The Wesley Clark Conversation

2003-08-22T12:46:00.000-07:00

Find The Criticism

What will the right-wing say about Clark?

Pore through the supporter letters at draftwesleyclark.com to find the few morsels of negativity. What are people saying?

2003-08-22T12:44:00.000-07:00

Iraq Mess

From Kos:

The mess in Iraq was easily predictable as early as last year, when war talk first sprung up. PNAC arguments that a friendly Iraq would reshape the entire region were laughably absurd (an Israel-friendly Iraqi government wouldn't survive a week). And it's been clear for a long time that neither Israel nor the Palestinians are genuinely interested in peace, addicted as they are to the cycle of tit-for-that violence.

The body count continues to rise (something curiously omitted by the article), which will spur continued and impassioned opposition to Bush's handling of the war. Also omitted -- the increasing costs of the occupation as our national infrastructure demands massive investments.

The real question is not whether Bush can use national security to his advantage, it's whether Democrats can use it to their advantage. This isn't about "neutralizing" the issue, it's about turning it on its head and wielding it as a weapon against Bush. We have the material to work with. It's a question of using it.

(And without National Security, what does Bush run on?)

Clark, anyone?

2003-08-22T11:15:00.000-07:00

Response

And this is Andrew Northrup's excellent response:

Keep listening. Clark has so much potential to eat Bush's lunch it's not even funny. I hate to get all starry-eyed about this guy, because he could certainly flare out, but when you read die-hards from the "other side" making comments like this (and he's far from the only one), you start to see how a general election with Clark in it could really shift the political situation in this country around completely. Imagine Democrats being perceived as good on liberal social issues AND strong on the economy AND strong on defense AND incredibly smart and articulate and willing to fight back hard. Imagine Bush getting pummelled on national security - not just "the war", mind you, not just because "anti-war" beats "pro-war" by 5 points in a poll that week, but national security all together, because he just doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Who's going to vote for that? The religious right and ... yeah, pretty much. Now think of the coattails. And that's not even mentioning his hair, which is superb.

2003-08-22T11:14:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are frustrated with Bush

Is Clark the answer?

Maybe:

What a fucking sad day in Iraq and the world in general. Things fluctuate in and out of control and the crests and troughs are no more than opportunities for opposing sides to score political points. Israelis and Palestinians are said to kill each other over different "narratives" and judging from the bromides in the comments section of your website left and right aren't too far apart from that situation themselves.
[fingers tightly crossed] I still think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were the right thing to do, and I still think they will be successful in achieving the key objectives of national stability. [/fingers tightly crossed] In my mind what we must ensure in each is that the populations of these two countries blame the disastrous state of affairs on the extremists and not on America. If the UN presence helps ensure that, and I think it will, who cares whether we have to make some damn concessions on French oil contracts?

There are so many interlocking problems right now--Iranian and North Korean nukes, terrorism in the three major states on Iran's border, US occupation in two of them, death and murder in Israel and Palestine, fear of terrorism in America. No one--myself, yourself, George W. Bush--knows how to deal with them all because the reaction to any one of them affects all the others and God knows the wisest of us is not wise enough to comprehend the future in all its terrifying possibilities. We are in a frightening world where no one shapes events but everyone reacts to them. The terrorists themselves only vaguely know what they have created, much less what they might wreak upon mankind.

The idea that the US could or can contain without war the lust for power that drives Kim Jong-Il and the likes of Hussein or Bin Laden, or the nihilism mixed with hatred which I believe inspires the more common mass of terrorists, is ludicrous. The idea that we can defeat it with war is absurd.

We are in an insanely frustrating position. And yet we do have an enemy to strike in the Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, and their fellow-travelers hiding in Iraq and around the world; a potential enemy in the masses of young Arab men to appease through an all-out transparently just effort in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a friend to converse with in the liberal minds of at least portions of the world Muslim populations.

Even this vague abstraction fails to deal with North Korean and Iranian nukes (for that we'll need China and a good deal of luck).

May our leaders have the wisdom to keep all this straight and simultaneously be both the punisher, the appeaser, the conversant, and the inspiration.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have it in Bush, but I don't think we have it in any Democratic candidate. We need Clinton with a spine or Bush with a brain. Wesley Clark? Not from what I've heard but maybe.

2003-08-16T23:55:00.000-07:00

Policy Shopping

UPDATE: Sorry, I just reread this post and it seems a bit harsh.

Ok, so I am offended that Dean keeps on lying, but this situation is illustrative, because it shows you what imprudent promise-itis gets you. People call Clark 'cagey' because he often won't stake his flag in the ground over some small issue. He knows that you make decisions when the time is right, you don't make a decision one day and change it the next based on political expediency.

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean backed away from his pledge to adhere to spending limits, saying some advisers want to explore opting out of the Watergate-era public financing system because of his sudden fund-raising success.

Dean said he still intends to accept taxpayer money and spending restraints, and suggested he has discouraged his staff from considering alternatives right now. But he left open the possibility of following President Bush's lead in rejecting public financing.

"Could we change our mind? Sure," he said. One rival campaign accused Dean of hypocrisy.

Just five months ago, Dean committed to accepting taxpayer money and vowed to attack any Democrat who didn't.

The about-face follows his emergence as the Democratic Party's biggest fund-raising threat. Dean collected $7.6 million in the fund-raising quarter that ended June 30, more than his eight rivals, and aides said Friday that he is on pace to far exceed that total in the next quarter.

In an interview Thursday, the former Vermont governor said he did not recall promising to accept public financing and the limits that go with it. Under a program designed to curb special interest influence, candidates who agree to state-by-state and overall spending limits get federal matching dollars for the first $250 of each donation they receive.

"I was asked very early on and I said I intend to take the match," Dean said. "I think what I said is that we weren't looking into that as an option."

However, in a March 7 interview with The Associated Press, Dean committed to accept the taxpayer money. The promise was echoed by a campaign spokesperson.

"We've always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in," he said in March. Dean also said his position was not based on any political considerations, such as the size of the field or how much money he can raise.

On Friday, however, Dean cited Bush's plans to raise $200 million - five times the spending limit - as a reason for keeping his options open.

"I think public financing is a good thing. The question is what do you do with an opponent who can murder you from March to December?" Dean said.

2003-07-29T10:30:00.000-07:00

The Clark Moment is Approaching

48% of Democrats wish someone else were running. 'Undecided' is gaining in the polls. And 69% believe that Bush will be reelected.

I'd say the field is weak.

2003-07-11T18:09:00.000-07:00

Inside Politics Video of John Hlinko and The Clark Movement

Here.

2003-07-07T13:50:00.000-07:00

The Gloves Are Coming Off

Clark is stepping up his criticism of the Bush administration. Some operative quotes from this interview:

How is Iraq affecting the war on terror?

If you talk to the people on the inside, they all [say] you can’t do everything at once. I know the administration says it thinks it can, but the honest truth is if you’re looking one place, you’re not looking someplace else. Ultimately, Washington is sort of a one-crisis town.

What do you think of President Bush’s using war imagery as a political tool, like when he recently flew onto an aircraft carrier?

The world expects something more of an American president than to prance around on a flight deck dressed up like [a] pilot. He’s expected to be a leader. That’s my fundamental issue with it. It doesn’t reflect the gravitas of the office. Furthermore, it’s a little phony.

Bottom line, these guys are fakes. And Clark knows it.

2003-07-05T21:35:00.000-07:00

NH Office Opened

Wow. What a day. We just opened a NH office for the Draft Clark movement, and I am just so excited that this movement might be able to cause a potentially significant political figure to emerge. Wes Clark can lead our country. Let's make it happen.

2003-06-27T14:50:00.000-07:00

Washington Insiders Buzzing About Clark

Amy Sullivan knows of what she speaks. And she speaks of Clark:

Here's the theory: successful presidential candidates tend to come from executive ranks -- you have to go back to JFK to find a president who wasn't previously a vice president or a governor. NATO Supreme Allied Commander fits just as nicely into that qualification for the White House and sounds even cooler. Clark is simply of a different stature than the other candidates in the race -- far from being hurt by waiting to launch his campaign, he could stride into the field as the adult who hasn't had to spend his time bickering with the others in small-fry debates. He is not necessarily missing out on the chance to raise funds, either -- many prominent Democratic donors have been either spreading small amounts around to each of the campaigns or holding back entirely, waiting for a frontrunner to emerge. David Broder recently wrote about the very low numbers represented so far by Democratic giving. But it's not necessarily true that Democrats can't raise as much money as Republicans; they simply haven't committed themselves to a sure winner yet. It's perfectly conceivable that Clark could benefit from a quick and significant influx of funds whenever he enters the race.

And the biggest reason Clark could sew up the nomination? He's winning over the Democratic faithful, many of whom have worried that the very things that make him electable -- his Southern roots (Arkansas) and formidible military background -- also mean he doesn't care about their bread-and-butter domestic concerns. Clark has taken on those fears directly. As Supreme Allied Commander, he was responsible for the military community in Europe, which is essentially a welfare state. At a recent appearance before the New Democratic Network, Clark reminded them that his duties included overseeing the education of tens of thousands of children, coordinating housing for hundreds of thousands of troops and their families. He understands the importance of education, particularly in the military where each promotion is accompanied by additional training and schooling. And when he told the crowd that the reconstruction effort in Iraq showed that we can't win wars with weapons, we win them with people, he had them on their feet.

It's just a theory. And it may not be Clark -- some other candidate may emerge as the clear frontrunner. But don't despair, Democrats. And don't believe everything you read. Howard Kurtz says the glass is half empty. I say it's half full. Subvert the dominant paradigm!

2003-06-27T14:32:00.000-07:00

Clark and Moveon

As Demwatch points out, "the biggest story that MoveOn really isn't publicizing is the performance of Wesley Clark as a write-in candidate. The as-yet-still-non-candidate, even without his name displayed among the others, garnered a very respectable 2,968 votes--almost double Al Sharpton's total." The moveon results are located here.

2003-06-25T07:01:00.000-07:00

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Plausible Deniability = Bullshit

I'm so tired of this question of whether Bush lied or not on the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Or Al Aqaeda. I don't like the Democrats making political hay of it, but I certainly resent the administration's defensive posturing and refusal to admit that anything went wrong.

To The Point and Steve Soto comment on this issue as well.

When the ship springs a leak, the captain finds the leak and plugs it. The captain doesn't make excuses, he doesn't pretend there's no leak, and he doesn't suggest that the people shouting there's a leak are just his enemies. He just fixes the damn problem. Period.

This is why Wesley Clark should be President. You'll never hear this crap from him. He'll just figure out what's wrong and fix it. No partisanship. No BS. Just responsibility. Won't that be nice?

2003-06-24T17:59:00.000-07:00

Bush's Polling Numbers Dropping

Check it out. Down to 40% reelect.

2003-06-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

Iraq quickly moving towards quagmire status

Wouldn't it be nice to have a President who's actually been serious about nation-building? (The answer I'm looking for is yes, by the way). It doesn't appear like the current group is handling Iraq particularly well. Or so says, well, this guy. And he's pretty smart.

One of the most experienced and respected figures in a generation of American warfare and peacekeeping yesterday accused the US administration of 'failing to prepare for the consequences of victory' in Iraq.

At the end of a week that saw a war of attrition develop against the US military, General William Nash told The Observer that the US had 'lost its window of opportunity' after felling Saddam Hussein's regime and was embarking on a long-term expenditure of people and dollars for which it had not planned.

'It is an endeavour which was not understood by the administration to begin with,' he said.

Now retired, Nash served in the Vietnam war and in Operation Desert Storm (the first Gulf War) before becoming commander of US forces in Bosnia and then an acclaimed UN Civil Affairs administrator in Kosovo.

He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, specialising in conflict prevention.

In one of the most outspoken critiques from a man of his standing, Nash said the US had 'failed to understand the mindset and attitudes of the Iraqi people and the depth of hostility towards the US in much of the country'.

'It is much greater and deeper than just the consequences of war,' he added. 'It comes from 12 years of sanctions, Israel and Palestinians, and a host of issues.'

As a result, he says, 'we are now seeing the re-emergence of a reasonably organised military opposition - small scale, but it could escalate.'

It was insufficient for the US to presume that the forces now harassing and killing American troops were necessarily confined to what he called a residue of the Saddam regime. 'What we are facing today is a confluence of various forces which channel the disgruntlement of the people,' said Nash.

'You can't tell who is behind the latest rocket propelled grenade. It could be a father whose daughter has been killed; it could be a political leader trying to gain a following, or it could be rump Saddam. Either way, they are starting to converge.'

He said: 'the window of opportunity which occurred with the fall of Saddam was not seized in terms of establishing stability'.

'In the entire region - and Iraq is typical - there is a sense that America can do whatever it wants. So that if America decides to protect the oilfields and oil ministry, it can.

'And if America doesn't provide electricity and water or fails to protect medical supplies, it is because they don't want to or they don't care.'

Nash is reluctant to make comparisons with Vietnam: 'There are far more things that were different about Vietnam than there are similarities. Except perhaps the word "quagmire". Maybe that is the only thing that is the same.'

2003-06-21T12:16:00.000-07:00

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark says 'maybe' to presidential bid

2003-06-20T05:29:00.000-07:00

The best candidate not running

So says the title of this Dallas Fort Worth Star Telegram column.

2003-06-19T10:52:00.000-07:00

Clark on speaking tour

Wesley Clark is on a tour around the country to raise awareness and promote an idea-laden agenda. He hasn't decided to run, but he is laying groundwork for the potential to do so.

2003-06-18T20:42:00.000-07:00

Why Clark is a dream candidate

John Judis, probably one of the best political scientists in the country and author of the intriguing and seminal The Emerging Democratic Majority, has written a gloomy portrait of Democratic chances for 2004. But it's only gloomy because Judis is only considering the official candidates, and none of them meets his clear recipe for Democratic success. Read the following passage and it'll become obvious why Clark's candidacy makes so much sense:

The Democratic challenger should have three obvious qualifications. None of the current Democrats have all three. First, the Democratic candidate must be credible as a commander in chief. That wasn't important in 1992 or 2000, but it probably will be important in 2004.

Second, the Democrat should be able to challenge, if not defeat, Bush in all parts of the country. Since 1964, the Democrats have only won the presidency with candidates from the South or border states. Southerners are not willing to vote for Northern Democrats like Mondale or former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, but Northerners are quite willing to consider a Southern Democrat like Jimmy Carter or Clinton. If the Democrats run a New Englander, not only will they lose the South, but the Republican nominee won't have to campaign there, concentrating his resources in vulnerable Northern and Western states.

Third, a successful Democrat should be able to combine the party's traditional populist appeal, which resonates among minorities and white working-class voters, with the kind of progressive centrist appeal that resonates among college-educated professionals who worry more about the environment than the minimum wage. Bill Clinton could do this; Al Gore and Dukakis had trouble doing so.

Among the current leading candidates, there are only two Southerners, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Florida Sen. Bob Graham, but Edwards lacks credibility in foreign policy and Graham as a national campaigner. Rep. Richard Gephardt is from a border state, but he's from urban St. Louis, and he failed to impress Southern voters when he ran for president in 1988. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman have credibility on foreign policy, but come from the same region as Dukakis. And few of the candidates except, perhaps, the inexperienced Edwards, have a Clintonian ability to combine populism and progressivism.

Chin up, John. We hear ya.

2003-06-18T11:44:00.000-07:00

Check out Wired's story entitled "Will Clark Dodge The Draft" at

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59218,00.html

2003-06-18T08:46:00.000-07:00

Clark will be on Capital Report (CNBC) This Thursday at 9pm

2003-06-18T05:34:00.000-07:00

What you can do to help the General, and other news

Vote in this poll. It closes on the 23rd.

The Des Moines Register discusses Clark's candidacy, including some major prodding he's getting from top players in the Democratic Party to go run.

Wes Clark addresses the New Democratic Network, as reported by The Hill. The language that the media is using about Clark is now that of a potential candidate:

Several announced and potential Democratic presidential candidates addressed the gathering at a Capitol Hill hotel, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) addressed the convention by phone, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean sent a video greeting.

Finally, check out the hyper radical conservative Free Republic on Clark. Scared anyone?

2003-06-17T12:44:00.000-07:00

General Wes Clark: The Strongest Democrat

The following is a description of why I support General Wesley Clark for the 2004 Democratic nomination.

General Wesley Clark, former NATO Commander, is a fighter, a peacemaker, a diplomat, a visionary, and a leader. In the 1990s, Clark led America to military victory in Bosnia, and his diplomatic skills helped weld a real international coalition to stop a genocide, win wars, and build lasting democracies. Beloved by his troops, liberal in his outlook, strong in his convictions, pragmatic in his methods, Wesley Clark is the strongest Democrat and our best chance to take back the White House in 2004.

Muscular Liberalism: JFK, Clinton, and Clark

Even as terror alerts flash randomly up and down, it’s increasingly clear that a global fight requires a global response. General Clark is a muscular liberal in the grand tradition JFK, who stared down Khrushchev, Harry Truman, who rescued Europe with the Marshall Plan. Clark has spent his whole life in service protecting this country and helping others, something on other candidate – not even Bush – can match.

Liberty, Jobs, and Education

Wesley Clark wants to get America moving again with a renewed focus on jobs and education, values and the environment. By restoring constitutional protections and pushing to protect the environment, we can, as Clark says, preserve "the only things that we will leave behind that will matter in 100 years." And his record bears out his words. As an army commander in the 1980s, Clark had the foresight to break military tradition and tackle complex social issues like spousal abuse and teenage suicide. He has always maintained the deepest reverence for American institutions, and his integrity and discipline are awe-inspiring.

Wes Clark is the only candidate who can win the war on terror, bring honesty and common sense to the economy, social problems, and health care, and resurrect America's hallowed place as the most admired country on the planet.

The Winning Candidate

Not only can Wesley Clark win the Democratic nomination, but Clark is the only candidate who can beat Bush in 2004. Polls show that most Americans agree with and trust Democrats more on nearly every issue … except national security. Clark IS the answer, and he is Karl Rove’s worst nightmare.

Clark has had a constant nightly presence on CNN; he is media savvy and experienced, and he is a focused winner who has performed brilliantly everywhere from the depths of vicious combat to the highest levels of the international stage. Clark is a man with unbending faith, integrity, power, accomplishment and discipline, and if we can convince him to run, the next President of the United States.

2003-04-02T14:05:00.000-08:00

This is an unofficial blog supporting General Wesley Clark for President.