My vexation over Clark's endorsement and how Clark just pointed out a flaw in Hillary

I have spent a good bit of time at the Clark Community Network since Saturday to get an idea of how people there feel about Clark's endorsement of Hillary. Let's just say there are more than a few that share my feelings. [BTW, I posted only one comment, and it contained a reference that only some of the regulars at CCN from the 2004 campaign would understand. If any of those folks ever read this, look for a mention of Clarktopia. :-) ] The problem for many of us Clarkies is that we agree with Wes on many things, and we support his efforts and activities. Speaking for myself, I want Wes to continue to speak out and work on issues facing this nation. I want to support him in those efforts. I want to cite his analysis on this blog. However, I do not want to support Hillary Clinton, and highlighting Wes Clark is going to some degree support Hillary Clinton.

A good example is an editorial by Clark in this past Sunday's Washington Post. Entitled "The Next War," it discusses succinctly some of what was incorrectly done in Iraq, what needs to be done to restore and rebuild our military for the near future, the current conflict with Iran, how military force should be utilized, and an admonition that war should always be the last resort. If you think that is too many topics to address coherently in one op-ed, you are wrong. Read it and see for yourself. This op-ed exemplifies the intellect, knowledge, experience, and skill that made me a huge supporter of Clark. However, from now on everything he says will be attributed by proxy to Hillary Clinton, and that bothers me.

And, ironically, Clark's op-ed pointed out a major reason why I never will vote for Hillary Clinton. In the op-ed, Clark took Bush to task for not taking responsibility in the Iraq war and putting his responsibility on the military generals (a topic I discussed here). Clark started that criticism by stating the following:

But shame on political leaders who would hide behind their top generals. It was hard not to catch a whiff of that during last week's (Petraeus) hearings. The Constitution, however, is not ambivalent about where the responsibility for command lies -- the president is the commander in chief.

In other words, the President has the duty to make decisions and then accept the responsibility for those decisions. Clark was pointing this out in the specific context of Iraq, so let's take a look at Hillary's record on Iraq. I discussed this back on January 20:

She voted for the war. She refuses to say that was a mistake or that she was in any way wrong in her support of the war. Instead she has tried to have it both ways. That is exactly the same bullshit Kerry tried in '04. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Even John Edwards, who was a big-time supporter of the war and unapologetic about it during the '04 campaign (which is a reason why he was a poor choice for a running mate), has stepped up and said he was wrong. He hasn't tried to rationalize or dance around the issue. He has flat out said he was wrong. And let me tell you, I have a lot more respect for Edwards now because of that. Hillary is trying to keep from offending Republicans while trying to show the anti-war crowd that she is being tough. After the '06 election, this approach is not going to work.

(emphasis added). In that January 20 post, I also linked to a January 20 post by Bob Harris. I did not quote Harris then, but I will now:

[T]he Iraq war is one of the deadliest, stupidest, and most criminal foreign policy mistakes of our lifetimes...And Hillary, despite her recent weaseling -- sorry, triangulation is the term of art -- vigorously supported Bush's Iraq adventure from the start.

In the wake of 9-11, it wasn't just George W. Bush telling the world "every nation has to be either with us or against us." It was Hillary, as you can hear for yourself.

In October 2002, during the debate about giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq, it wasn't just Dick Cheney telling the world in that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda. It was Hillary, from the floor of Congress.

And in February 2005, it wasn't just John McCain claiming that democracy was taking root in Iraq, and that the insurgency was in its last throes. It was Hillary, standing right at John McCain's side.

Yeah. So President Hillary would be soooooo much better about Iraq. Clap louder, everybody. Make it come true.

If this were a just world, not one person who authorized Bush to invade Iraq would ever be re-elected to anything, and the prime engineers of this mess would be going to jail instead of Fox News desks. And if this were a just world, Hillary would be held in almost as much contempt by people opposed to this war as Bush, Cheney, and the rest of Team Chimpy.

*******

I can certainly imagine Hillary changing the subject away from Iraq, which she'll have to as much as possible.

*******

It's no wonder that Hillary's announcement gives Iraq exactly one sentence, implying opposition but without taking any position whatsoever. If you read closely, you'll notice she instantly changes the subject to liberal-sounding blah about health care, conservation, and Social Security...but all cleverly framed as open questions, so she doesn't have to take any position right now.

(emphasis added, links in original). You see, what I wrote in January is still true, and Harris was correct in saying that Hillary will keep changing the subject away from her record on Iraq. She has never directly addressed that record. She has never explained her support for the Iraq war. She still refuses to answer questions about that. She has never taken responsibility for her actions, and she refuses to do so now. And I have seen nothing from her that indicates she will behave any differently if she becomes President.

Listen folks--this is not about focusing on one substantive issue while ignoring Hillary's other experience and abilities. This is about her personality and character. A Senator certainly has a duty to make decisions and accept responsibility, but that duty is far greater for the President. Hillary's refusal, as a Senator, to accept responsibility for her actions and decisions on a matter as crucial as war says to me that she is not going to accept the increased responsibility as President--not just on matters of war, but on everything.

For me, this election is not just about issues. It is not just about specific plans for health care, taxes, foreign policy, etc. It is about who has the temperament, personality, and character to be an effective President at this time. Key components for me are openness, honesty, sincerity, and a desire to do what is best for the country rather than for the person in the Oval Office. Those qualities have been missing in the White House since 2001. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton will not restore those qualities to the Presidency.