Tradition says an elephant in the room doesn't get talked about, but tradition's just another word for conventional wisdom, and CW until a few months ago said the U.S. Senate would stay under Republican control and George Allen was running for President. The elephant in the room can wait, let's focus on an underreported donkey; General Wesley Clark.
Political pundits seem determined to talk right past Clark until he rears up and kicks them in the teeth. The beltway crowd is more tightly scripted than a corporate radio play list: "We're about to play some back to back Spice Girl Hillary hits, but first here's an Oldie but Goodie from Joe Biden, and don't dare touch that dial , we'll have some of that hot new Obama sound coming up for you shortly also!" Poor John Edwards isn't the freshest face on the block anymore.
That beltway only recognizes early momentum when they manufacture it themselves, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they fail to recognize Wes Clark; after all they didn't "manufacture" him. Clark's sheer talent and ability always wins him some friends in high places, but the tail wind pushing Clark on essentially comes from the roots. At least that was true for most of two years since the 2004 Presidential Elections, but that now is changing, and that too is underreported. Wes Clark scrambles media signals. They can't really get a handle on General Clark because he doesn't fit neatly into the holes they already have pegged for Democratic Presidential candidates. It's amusing to watch them fumble pegging Clark when they do try; until I remember that "talking heads" still speak for real power in America. Then it stops being funny.
There's a lot to be said about the fallacy of political pundits and conventional wisdom about Wes Clark, too much in fact. So I'll narrow my focus to an almost startling disconnect that the pundits themselves make in those rare instances when they find themselves compelled to comment on Clark's possible presidential candidacy. They just can't make up their minds where Wes Clark's strongest support comes from. They are down right schizophrenic about it. Actually it's worse than that even, because they are also in denial about their illness. The blocks Clark draws support from are not that hard to assemble into a complete picture. It's not like one of those marathon jig saw puzzles that take over the dining room table while you try to sort it out. Basically, Wes Clark appeals to liberal Americans, Wes Clark appeals to moderate Americans, and Wes Clark appeals to conservative Americans. That about covers it, and the thing is, the pundits already know it. They know all of it, but somehow they just can't hold those pieces of information together in their heads, not all at the same time.
I believe the last time Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post's "The Fix" column actually mentioned Wes Clark as a Presidential contender was way back in December 2005, when he wrote: "Clark replaces Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold as the wildcard in the field, thanks to the fervor and energy for him among some in the party's liberal base, particularly Internet activists" Chris also said this then about Clark "On paper, Clark's resume is unmatched if defense and foreign policy issues are still dominating the national landscape in three years time. " That is increasingly looking like a safe bet Chris.
More recently, on October 12th, Chuck Todd in the National Journal wrote a few words about Wes Clark's potential 2008 chances: "He's tried to become the surrogate/endorser/fundraiser-in-chief for military vet candidates. We're not sure it's worked." Well I beg to differ with Chuck, but with hindsight now available after the mid term elections, he may differ also. Todd wrote that before General Clark's featured role in "Because of Iraq", VoteVets powerful national 2006 campaign ad. And of course Wes Clark was the first National Democrat to strongly back Jim Webb in Virginia, back when Webb was considered a long shot to even win the Democratic Primary. Plus Clark worked hard for Democratic Vets Joe Sestak, and Patrick Murphy, and Chris Carney in Pennsylvania, who all took seats away from Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives. Even when Democratic Vets supported by Clark lost, like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, or Eric Massa in Western New York, the races were tight, and the Democratic Party came out of them all stronger than they have been in years.
So I want to get back to that "startling disconnect" I mention above. Don't any of these pundits wonder what is right (as opposed to wrong) with this picture? The same beltway pundits who are so eager to consign the netroots to a separate, but unequal, political basement waiting room, for being too leftist for the mainstream Democratic Party, are well aware of Wes Clark's support from that activist constituency. They are also well aware of Wes Clark's support for and from America's military Veterans, a constituency typically thought to be significantly more conservative and less Democratic as a group than most. These pundits watched Wes Clark welcomed by Ned Lamont's campaign for the United States Senate on one day, and welcomed by Harold Ford's campaign for the United States Senate on the next day, but none of them can add two plus two together?
Meanwhile tired conventional wisdom continues to be spun. Anna Quindlen, in the October 30th issue of Newsweek, makes the case for Hillary Clinton in 2008 while conceding: "the biggest problem Senator Clinton may have is with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party". According to Quindlen, that's because, among other idealistic liberal litmus tests for winning their support, Hillary flunks on Iraq. When describing what Democratic Liberals yearn for in 2008 Quindlen has this to say: "Right now that means a candidate who did not vote for the Iraq war." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15362334/site/newsweek
I can think of a Democratic General who not only didn't vote for the Iraq war, he warned Congress against it before Congress ever voted. That could be one of the reasons why Wesley Clark consistently wins far greater respect and support at universally regarded as liberal Democratic activist sites like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground than does Hillary Clinton. While on one hand Quindlen frets about Hillary Clinton's tepid support from liberals, she argues for her electability by pointing out: "She only has to take the states that John Kerry took, and then one more". Funny, weren't they saying the same thing about John Kerry in 2004? He only has to take the same states that Al Gore took, and then one more? Rounding down, that's closer to a 15 state strategy than a 50 state strategy (Kerry actually took 19 Sates and the District of Columbia) and to my mind it's a tacit acknowledgment that Hillary Clinton's hoped for path to victory is to hold onto her own base, despite tepid support from liberal activists, while trying to pick off a couple of the Republican States that Democrats have failed to win in over a decade. That strategy of course opens the door for Republicans, under McCain, to take almost all of their own States for granted while they sail off to go raiding in bluer waters.
Maybe Hillary can pull it off, maybe, if you like to gamble, but I don't like the odds. Call me odd I know, but somehow the idea of running a candidate who didn't vote for the Iraq War, who motivates a strong element of the Democratic activist base, and who appeals to veterans and military voters, has a certain compelling logic to it. John Kerry defined himself as a Vietnam Veteran, some are likely to say, and look where it got him. True, but John Kerry was defined by his opponent as an elite, rich, liberal Massachusetts former war protester, which kind of watered down Kerry's appeal to that relevant constituency in conservative states. Consider these comments from the November 11th Arkansas Times:
"Now that the 2006 elections are over, Gen. Wesley Clark is turning his attention toward deciding to run for president. Sources tell the Arkansas Times that Clark has said he will make his decision within the next two months.
Clark's spokesman, Erick Mullen, said, "That's true, but we don't have a timeline for when a decision will be made just yet."
One might think that political pundits would at least be interested in talking about the prospects of a potential Democratic Presidential Candidate who opposed the War in Iraq AND has strong National Security credentials; who has substantial liberal activist support AND is requested by Democrats to campaign in the most conservative districts in the nation. One would think so, but first you have to find such a Presidential candidate, which is pretty damn hard to do if you refuse to look at the Donkey in the room.
Finally someone says what I've been thinking and saying...
As a presidential candidate, Wesley Clark is about as Swift Boat-proof as they come. I'm both looking forward to and dreading 2008. It would be great if the Democrats can keep momentum going into 2008 and take the White House, but I can definitely do without another election season of watching the right-wing slime machine in action. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, the smear job they did on John Kerry will be child's play compared to what they do to her. Some months back Sean Hannity compared voting for Hillary to voting for Hezbollah! The Hillary-hate machine is like it's own cottage industry. I've talked to people who hate Hillary Clinton, who have called her "shrill" and "dangerous" and "anti-American" and when I press them on it, asking what specifically about her is shrill or dangerous or anti-American, they have nothing, just this deep-seated opinion that's rooted in nothing but suspicion created by the right-wing slime machine. That's a hell of an obstacle for Clinton to have to overcome. She and everyone else in the Democratic leadership ought to know this.
Welsey Clark, on the other hand, is the Democrats' best opportunity to make headway in areas where they're considered weak. There's no one that the Dems can bring out who would have more red-blooded, red-state appeal. If Clark is the nominee, the "out-of-touch, latte-liberal" boogeyman factor that Republicans used so well in the 2004 election will be off the table.
It's a shame that the media has mostly overlooked Welsey Clark for 2008. I hope those who choose the Democratic ticket in 2008 won't do the same.
by
Alex (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 2:23:18 AM
I hope most ' normal ' Americans, the folk like me, who work for a living, and want a better world for their children, will research the back-ground of the leaders they support for political office.
We as a nation have been very lax in the past. We elected Bush 1, a member of Skull & Bones, We elected Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar to replace his co-Globalist, We elected Bush 2, another Bonesman, to replace his co-Globalist relation and now you offer the one's wife as opposed to the other's frat brother as alternatives to protect THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.
The Rhodes Scholarship was set up by the will of Cecil Rhodes, Owner of the Debrees Diamond Cartel, the guy Rhodisia was named for who was funded by the Rothschild's interests.
The Rhodes Will States his money's power should be directed toward;
"To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity. "
There is no recipient of this award that should ever be qualified to sit in the most powerful office sworn to protect the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. nor his kinsmen, members of the CFR, Skull & Bones, Trilaterals, Builderbergers, Pilgrim Society, Knights of Malta, or any other entity that calls for world government above the CONSTITUTION.
Wes Clark is a Rhodes Scholar, therefore not in American Citizen's interest.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 161 comments)
on Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 2:26:33 AM
Thanks Cliff for your always amusing efforts here...Anger is just not enough buddy, facts really help.....condemning all Rhodes Scholars because old Cecil was a bad guy, well, sorry, but no.
OK as to Wes Clark. I saw him during the nominating process as a guy put forth to stop the momentum of Howard Dean, not that I minded that so much. As I consider the current crop of candidates from the Democrats Clark actually starts to look better to me.
Hillary certainly is the front runner, she has the money and the power, having assisted many with their own campaigns and earned their support. Having said that I think her candidacy would be a disaster, one of the most contentious in American history, if not the very most. Any questions of policy would be lost amidst the shrieking....
If Gore doesnt run I would be interested in at least hearing Clark, but as I will probably vote Green anyway this is all a bit moot.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 10:28:05 AM
I just noticed that this article came from democraticunderground, which, I might inform, is a bastion of conservative democratic ideology. As one who was there for a rather longish time, and as one who knows the background of the three Yalies who started the place, one of whom is a contractor for the DLC, I would say that Clark is become the darling of the DLC.......does that sit well with all youze leftists and liberals?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 10:31:26 AM
Not an endorsement, just another opinion.... I recommended this article because it's well written and expresses a viewpoint not often made in "leftist" circles. I'll likely be voting my conscience as well, that may or may not be for the Dem candidate in '08. Unless Hillary get's the nod, then it's definitely going somewhere else...
by
cactuspat (5 articles, 8 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 19 comments)
on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 2:36:04 AM
and agree totally. I would rather vote for a corpse than Hillary. I would add that she speaks eloquently to a number of issues and , like her creation before her, William Jefferson Clinton, can wow you with eloquence while stabbing you in the back. I hope she is very happy with her new friend, Rupert Murdoch.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 10:36:50 AM
I know where HC stands on such things as SS, Medicare Care, Medicaid, Public Schools, National Health policy, a graduated income tax. I know nothing of how WC stands on these issues. HC is the most liberal of any Senator in Washington, far left of her husband Bill. To not recognize this is verging on dishonesty or to be completely ignorant about how she has voted, what she has said and what she has written. She has a voting record of seven years and a historical record of forty years. Get real. Look at them.
Iraq is not the "be-all" of American politics, and to think we are going to pack up and leave is just not sane. We caused the deaths of 700,000 people in a nation and we have destroyed every bridge, road, school and hospital. They (Bush) broke it. We still have to fix it. I have nothing against Clark if he supports the above programs for the American people, but that does not mean I do not highly respect Hilary Clinton.
Question is: Can a woman be elected? Probably not. Can she be elected being a woman with all the silly Hilary haters? Probably not. Does that leave Wes Clark? Maybe. Probably not. John Edwards? Maybe. Some one not in spot light yet? Probably.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 3:38:23 PM
I'm sorry, but how is Clarke really any different from the pack? Sure he has experiences that have made him a leader of sorts, and, yes, he appeals to more of my values perhaps than some others, but what does he offer that is really visionary, that really addresses the challenges that confront our nation and the world?
How does he suggest we slash at the Gordian knot, the juggernaut of corporatism that has us voting alternately for Republicrat and Demublicans? Or perhaps you believe that since the last election things are going to change, in the new bipartisan climate. I would like to suggest you watch and consider another dark horse candidate that the media wishes to ignore at this time but who should yet catch fire. His qualifications as a leader are his term as Speaker of the Alaska Sate House and two terms as a US Senator from Alaska during which he took courageous and principled stands, filibustering single-handedly an end to the Vietnam era draft, and reading the Pentagon Papers into the national record (which got Ellsberg, the Post and the Times off the hook for their actions.) Not one to "follow along", he was a considered a maverick then. He is an elder statesman now, his gravitas has only grown.
For the last 15 years Senator Mike Gravel has been working on establishing the right of every citizen to take their own initiative and utilize a codified set of Constitutionally guaranteed procedures to implement ballot initiatives in any jurisdiction from federal to local throughout the land.
Goethe said, "That nation governs best which teaches us to govern ourselves." Nader and Dean both got their political traction as populists saying, "The people have the power." But unless you believe the place for the people to show their power is in the streets, that slogan is mere rhetoric. For people to really have the power, for "the ultimate authority to govern" to truly be "vested in the hands of the people", for people to have control of a government "of, by and for" themselves, their power must be codified as law.
The system is letting us down. Look how much trouble we are in, and how fast we were misled into it. It is not enough that we have elections every two years. In the late 1800s and early 1900s there were the Populist and Progressive movements that wanted to strike back against the corporatist powers. The first thing they did was copy ballot initiative from the Swiss model of direct democracy because that was the only way they could get issues like the direct election of, rather than the appointment of, Senators, and such trifling little causes as women's suffrage. The Swiss have maintained a close watch, shall we say "eternal vigilance" over their governance through the use of initiatives for 160 years! Every 3 months they go to the ballot box to vote on the issues of their government! Every 3 months they essentially tell their representatives what their job is. And if they don't like the job a given legislator is doing they can readily recall him/her.
The right of every citizen to utilize the ballot initiative process is fundamental to a democratic nation and yet only 24 states in our Union empower their citizens with a codified process and in most cases the legislators in those states strive to make it harder and harder for citizens to utilize this power of control..., by making them gather more signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot in a shorter period of time for, example.
We can all be very pleased by the outcome of the recent election. But our work is far from done. Very serious issues confront America and no same old stale solutions will match the real needs and desires of the people. If we want real change we're going to have to do it ourselves, and we're going to have to get serious about empowering ourselves to do it. Global warming, tax reform, universal health care....those are just three monumental issues that need to be addressed in a comprehensive way. Isn't it about time the "war" on poverty came to an end? Let's get serious about change and let's empower ourselves. Stop looking at anyone who isn't suggesting very courageous reform...! We have only begun the process of really taking back America, and when we finally do get it we have to keep this corporatist cabal from ever taking it over again. Power to the people. Real power.
Check out www.gravel08.us www.ni4d.us www.vote.org The important thing is that we get him into the national Democratic Presidential Debates. After that let the people decide. I hope you'll help.
Geo Rip
p.s. Gravel was military intelligence overseas as a young man. He came out on MSNBC as opposed to the war before it started. His policy if elected is, "Bring the troops home now!"
by
GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 1:28:25 AM
Great stuff. NOT THE ARTICLE, but the fact that Americans are beginning to SERIOUSLY examine contenders for this most high elevated public office.
That's gotta be a bonus after the doldrums they've shown over the last 15-20 years or so.
Ref the esteemed Mr Clark, course it's ONLY MY humble opinion gained mostly from news releases from all over the World as well as the U.S.
I distinctly recall Mr Clark having a little more then just his big toe in the debacle of Bosnia ect, ect.
To me, that certainly rings warning bells.
Secondly, I had no idea Mr Clark was a Rhodes scholar, (bully for him) my best friend is/was also a Rhodes Scholar, and no one can say, he's anyone's tool.
As for Mr Clark, I can't say, as I don't know the guy personly, however it's common knowledge what a Rhodes Scholar is and what's involved with it, I guess it very much depends on the persons character and whether they are honorable men, as we used to believe persons in elevated positions were.
Like I said earlier, his example set in Bosnia, DOES NOT VERIFY ANY HONOURABLE ACTIONS, thus if said activety is being used to measure same, I guess he'd fall well short.
Clearly, closer examination is neccessary before placing any money on this horse.
As for Hilary, spare me, how on earth anyone could consider her for such a position when she SUPPORTED the Iraq war and most damning of all (IMHO) her support of Israel and it's murderous behaviour, condemns her totaly in my eyes, and should also in every American's eyes as well.
It demonstrates very clearly where HER Loyalties lie, how can she support a nation that's murdered her own country folk is beyond me.
I'd really like to hear, how that behaviour was in accordance with the Great Constitution of the U.S.A.
by
Eddy Schmid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments)
on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 6:51:37 AM
9 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
