I've admired the way Gen. Clark has largely avoided personal criticism of his Democratic rivals. In fact, at times during the debates, he appears to be listening to Dick Gephardt in particular with more than polite attention, and I think that respect is both warranted and good politics. The better all of the candidates look, the more credible their combined anti-Bush message. In a sense, Clark's late start and the disadvantages he faces in Iowa and New Hampshire have enabled him to run a more above-the-fray "national" campaign, while sadly, such worthy contenders as Gephardt and John Kerry now feel compelled to skew their message and qualifications to meet Dean's insurgency in states where they were formerly front-runners. Sad, not because they are necessarily more worthy than Dean, but because Dean's success has come to define their candidacies.
So Gen. Clark's specific wording when asked by Salon's Josh Benson about running as VP on a Dean ticket shows that he's beginning to see himself as Dean's most significant competition. However, unlike Kerry and Gephardt, Clark is for the moment finding confident self-assertion preferable to attacking Dean.
And so, the thinking goes, Howard Dean and Wes Clark would make a Democratic dream date in November 2004.Gen. Clark also subtly one-upped a Dean bobble in the Dec. 9 NH debate:But just 48 hours before before the capture of Saddam Hussein outside of Tikrit, Clark made his strongest statement to date about why a Dean-Clark ticket is a bad idea. Clark, who says that he's uniquely qualified to go "toe-to-toe" with President Bush on security issues in 2004, said that whether he's on the ticket or not, the Democrats can't win with Dean as their presidential candidate.
"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president."
Asked if he was referring specifically to the much-discussed possibility of a Dean-Clark ticket, he said: "It's no substitute. It won't work, and it won't carry the election for this party."
[Clark] criticized Dean for an answer he gave at the Democratic debate in New Hampshire on Dec. 9 to a question about whether it was ever acceptable for a president to lie to the American public. (Dean, who was clearly taken aback by the question, had answered: "I can't think of any circumstances, with the possible exception of some national security matter that would -- if some piece of information were put out that would endanger American lives or some circumstances under which people's lives would be in danger or something of that sort.")Despite the occasional swipes they take at each other, I expect Dean and Clark to remain respectful of each other and to keep their options open with regard to the bottom of the ticket. I would hate to see Clark lapse into Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman style "stop Dean" rhetoric."I don't believe you should lie in foreign affairs," Clark said. "You can't lie as a government. You can refuse to answer a question. You can go to the press privately and say please don't print this for national security reasons. You cannot lie.
"The experience is everything," he continued. "Foreign affairs constantly involve judgments about the unanticipated, and you draw on a background of knowledge and experience and attitude. At this time in our nation's history it's not as simple as a three-point bullet plan."
That said, much of what Wesley Clark has to offer would be lost were he to become Vice President. While a seasoned congressional insider like Dick Gephardt could ably support the policies of an outsider like Dean or Clark, a Dean-Clark administration would neither make the most of Wesley Clark's international experience or help further Dean's agenda with a predominantly Republican congress. In less partisan times or with a less ideologically driven administration in power, Wesley Clark should have had his pick of appointments: Paul Bremer's job, for instance, or better yet, Don Rumsfeld's. If he doesn't win the nomination or presidency, I don't look for him to become Senator from Arkansas, but to serve with honor and distinction as an appointee of the next Democratic president.