So now Iraq is also like the Civil War?

In an article about General Wesley Clark, there’s this:

While the world has changed drastically in the years since [a general ran for president during the the Civil War], there are some similarities to what Clark would face in 2004.
The general in question–George McClellen–won the party’s 1864 nomination and found himself, like Clark may in 2004, running against a wartime president during a conflict that began with predictions of swift victory but which turned out to be far bloodier than expected.

Clever how that was just slipped in there like that. “Bloodier than expected.” Just like it was the truth.

There’s also this:

While many Democrats favored suing for peace with the Confederacy, McClellen did not and he campaigned hard arguing that Lincoln had wasted thousands of lives by appointing inept commanders and allowing corrupt arms merchants to run amok behind the lines.

I could see something along those lines being Clark’s strategy. In McClellan’s case, however, it was pot and kettle.

And is it McClellen or McClellan? I’ve always thought the latter, but I can’t find a definitive answer.

UPDATE: Chris Hall comments that it’s definitely McClellan. That’s what I’ve always thought, but if you google ‘McClellen’ you get quite a few good looking returns, as well. So how is it that the writer got it wrong?


  1. Definitely McClellan. Bio’s here: And if I were Clark, I wouldn’t want to be compared to McClellan, who was not the very model of a modern major general. One of my favorite Lincoln quotes: ‘Now, if McClellan doesn’t want to use the army for awhile, I’d like to borrow it from him and see if I can’t do something or other with it. ‘ ***

  2. I think a lot of people are hoping that everyone wil believe it was ‘bloodier than expected.’ Especially a year from this November. ***