Go Wes Young Man?
So, waddaya think, should Wes Clark throw his hat into the presidential ring? I've been wondering about this lately. Probably more than you have.
I volunteered for the Clark campaign in '04 and have great admiration for the man. He's got a serious intellect and iron clad credentials in foreign and defense policy. For a political novice, I think he ran a pretty impressive campaign. Despite a couple of early gaffes, he managed to stay competitive longer than everyone save Kerry and Edwards. No one else, with the possible exception of Howard Dean (whose background made him a somewhat less credible critic), took a stronger stance against Bush's foreign policy and the Iraq War. Were it not for some guy named Obama, Clark would have been remembered for having given the highlight reel speech at the Dem Convention. He coulda been our rock star ("Iraq star"?) in waiting. Ah, but that coulda's the rub.
In '04, Clark dove into a weak primary field to save us from a Deaniac wipeout. In essence, he gambled that Dean, who had exceptional grass roots appeal, would flame out only after the famously grass roots Iowa caucuses, guessing that Dems, desperate to beat Bush, would coalesce around an electable anti-Dean. If Dean won Iowa, Clark could head him off with a strong second place in NH, coupled with a win in SC and elsewhere. But Dean imploded too early. Iowa Dems had already deduced Howie's weakness and scanned for plausible alternatives: Kerry, the only war hero with a campaign in Iowa, and Edwards, the only charismatic non-Vermonter. The rest is history.
Importantly, those opportunities that made a Clark nomination viable in '04 no longer hold. The '08 field is already crowded with rock stars: Hillary, Obama, and Edwards being the obvious headliners. The undercard is also plenty full: Richardson, Biden, Dodd (Dodd!? wtf?), Kucinich, etc. And if there's a rock star in waiting, a reluctant prince, it's obviously "Oscar Al" Gore (or is that "Nobel Albert"?). So I just don't see where Wes's oxygen will come from. Hilzoy has a good post that captures much of my own view of the current field. I might wish there were more room in it for a retired General. But I'm afraid that's not how the Wes was won.
posted by tenaciousmcd @ 11:07 AM
10 Comments:
I found Clark an attractive candidate, in theory, in 2003 and 2004. But he waited too long to get in, and then, when he did, he had a bad first few weeks. I'm not sure that he remained viable longer than other candidates; he just didn't drop out as early as others.
But the big difference between 2004 and 2008 is that Clark had a niche in 2004, to some extent. What's his niche in 2008? There are already plenty of anti-war candidates. And does anyone believe that having a general as a candidate would prevent "stab in the back" type rhetoric?
So why would Clark run, if he chose to do so?
Wes Clark's niche in 2008 is that he doesn't engage in irresponsible alarmism about Iran. This is going to become a bigger issue, as the US-Iranian confrontation heats up. (And it is going to heat up.)
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are both playing right into the Bush administration's hands with their "all options must be on the table" rhetoric. What?!??!?? Somebody needs to take away the keys! Bush/Cheney cannot be trusted with American military power. That option must be TAKEN OFF the table. They must be stopped, if it is at all possible, from launching yet another war in the Middle East.
That Democratic candidates still feel the need to prove their "hawkish" bona fides by providing rhetorical cover for the administrtion shows that they STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND the situation here.
At least Wes Clark knows that we have seen this movie before.
Oh. Good point.
I'm waiting to see who comes to the fore in not only criticising the Iraq mess, but trying to bring the troops home while also actively trying to stop the pending attack on Iran. Right now I'd take Dennis Kucinich over any of the others based on policy and rhetoric -- unfortunately he's probably unelectable.
Paul, that really is where Wes Clark is right now. If this is what you're looking for, you should give Clark a close look. Unless Gore gets back into it, he may be the only Democrat with the self-confidence to recommend both ending the Iraq fiasco and engaging in diplomacy with Iran. I don't know where Obama is on this. Maybe he has that self-assurance, also, though it's not evident yet. But the other Democrats are engaging in that same moronic "all options on the table" saber-rattling that got us into so much trouble last time around. Check out Clark's comments here: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/30/221916/857.
True, Clark's been better on Iran than anyone else, but I doubt that's a big enough "niche" to exploit in this race, especially since all the Dem candidate positions on the Middle East are moving so steadily and consistently to the left. Also note that Clark's comments about Iran were widely slammed in some segments of the web as anti-Semitic (the interp, if not his actual words was: "rich Jewish republican bankers want war with Iran," or something of the sort). So his reception to the party has been lukewarm at best. Better scenario: Clark becomes an advisor to one of the major candidates, and helps give them some foreign policy cred and spine.
Paul, you're not REALLY leaning to Kucinich are you? I mean, I guess I knew there were DK supporters out there, but I never thought I would actually encounter one.
TMcD -- I have no doubt that you're right that wisdom-on-Iran isn't a big niche. But it might very well get a lot bigger. The admin's provocative actions against Iran need to be taken very seriously. They have every incentive in the world to, as Josh Marshall puts it, "spread the chaos outwards."
That anti-semitism card surely has been overplayed against anyone not sufficiently bellicose about launching preventive wars against Israel's enemies. The accusation does intimidate a lot of Democrats, though, particularly those who are worried about their "toughness" bona fides. The truly tough are those who can stand up to the temptation to threaten force.
I missed some of Edwards' interview on MTP today. But that footage of his pre-war statements on Iraq was damning, even if he is admitting mistakes now. He is not solid on Iran. So far his behavior suggests only that he can be bullied - first one way and then the next - just as he was on Iraq.
Well, if you look at what Kucinich stands for and what he says, I have to say he represents my views on a lot things better than just about any other candidate out there I can think of. The problem is that he doesn't have enough charisma, or gravitas or charm to win on the national stage, so it's unrealistic to vote for him. But on the big issues, such as Iraq, Iran, taxes, deficit, health care, minimum wage...he's miles ahead of most of the Democrat party and country.
Corrigedum: That's Democratic Party. Sheesh. I've been taken over by Republican rhetoric.
Wes Clark is perhaps the only candidate that could earn my vote by virtue of not having failed any of my litmus tests.
However, he hasn't had to vote on anything, so that makes it easy to pass my tests.
Still, I like him more than anyone else in the race. I don't even think he's trading on Tradesports right now. Big time dark horse!
Post a Comment
<< Home