to have any position in the Obama White House ticket as VP, or be mentioned as any Cabinet member.

But the most intriguing guess is that with all the ballyhooing about who is going to be Obama's VP...and many democratic leaders there are whose names are being bandied about; those who NOW would NOT to want to be "invited to consider being " a VP candidate, must immediately do some kind of "faux pas" to eliminate themselves from consideration.

It would not be politic for General Clark to be "asked to be VP" and for him to refuse.

It would not be politic for General Clark to allow his name to get on a short list of VP candidates.

General Clark is a supreme Clinton supporter..but with all of this ballyho UNITY democratic party mess ongoing, it would not appear as good protocol to appear anything "but for the Obama campaign". Thus General Clark has admirably taken himself out of possible contention and consideration for anything with the losing Obama campaign.

Good for him!

This way, all of those strong Clinton supporters like Governors Stickland of Ohio and Rendell of Pennsylvania, won't have to "simper and pretend" Kumbaya with those of the Obama campaign staff .

They will only give "lip service" to supporting the democratic party, but you can bet your bumpus that General Clark, as a strategic military man, has gotten himself out of contention for being an "Obama VP blabber supporter " with his interview with Bob Schieffer.

Which is probably something he wanted, but had to devise a strategy that would work....and not have it point to his ulterior motive.

Good for him!

I think you may be right. Just as Lanny Davis, and Carville are genuine dear friends of the Clintons, too, publically they will come out for Obama. But, behind the scenes I suspect the feelings continue to be quite bitter indeed.

And who can blame them?
The Brazil/Dean DNC gerry-mandered this primary season in a shameless beyond shameless manner.

You are correct about Clark. from all I have seen and read of him, he is a genuine close and dear, loyal friend to The Clintons.

I suspect he ran his talking points by The Obama campaign and they being somewhat tone deaf as to what plays and what does not, gave him the okay to remark on McCain as he did.

Did Clark know it would backfire as it did?As a military man himself you would suspect he would know it would...but.
I guess we'll never really know.

I have to say that I am pleased that you put so much thought into this - as you obviously have - and I hope that you don't become discouraged just because you come up with a totally irrational concept every now and then because I am sure that once you get the hang of it, you will find this whole process we call 'thinking' very useful.

I hope that you don't become discouraged just because you come up with a totally irrational concept every now and then...

Thanks for responding idjitboy...but that is not my original thinking.

In fact, I found that same thought prevalent through many blogs that I have been reading and some of them pretty good blogs by pretty smart people. And none of the responders or originators of such a possibility, came up with such salient points as you have done in your post.

However, it can be granted that the MSM and none of the standard journalism products we buy today or see on TV/Cable, will voice that thought which I have just uttered.

Leave it to the regular kind of people out in the real world, who think a lot more than such as yourself...to consider all the angles of such a remark by such a credible person as General Clark.

NATO Supreme Commanders don't have slow thought processes...and certainly General Clark is above the general morass of stupidity that exemplifies life on the Slate board forums.

Thus, my comment and opinion stands...as uttered by many who exist on this planet, and far away from the Slate board forums.

Interesting, that no one thought to post such a thought...and the fact of the matter is that Governor Strickland of Ohio in a vague but similar manner, took himself out of the running for VP when his name was being bandied, among many other high-profile democratic leaders, about couple of weeks ago...by stating .."I will not accept if offered, will not run if nominated, and if elected VP, will not serve"....or words similar to that effect.

PUMA!

Bill Richardson will be Obama's VP running mate.

Jack

poll. gallup today Obama down two to 47% and McCain up by 3 points to 44%.

heh.

I didn't expect that bump for McCain until middle of next week. Can't wait 'til then.

Far leftist blogger Daily Kos has also been dissing Obama for his new stance on FISA regarding wiretapping by the government..in that Obama initially lead his leftists minions to believe he would stop government wiretaps..but now changed his position to one of support for FISA.

heh, again. trouble in Obama-ville?

Wonder what it feels like for the bots to be taken for granted and used shamelessly like that, by their hero....and then tossed aside, so cruelly, like so much tissue paper. sigh.

;-)

You know, that's just what it smelled like, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You might want to digest this stuff a little longer before you do that - there were chunks in this one.

You are probably right!

There won't be anybody left.. of any kind of high-profile political leadership...and Clinton won't be asked...since most "pseudo-muslim" men don't want to have any kind of high-profile woman around that they can't disparage or kick around or demean.

It's a known fact that muslim men consider females to be "property"...and that's why they are so into the "honor killings" and other disparagements around the world.

Dharma Quote of the Week

...all apparent phenomena are nothing but delusion and there is, moreover, no freedom from delusion to be achieved by dispelling delusion.

Delusion is, by its own essence, completely pure and, hence, enlightened.

All phenomena are, in this way, primordially, fully, and completely enlightened.

Phenomena appearing as various attributes are, therefore, indeed the mandala of vajra body, speech, and mind.

They are like the Buddhas of the three times, never transcending the essence of complete purity. Sentient beings and Buddhas are not differentiated in terms of their essence.

Just like distinct causes and results appearing in a dream, they are nothing but perceptions of individual minds brought forth by the power of imputation.

Here the issue might be raised, "although the scriptures do teach his, there is no certainty whether it is to be taken at face value or requires interpretation.

Therefore the essential purity of phenomena may well be established, but it is unreasonable to say that precisely the nature of that which appears as subjects with attributes is primordially enlightened.

For, if it were that way, thorough affliction and samsara would be entirely absent. There can't be a reasoning that establishes such a philosophy."

The conceptual mind that takes objects that appear in the experience of sentient beings as valid is, since beginningless time, deluded.

It accepts or negates with reference to the way things appear to it.

With such dialectics it is, indeed, not possible to establish the vast and profound meaning.

Nevertheless, since the nature of phenomena is inconceivable, it is not the case that there is no way to realize it by means of discriminating knowledge.

Thus it is not in any way a mistake if one, rather than that, is inclined to approach simply by faith, regarding the scriptures and oral instructions as valid.

One will then gain access through trust.

One may object, "Well, if one cannot prove [the primordial mandala] with reasoning, one cannot gain access to it either."

We can prove it as follows: That phenomena are fully enlightened as the mandala of vajra body, speech, and mind is proven with the reasoning of the intrinsic nature.

Just as it is stated in a sutra, "Form is empty by nature. Why is that? It is so because that is its nature."

All phenomena are pure by their intrinsic nature and, therefore, there is not a single phenomenon that is impure.

This is the intrinsic nature of phenomena.

Complete purity is, therefore, also the intrinsic nature of body, speech, and mind, and their complete purity is enlightenment.

Therefore, body, speech, and mind, distinguished by their complete purity, are inseparable, free from mental constructs, and perfectly pervasive. One must in this way understand them to be the mandala of vajra body, speech, and mind.

--from Establishing Appearances as Divine: Rongzom Chozang on Reasoning, Madhyamaka, and Purity by Heidi I. Koppl, published by Snow Lion Publications

Right, Richardson will probably be the only one from whom Obama will not have to distance himself and disavow something stupid he has said.

I have always kind of liked Richardson, at least I did until he bent over, grabbed his ankles, and endorsed Obie.

If Obama and Richardson win, you think they will serve chitlin burritos at the White House?

Jack

Hi, Smarmalade. This is a fascinating possibility for Clark's actions that had not occured to me, so my thanks to you for pointing it out.

A counter possibility for consideration: Clark very much WANTED to be VP or National Security Advisor or whatever and wanted to show Obama he could play the traditional "hammer" role of a surrogate. He may have assumed his own background was sufficient to allow him to challenge even McCain's heroics without repercussion, thus making him a uniquely valuable weapon. Obviously, it backfired badly on him. Clark is known for hubris in his own estimation of himself.

However, it can be granted that the MSM and none of the standard journalism products we buy today or see on TV/Cable, will voice that thought which I have just uttered.

So, you're smart enough to mock the MSM for getting everything wrong, but you wholeheartedly accept their assertion that Clark somehow said something offensive about John McCain. Like the vast majority of bloggers in the world who selectively choose to believe MSM stories they agree with, you're a fucking doofus.

If Senator Clinton had been designated as the presumptuous nominee, General Clarks' response would probably have been spoken a little bit differently.

However the MSM appears to have blown up his remark past all common sense, as General Clark had a simple point to make...that "riding [flying] a jet does not necessarily qualify one to be President..."...and that the key word is "qualification" in which he continued to point out that the "qualification to have good judgement ..." was a necessary characteristic in which he indicated that Obama had such a characteristic.

Simple as it may seem, General Clark probably was immediately aware that to even make any kind of a remark about anything that had to do with Senator McCain's military experience as not necessarily being a "qualification...... for being President", would get him into hot water in one way or the other.

How, precisely, he could only guess at, but the outcome was probably a sure thing. That is why in subsequent interviews he stuck to his initial statement and grounds for his comment.

Thanks for responding.

PUMA !

P.U.M.A.

!!