Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Arianna Huffington Blog Index RSS
01.04.2007

D.C. Notes: Wes Clark is Steamed, Jane Harman Isn't, and Terry McAuliffe is High on Hillary (Big Shock There, Huh?) (57 comments )

At the packed-to-the-rafters brunch preceding Nancy Pelosi's formal swearing in, Melinda and I ran into Wes Clark (and I mean that literally; like I said, it was packed). Clark was really angry about what he'd read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.

"How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the military option is off the table -- but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It's not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It's sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships."

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

At one point Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: 'Yes, I know." For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S. "I'm worried about the surge," he said. "But I'm worried about this even more."

We also ran into Terry McAuliffe at the brunch. As always, the former DNC chair was buoyant -- excited about a new book he's written called What a Party, that he proudly said was going to launch on Jan. 23 with appearances on Today and Jon Stewart, and equally upbeat about the presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton. A classic glass-half-full kind of guy, McAuliffe said that it would be good for Hillary to have to face Edwards and Obama in the primaries because, if she made it through a tough primary fight. "It would make her that much stronger in a general election campaign," he said.

Noting the newly compressed primary schedule -- with Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina coming in the first two weeks (and California trying to move up too) -- McAuliffe said the Democratic nominee could be decided by February 5th (which is pretty amazing, when you remember that in 1968 Bobby Kennedy didn't even enter the race until March).

Jane Harman was also at the brunch, looking phenomenally fit and holding a bottle of water (you can always spot a Californian in a DC crowd; they're the ones carrying their own water. So to speak). Harmon is also working on a new book; it's about how Democrats can become the new national security party (Authorship has been a recurring theme this week. It seems like everyone has a new book -- McAuliffe, Harman... and, at last night's dinner for Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer mentioned his upcoming release, The 50 Percent Solution: Winning Back the Middle Class One Family at a Time, and Connie Shultz, Brown's wife and a HuffPost Fearless Voices blogger, told us about her campaign memoir, ...And His Lovely Wife, which comes out in June.)

Noticing how relaxed and comfortable Harman appeared, we couldn't resist asking her about the article in today Washington Post, headlined "Passed Over By Pelosi, Harman Doesn't Get Even. She Gets Mad." Harman shook her head and insisted it was time for the media to stop trying to paint everything Pelosi does as "a catfight."

Got that WaPo? Time for a new story line.

Related News Stories

Related Blog Posts

Comments ( Page 1 of 3 > » ):

In Israel, Bibi is considered an idiot;w hy would anyone pay attention to him?

By: lakelobos on January 04, 2007 at 05:43pm
Flag: [abusive]

Arianna: "... the article in today Washington Post, headlined "Passed Over By Pelosi, Harman Doesn't Get Even. She Gets Mad." Harman shook her head and insisted it was time for the media to stop trying to paint everything Pelosi does as "a catfight."
Got that WaPo? Time for a new story line."

You'll have to tell that to Lois Romano, the author of that article. In the same article she mocks the Kerry family for sending out a recyclable Christmas card (Lois's kind of people just don't do that, you know). A political gossip column in WAPO is not what we need in these troubled times.

By: DeanOR on January 04, 2007 at 06:04pm
Flag: [abusive]

God, that entire article is about the Jews. Hey, news flash! OTHER PEOPLE died in the Holocaust, NOT just the Jews. I'm no anti-semite or "holocaust denier" but is EVERYTHING about Israel?

The only one in that room with a modicum of sense and patriotic duty was Wes Clark. The rest of them are just exercising their never-ending prima donna posturing. I am SO sick of these politicos. You are NOT superstars! You are representatives of the PEOPLE! And the PEOPLE need to make you remember it and SOON!

By: Carolab on January 04, 2007 at 06:13pm
Flag: [abusive]

So many names to drop, so little time.

You don't say what was on the menu. Smoked eel? Creme brulee?

But seriously, how are Susan and Tim doing? And, of course, Barbara & James?

No offense, but this is like getting one's political fix, as channeled by Cindy Adams.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com...

By: scootmandubious on January 04, 2007 at 06:19pm
Flag: [abusive]

Ever heard of AIPAC???

By: Carolab on January 04, 2007 at 06:26pm
Flag: [abusive]

Is there nothing Congress can do to prevent Bush from attacking Iran? What about a binding resolution that specfically excludes an attack on Iran without congressional approval? Many Republicans would also support such a resolution. It doesn't seem possible that Bush can unilaterally take us into war with another nation. The Congress must do something to tie his hands.

By: hydrogenman on January 04, 2007 at 06:39pm
Flag: [abusive]

Is there nothing Congress can do to prevent Bush from attacking Iran? What about a binding resolution that specfically excludes an attack on Iran without congressional approval? Many Republicans would also support such a resolution. It doesn't seem possible that Bush can unilaterally take us into war with another nation. The Congress must do something to tie his hands.

By: hydrogenman on January 04, 2007 at 06:40pm
Flag: [abusive]

Wow, I thought I couldn't like Wes Clark more than I already did, but now I think I admire and respect him more than any other pol in the country. Can we talk him into running again in 2008? Even my Republican father liked him the last time and was ready to vote for him.

Terry and Jane? I have little respect for either of them.

By: xena on January 04, 2007 at 06:43pm
Flag: [abusive]

BTW, Wes Clark is correct. I read the Israeli newspapers every day and they're pushing for an attack on Iran by the U.S. and have pretty much assumed it's a done deal. They freaked when the Dems won in November because they were afraid they wouldn't get their wish. They should know that with the DLC they're almost guaranteed the bloodshed they so desire.

By: xena on January 04, 2007 at 06:47pm
Flag: [abusive]

Clark is definitely "right-on", ...again!

In the absense of diplomacy, if the US (neocon cabal) attacks Iran, this will NOT be simply an escalation of US troops to Iraq, but an escalation towards a major regional war all across the Mideast, paticularly for US troops and armed forces of other oil-dependent nations.

Bush, Netanyahu, Lieberman, AEI and the neocons are once again tragically mistaken for leading this effort to put Israel, our country and its national security into harms way towards their "final" strategic blunder.

Our troops deserve greater leadership in a Commander-in-Chief, if they are to be sent by him directly into harms way and willing to die for our country and our principles, ... not Israels'!

By: DreadPirate on January 04, 2007 at 06:52pm
Flag: [abusive]

For me, it was quite humbling to look up Wes Clark's biography. Even one of his numerous accomplishments would be impressive. Valedictorian of West Point; Highly decorated war veteran; Supreme Allied Commander; it goes on and on. That one person has accomplished so much means something, especially when compared to the pretender in chief. Don't take my word for it, look it up and judge for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark...
I am not at all surprised to see him speak up on the record - it is beyond time for good men to take action.

By: crypticpro on January 04, 2007 at 07:02pm
Flag: [abusive]

I'm with Xena. We need to get Wes Clark to run again. He is exactly what this country needs now.

By: BernieO on January 04, 2007 at 07:25pm
Flag: [abusive]

Wes Clark for President! He's the only man I've heard who will stand up to Israel and its neocon agents(Harman, Lieberman, Emmanuel, Schumer)who support the Iraqi war because it is reshaping the middle east in Israel's favor.

Let Israel attack Iran. Let Jewish mothers, instead of American mothers, mourn the loss of their sons for a while.

Go Wes! I hope its contagious.

By: dsmith on January 04, 2007 at 07:32pm
Flag: [abusive]

Anytime Wes is concerned about an issue, we should listen. The guy has been on the money more times than anyone else.

Whether he runs or not, his counsel would be well worth heeding.

By: ScreamingMODERATE on January 04, 2007 at 08:05pm
Flag: [abusive]

As a former Clark supporter, I was disappointed (though not surprised) to hear he's learned so little since 2004. To paint so a broad brush with coded language ("New York money people") is not only out of line - it shows a lack of sensitivity that is unforgivable in today's politics.

To anyone thinking of support Clark in '08, I say: forget it (even if he did have a chance, which, imo, he doesn't). We need unbiased, competent critical thinkers to get us out of the mess we're in. That description does not include anyone obtuse enough to recite a line that sounds like it belongs in "Gentleman's Agreement."

By: martinmuse on January 04, 2007 at 08:16pm
Flag: [abusive]

Where was everyone for the '04 primary? I voted for Clark, are you all just now waking up to him or are these the other 4 people that voted with me?

By: toldyaso on January 04, 2007 at 08:30pm
Flag: [abusive]

As child of the 60s I never thought I would say this, but we need a military man on the ticket. Turns out they may be the BEST after all to decide if there are better options than war.
And Gen Clark has my vote for whatever office he decides to tackle.

By: AurigaRa on January 04, 2007 at 08:57pm
Flag: [abusive]

dsmith writes-

Let Israel attack Iran. Let Jewish mothers, instead of American mothers, mourn the loss of their sons for a while.

I assume he knows that some Jewish mothers are also American mothers. I assume he meant Israeli mothers.

Also, not all Jews are neocons or their agents-I hate to state the obvious. Rahm and Schumer aren't my favorite pols, but your brush is a bit too broad for my taste

By: pdxmike on January 04, 2007 at 09:17pm
Flag: [abusive]

I am liking Wes Clark more and more. He is
right about Israel. It is one of my concerns.
Everyone should read President Carter's new
book and Arianna should interview him in
Royce Hall at UCLA at the upcoming L.A. Times
Book Festival. Are you listening Mafiagirl?
Please tell me you are listening. If you can't
get Jimmy Carter then get Al Gore to do
An Inconvenient Truth presentation. In either
case it will be as hot a ticket as Gore Vidal
was last year!!

By: LongBeach on January 04, 2007 at 09:19pm
Flag: [abusive]

"Passed Over By Pelosi, Harman Doesn't Get Even. She Gets Mad." Harman shook her head and insisted it was time for the media to stop trying to paint everything Pelosi does as "a catfight."

"Got that WaPo? Time for a new story line."

I read that wash post article and i felt like i was reading some trashy, useless gossip rag. is this what the WAPO now calls news? it's like FIX news on paper.

Sad. Very sad. With everything going on in the world, this is what the MSM chooses to concentrate on?

By: thromulese on January 04, 2007 at 09:43pm
Flag: [abusive]

If General Clark is worried, we should all be terrified. Even so, it's refreshing to hear a public figure with as much credibility as Clark speak out without pulling his punches. If anyone can remove America from the international messes Bush has made, it is Clark. No one else is as qualified for this particular time. We need this man as president!

By: eriecanaller on January 04, 2007 at 10:29pm
Flag: [abusive]

My admiration for Wes Clark just continues to grow. He is not afraid to say what he believes, and, after watching him for several years now, I can say that he always gets it right, whether it's about the war, our foreign policy, or domestic issues and the environment. He is a real leader, and a gift to the Democratic party.

My husband and I both switched from Independents to Democrats so we could vote for Wes Clark for President in 2004. Unfortunately, we never got that opportunity, and we joined the many thousands of disenfranchised voters who had to settle for the nominee who was chosen for us.

So it's especially disheartening to hear Mr. McAuliffe gleefully claim that the nominee could be decided by Feb. 5th. Have the Democrats learned nothing over the past several years? We had no say in the choice of John Kerry back in 2004, but we dutifully voted for him, even though we knew in our hearts that he was not a strong enough candidate to win that election.

We will not do that again. If the Democratic machine again railroads through a nominee by early February, and expects us to donate and vote for such an individual, then you can be assured that on February 6, we will change our registration back to Independent and vote according to our own consciences. We will not play this game again.

I hope the Democrats allow a fair and all-encompassing primary process to insure that all progressive voters get their votes considered. Only then, will we feel we are valued as part of the process.

Oh, and we also hope that General Clark decides to run again. We will open our wallets and work tirelessly again to support him. He would make an outstanding President, and would restore dignity and character to our government.

By: elscott on January 04, 2007 at 10:33pm
Flag: [abusive]

So when Ahmadinejad says Isreal is going to get wiped off the face of the Earth, don't people realize that, that rhetoric is similar to Baghdad Bob, or any other Middle Eastern leader that uses bluster for diplomacy? It is all play for a certain group of supporters. It is similar to when Republicans use the code words of segregation. It doesn't mean we need to bomb them.

By: Chas56 on January 04, 2007 at 10:47pm
Flag: [abusive]

zena, I too read the Israeli papers every day. I have been doing that for over six years. I suggest more do what zena and I are doing.

By: honeybun on January 05, 2007 at 12:40am
Flag: [abusive]

One more thing that we Clarkies will be pointing to "after the fact" while everyone looks around, puzzled, saying, "Why didn't anybody WARN us?"

He's always been right before.

By: catherineD on January 05, 2007 at 02:41am
Flag: [abusive]

Page 1 of 3 > »
Top Posts Top News Sources