To Sir With Love - A Wesley Clark Blog

Remaining candidates owe Clark debt of gratitude - NY Times op-ed

More in the spirit of a eulogy than an obituary, The Washington Monthly's Paul Glastris writes in the New York Times today:

No one can doubt that something new happened during the 2004 Democratic primaries: a candidate who lost may have as great an impact on the party's political future as whichever candidate wins. That candidate, of course, is Wesley Clark.

In crucial ways, however, General Clark's candidacy changed not only this election but also elections to come.

General Clark made national security and electability the crux of his campaign. . . . Only if a candidate could persuade voters that they would be safer would he be able to interest them in other issues like the economy or health care. But most Democrats were afraid to ask the question. This unwillingness to confront the issue of national security made it possible for Democrats to convince themselves that Howard Dean could beat President Bush.

As soon as General Clark entered the race, however, Democrats could no longer avoid the issue. . . . General Clark's early success had a profound effect on Democrats' expectations. . . . In addition to the appeal of his biography, General Clark also brought an informed legitimacy to the Democratic critique of the president's national security policies. . . . The very fact that a four-star general who for most of his adult life voted Republican was saying that the president had failed the troops made those critiques seem less partisan and more credibile.

General Clark had another profound influence on this campaign: with the possible exception of Joseph Lieberman, he was the most willing to talk openly about his religious faith.. . . Other Democratic candidates soon followed, including Howard Dean. Yet Dr. Dean's comments — such as how he left a church in Vermont over a dispute about a bike path — tended to raise as many questions as they answered about his religious convictions. In short, they made him seem less genuine and more like a typical politician.

A final legacy of General Clark's campaign may be the way in which he entered the race: by getting drafted. . . . Primary voters have usually been forced to choose from among self-nominated candidates fueled by their own ambition. The Clark draft showed the viability of an alternative: Democratic (or Republican) voters acting on their own could choose the candidate most to their liking and lure him into the race with pledges of money and a ready-made volunteer army.

Had General Clark decided to contest Iowa a month ago, he almost certainly would have done well, and he might well be winning the race right now. Instead, John Kerry, the establishment candidate, is the current leader in Democratic presidential campaign. In many ways he owes his position to the revolution that General Clark started.

For now, national security is no longer the burning issue many of us hoped would not only send Bush packing but inspire innovative policies that actually would make us safer. And the president brushes off any criticisms by dismissing them as the noises of the "political season." Should John Kerry prevail, we'll see if he really is a statesman or only plays one on tv. Regardless, Wesley Clark remains a national asset whose failure to win political office this year should not diminish his potential to make enormous contributions to peace and democracy when all the current chest-beating is over.

TNR's "Dean-o-Phobe" calls it off, plugs Clark

Well, it was fun while it lasted. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait began his "Diary of a Dean-o-Phobe" last December, never suspecting he would write a mere six weeks later, "Farewell: my work here is done. I've loved writing the Diary of a Dean-o-phobe, but it's no longer necessary."

In the process of lowering Dr. Howard into his political grave, Chait has some positive words for Gen. Clark:

I'd love to see the Democrats nominate Wes Clark, who still has great potential as a general election candidate, or John Edwards, who has great potential not only as a candidate but as a president also. (For months I've been saying Edwards would make the best president and Clark, due to his unbeatable resumé, the best nominee. I'm now thinking Edwards's skills may nearly make up for his less-formidable resumé.)

As for this week's frontrunner, Chait is less than enthusiastic:

John Kerry takes all the fun out of Dean-o-phobia. Indeed, if there's anybody who could make Dean attractive, it's Kerry. Kerry is a miserable candidate, bereft of political skills, and possessing of a record and a persona tailor-made for Karl Rove. The Republicans will merely have to say about Kerry what they said about Gore--that he wants to be on every side of every issue, that he's culturally out of touch with mainstream America, that he's a pompous bore--and this time the sale will be easier, because all these things are far more true of Kerry than of Gore.

Bush destroying Republicans' core principles claims conservative blogger

Speaking for the Republican wing of the Republican party, Tacitus isn't much happier with George Bush's track record than say, Howard Dean. The more or less 50% of Americans ready to dump the president may be swelled by Republicans who don't recognize their party in the politics of the administration:

The White House has gotten things badly wrong this time, as both party and people start to peel away. Conservatives are starting to revolt over ludicrous spending levels, and there are a lot of Americans who will not feel that they're better off in November '04 than they were in November '00.

And while "electability" has become a fetish for Democrats, as if voters in Iowa and NH really have a clue as to what will swing Ohio, this conservative is painfully reflecting upon whether or not the Republican party remains the natural home for his values:

Now we must ask ourselves what's best for the party in November '04. It's not necessarily electoral success. If the President wins reelection this fall, then the elements of the party that feel free to ignore core conservative principles have won. Victory is, after all, the ultimate validation. And defeat is the ultimate rebuke: is that the level of rebuke we need to get the party leadership back on the principled path?. . . There is a separability between the conservative cause and the Republican party, but let's be honest and admit that one without the other is essentially impotent. Our current course means that split is, I think, coming sooner or later, to the detriment of both.

However the great national divide evolves, Tacitus is prepared to do whatever it takes to preserve his principles, if not his politics:

In recent memory, the Congressional Republicans have shown themselves capable of holding the line and driving meaningful change for the country while not lulled by the illusion of a like-minded Executive; and Democratic presidents have shown themselves amenable to reasonable compromise on a conservative policy agenda. Personally, at the moment, if the Dems nominate a candidate who looks like he might be that sort of president, I'd give the arrangement some serious thought. Yes indeed. May God have mercy on my soul.

Amen

Clark's platform, not record, key to electability - Jonathan Chait

Without yet declaring himself for one of Dean's rivals, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait is carefully de-constructing arguments in favor of the doctor on his blog, Diary of a Dean-o-phobe. Countering highly regarded Democratic Leadership Council advisor Elaine Kamarck's endorsement of Dr. Dean, Chait disagrees that Clark's electability is based soley on his biography, since he has no "record."

Chait suggests:

Even if Republicans could somehow transform Clark into, I don't know, some kind of socially liberal draft-dodging Vermonter, would he really have no domestic policy to fall back on? The assumption here is that on domestic policy, biography is everything. But there's something else he'd have, namely a platform. The second part of the Clark strategy is that, by negating GOP advantages on toughness and culture, Clark could press the advantage the party has on domestic priorities. Voters overwhelmingly prefer his plans to take back tax cuts for the rich and instead expand health care, reduce the deficit, and so on. Sure, he couldn't point to a state record. But how important is that? Bill Clinton in 1992 ran on his platform, not his record--which, in fact, Republicans turned into a liability, harping constantly on how tiny and backward Arkansas was. Sure, having a domestic record is a marginal advantage, but candidates invariably spend more time on their promises for the future than their past accomplishments. Fitness to serve as commander-in-chief, on the other hand, is more of a gut equation based on persona.

This speaks, of course, to the $64,000 question: at the end of the day, will voters feel more threatened by Bush's reckless abandonment of the level playing field as regards the economy and health care, or his failure to address the root causes of our national insecurity. If the later is the case, then "Are you more secure than you were four years ago?" resonates more than "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" If the debate is framed along those lines, as I fervently hope it will be, Clark is clearly the most prepared candidate to hit the ground running: even with a hostile Congress, with whom he has had no direct experience, Clark should be able to rapidly re-configure State, Defense, the CIA, and Homeland Security in such a way as to dramatically increase our effectiveness against terrorism. Whatever Dr. Dean's innate abilities, he'll have a very steep learning curve on national security. I'd prefer Gen. Clark's relative inexperience in domestic affairs, given a choice.