Letter to leadershipforamerica.org
Is the affirmative action brief available? If not I would respectfully request it be made so. Please make the general's writings and positions widely available. The press has obviously not read a word he has written. It is understandable that he expect people to take him at his word, but his word should be more accessible.
Gen. Clark is a man of strong conviction on the most compelling issues of life and death since the Cold War held us in suspense for more than a generation. We cannot allow this administration to equate "Terrorism" with the "Communist Threat" with impunity. There are better ways to go.
Be seeing you,
Ron
Salon.com | Wes Clark's bad day
From: "Ron Ross"
To: wesleyclark2004 Yahoo board Date: Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: Wes Clark's so-called bad day
--- In wesleyclark2004@yahoogroups.com, "henryyouga"
To hell with that Salon writer, he is clueless. Clark's speech in Iowa today, was absolutely beautiful and breath-taking. He hit every note perfectly, his vision will be the gold-standard. I have absolutely no doubt why I came to support Clark in the first place. I have absolutely no doubt that he will be a strong contender, down to the wire, for the nomination and the presidency.
Now I know I was right to title my brand-new blog-in-progress, "To Sir With Love." ;) I think the complaint here was the general's surprising casualness about details combined with a failure to anticipate the terrain. On that score, Joan Walsh isn't asking for too much of a man who is meant to epitomize, "Think globally, act locally." Also let us note, that clueless or not, Joan is a she.
I have no doubt Dean is a great campaigner, but vision and charisma is what will carry the day. Clark has that. Hopefully, for those of you who missed it, there will be a replay of Clark's speech in Iowa today. It was perfect and beautiful.
Agreed the man is a plug-n-play icon if he handles himself well. That said, the campaign will do well to avoid photos of the general in full dress uniform. As handsome as he is, the image is fearsome, as it was intended to be. It does not convey the populist feel that is said to succeed in the primaries.
One of the big surprises of the last two days is that Gen. Clark appears to be a much bigger hit with the "troops" than he is with the press (who does that remind you of? Perhaps every president since JFK?) General Clark would appear to be most at ease with a bird's eye view of a vast landscape or in hand-to-hand combat. It does not so far seem he would do well dealing with an ambitious border guard eager to thwart his immigration, or at least to question it closely.
Yes, General Clark does have seem to have a little silver spoon of meritocracy dangling from his key chain (somewhat like a Skull and Bones watch charm?), much like his friend Bill Clinton (the reason they both appeal to Charles Rangel is that the congressman knows that Arkansas provides far fewer Rhodes scholars than Harlem does lawyers; it's an educational backwater. Gee I hope Bill's education legacy is stronger in Arkansas than GW's is in Texas.) Walsh was astute to pick up on that.
What I can ignore is her rantings about Clark being the establishment candidate. As someone said, he doubted the Democratic elite had either the power or the foresight to be as manipulative as both the left and the right are suggesting. Why Hillary and Bill are fucking around with all this is perverse and disappointing and honestly, though I don't think Hil will run and I do think they wish Clark well, I think it's Wes's first exposure to this particular kind of ambiguity and it's distracting him.
No excuse for him not boning up on the Brady bill though. Done right, weapons are a slam dunk for him. He could actually contend that his complete ignorance of legislative politics aside (which is the real Achilles heel, not elective politics where I think he's electable), HIS ENTIRE WORLDVIEW COULD JUSTIFIABLY CENTER ON THE CORRECT USE OF WEAPONS, FORCE, PUNISHMENT, AND THE FREEDOM TO LIVE WITHOUT UNDUE FEAR OF ALL THREE (sorry for the caps).
IOW, if this guy can talk to people about guns, killing, punishment and opportunity in a meaningful way from Saturday Night Specials to Star Wars, and he can, he can, *that* is a breath-taking brand distinction.
Right now his problem isn't that he's too much like Clinton. He's not enough. Does anyone remember Bill stumbling on these issues 11 years ago? I don't, but maybe that's the point, eight years of prosperity covers a lot of sins.
The problem with Anyone But Bush is that we cannot allow the incredibly low standard Bush has set for the most important office in the world to cause us to ignore the shortcomings of even the most capable and appealing candidate. Fidel Castro is a man of destiny, Arafat is not. Our deepest fear, which Walsh honestly if subliminally expresses, is that we will have to settle for less than a man of destiny. I believe that Wesley Clark's mission is to make being a Grown Up look good in the best possible way.
Three days ago I thought as I was nurturing my crush, "How refreshing it is that we might have a president who doesn't have to grow into the job."
A mere 72 hours later I have Grown Up: I now realize that everyone has to Grow Into the Job. Earlier today I wrote that Wes's theme song should be "We Are the World." Tonight I think it should be Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody."
Ron
From: "Ron Ross"
To: wesleyclark2004 Yahoo board Date: Fri Sep 19, 2003 9:11 am
Subject: Re: Editorial on Clark in NY TImes
Let's note that this is an op-ed piece by a NY Times columnist, not an editorial by the Times itself, which carries much more weight and would be quite premature at this stage. Mr. Herbert tends to comment on domestic issues tied to traditional Democratic party values such as the level playing field, affirmative action, education in the inner city, etc.
Far more interesting is the semi-investigative piece on the cover of the Times, top left above the fold:
Late-Arriving Candidate Got Push From Clintons http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLIN.html
This is the kind of water-carrying for the Democrats that the Coulter's of the world love to jump on: it's clearly meant to counter the Robert Novak et al assertion that Clark did not rise in the Army through merit, but by "begging" Clinton for his fourth star (a disgusting thing to say about anyone who spent his life in the armed forces.) Note that while we have only a few "facts" to indicate that Clark had an arms-length relationship with the Clintons (which I believe is the truth), we have the Times invoking historian David Halberstam, whose "War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals" should be required reading for Clark supporters. The Times says:
"In any case, General Clark was forced to retire early by Pentagon officials who, according to several accounts, tricked President Clinton.
Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the White House that they had to find a spot for Joe Ralston, a popular Air Force general and right-hand man to William S. Cohen, the secretary of defense. General Ralston had been denied the promotion to chairman of the Joint Chiefs after admitting to adultery 10 years earlier while separated from his wife.
These members, according to several accounts, told President Clinton that General Clark's regular tour of duty as NATO supreme allied commander was up and that they wanted General Ralston to succeed him.
"Clinton signed on, apparently not realizing that he had been snookered," David Halberstam wrote in his book, "War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals" (Scribner, 2001).
"Clark was devastated by the news, a world-class slap in the face, a public rebuke of almost unparalleled proportions," Mr. Halberstam wrote. He added that Samuel Berger, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, had told General Clark that the Pentagon had fooled the White House.
General Clark wrote that later, President Clinton had told him privately, "I had nothing to do with it."
Gotta love that the Times is being as unabashedly partisan as Fox News :)
More troubling is the Times interview with the general on his campaign plane yesterday, where he appears to waffle on his support for the war before it began. Comments on that to follow in a separate post.
Nevertheless, I am hopeful that a responsible pundit will interview Mr. Halberstam on the general's role in the Balkans soon, while the right is depicting him as a hot-head and opportunist, completely ignoring his obvious strength of character and integrity. I have not finished "War in a Time of Peace" yet, but Halberstam is a legitimate historian who while he might raise some questions about judgment the general should willingly address, will also put his contributions to the US in an objective perspective that cannot fail to counter the smears that I feel are the general's first significant hurdle.