlin crisis,” Mr. Clark said."

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Sorry, but nowhere is there any indication that Clark quoted that author

Clark discussed the same incident as that author, that is all. Clark is reproted to have said (no actual quote on this is given) that Khrushchev came out of that meeting judging Kennedy a weakling - that is as far as Clark's quotes go. And that is pretty much the consensus of historians that I have read who discuss U.S./U.S.S.R. cold war relations. No where did Clark say that Kennedy was a weakling - he noted that Krushchev made that misjudgement, and he argued that having a more experienced President mitigates against misjudgments like that being made.

The writer of this story included further information from an historian about the JFK/Krushchev summit - and that is where Krushcev is quoted mentioning "Liberals". Clark did not bring ideology into the discussion. Actually no one did, unless you count Krushchev himself who I would not trust to have been using standard American political definitions as we here currently define them.

[madfloridian]

36. Not going to argue, Tom, I respect you too much.

I have no choice of candidates, as I am not voting in the presidential primary.

However, I can not get past the support of the Clintons for the Iraq invasion. They could have had such influence in stopping the rush to war. They didn't.

This is what 2003 was about. It was putting things in place for a certain person to be president. I believe she will have Clark as VP for those who are eternally fearful of terror....it might get them on board.

In the general election, I will have decisions to make.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. I am not enthusiastic about our choices this time either

Each of them has one or more flaws that are significant to me. I am confident though that whoever the Republicans nominate will motivate me to support whoever the Democrats nominate.

[IA_Seth]

40. I find myself in the same predicament

"Each of them has one or more flaws that are significant to me."

Each of the candidates has their strengths and weaknesses, it's deciding which ones I can live with the easiest I guess...

[Cameron27]

41. Well, I'm not emotionally invested in this primary

the way I was in 04, not even close. It makes it easier in so many ways lol.

[Cameron27]

33. It's not a Republican type tactic,

JFK was a great man, but his first meeting with Khrushchev was exactly how Clark described it. Wes didn't say anything about liberalism, he was talking about inexperience and diplomatic prowess which he finds lacking in Obama.

[BenDavid]

35. The man talks straight and it is his opinion of Obama.

[Colobo]

39. It's sad that Clark and the Clinton's are into fear-mongering.

[Progress And Change]

42. did clark, clinton's surrogate, say "gays are trying to kill our children."?

Oh...that was Obama's surrogate...