The Command Post - Op-Ed - Will Wes Clark make it an even 10?

August 09, 2003

Will Wes Clark make it an even 10?

Wesley Clark wants to crank it up, so he's making noises like he's going to join the race for the Democratic nomination.

I don't quite get the rationale he has for getting in the race at this stage. He must think that everyone remembers that he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces. If so then Clark has an oversized and unrealistic view of his own fame. The military men that the general public know about are Colin Powell, Norman Schwartzkopf and to a lesser extent Tommy Franks and Dick Myers. That's it.

Back in the day (1992/1996) Colin Powell could have cleared the field competing for either the Republican or Democratic nominations just by announcing. If the contest was a swimming pool, the splash from Colin Powell jumping in would have emptied all the water out of the pool. The splash from Wes Clark jumping in today will look like the ripple after a Greg Louganis dive. Hillary Clinton he ain't. If Clark doesn't want to embarrass himself he'd better wait a week to announce because until then Arnold will still be the top political story (talk about a big splash).

So what do Clark supporters think that he brings to the table? Obviously the thinking is that Clark has the national security issue in the bag, but in a post 9-11 world it doesn't work that way. Clark would still needs to explain to the American people how he would keep the country safe. Pictures of Clark in uniform aren't enough. Unless he articulates a national security vision that resonates I don't see how Clark's resume means more to voters than Kerry's does.

Not only that, but the first audience he needs to win over is composed of Democratic primary voters. Those Democrats don't enjoy talking about national security. They want to talk about the environment, overtime pay, health care or repealing NAFTA. Clark will only be attractive to them if he speaks to their issues while using his background to comfort them about his electability. But Clark's issues agenda is pretty thin so far.

He can beef up his issue portfolio pretty quickly I suppose, but I just don't see how he gets himself into the top tier. The candidates are already slicing up Democratic money and support nine ways, so Clark will have to take his share by eating someone else's lunch. Who lunch might that be?

Dean? No. Dean's supporters don't seem to be overly concerned about national security bona fides. They're in love with Dean and won't jump to Clark.
Kerry? No. Kerry's Vietnam experience covers the same bases as Clark's military background does, but Kerry has much more domestic policy experience.

Gephardt? Maybe. Clark is unlikely to capture Gephardt's labor support, but middle Americans attracted to "Dick the populist" could potentially be wooed.

Lieberman? Maybe. Democratic hawks are a dying breed, but they do exist. Clark could appeal to hawks that find Lieberman to be too sanctimonious.

Edwards? Graham? Maybe. It is unclear how solid the support that these two senators enjoy actually is. Clark could win them over.

Sharpton? Moseley Braun? Kucinich? No way. The only primary voters that support these three are hard-core. Not that it matters, because we're not talking big numbers here.

So we see that building a base of support would be a daunting challenge for Clark, but that pales in comparison to the challenge Clark faces raising money. He hasn't raised any yet, and the other guys are already starting to spend theirs. That's where the late start may turn out to be fatal. With 9 other candidates it takes money to get attention, and all the big fundraisers are already spoken for (I think).

Add it all up and you are left with one of two conclusions:

(1) Clark is miscalculating. Perhaps he is surrounded by sycophants that whisper sweet nothings in his ear so that Clark can delude himself into thinking that Americans are waiting on pins and needles for a Wes Clark presidency.

(2) Wes Clark is running for vice president.

Bet on (2).

Posted By Patio Pundit at August 9, 2003 03:40 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Or perhaps he's merely waiting to see what the other nine will do.

No one has been picked yet, after all. And a Clark entry into the race will generate a Lot of press notice and commentary from the others.

Posted by: Don at August 9, 2003 10:38 AM

YA'll should remember that it was Gen. Clark that ran the "sucessful" Kosovo liberation & peacemaking (er, peacekeeping) operation.

He'll contrast his success in Kosovo to the quamire in Iraq. And every time another American soldier dies, he'll be able to say, more effectively that any single other Demo candidate, that Bush is screwing it up and he'd do better.

Posted by: J Mike at August 9, 2003 11:07 AM

Clark can't be dissmissed out of hand. The same hype engine that spewed invective all over the "16 words," is looking to secretly endorse a candidate. If they choose to, they will spin Clark into the spirit of George Washington incarnate.

If you'd head heard Linda Gradstein on NPR puff Edwards the other day, you'd understand that the very high-powered PR-spin machine that carried Clinton on a cloud of air, is tuned up and waiting for a hero to annoint. Dean has been rejected as unelectable, but General Wes (McLellan) Clark may have a real shot.

Posted by: Trouble at August 9, 2003 11:13 AM

No chance.

He was a pencil pushing, ticket-puncher in the Army and a weasel.

No way he gets elected.

Posted by: Penosity at August 9, 2003 02:24 PM

why all this pencil pusher rhetoric against clark? the man did serve in vietnam, didn't he? can anyone fill me in?

Posted by: june16_1904 at August 9, 2003 09:03 PM

June
He served in Nam in the late 1960s, commanding a mechanized infantry division. Wounded 4 times. I never heard of the man back then, though I was over there. He apparently made it through Ranger School somewhere along the line, also.
He's loaded down with master's degrees, which impresses me a lot less than coming back for more after being wounded a couple of times. I've known too many highly educated people to consider academic credentials as any measure of charactar. The wounds could also have been superficial-- a lot of purple hearts and other decorations seem to find their way to fair haired boys when the folks upstairs have plans for them, and believe me, there are a lot of different kinds of wounds I can call superficial.
Other than his southeast Asia service, bearing up my fair haired boy suspicions, his career was pure REMF on a posterboy theme, fast promotions, think tank stuff, young for a one star, etc etc, like he had himself a sponsor at the Pentagon or higher up.

Posted by: wolf at August 9, 2003 10:00 PM

wolf: Please pardon my ignorance, but what is REMF? Well, the MF is probably pretty obvious, but what's the RE?

Sure, W. Clark isn't a Hilary, but if it came down to Clark vs. Kucinich, I'd vote for Clark in a hearbeat. Dennis "the Menace" Kucinich totally dicked Cleveland over. He won't get my vote even if Hell does freeze over.

Posted by: gus3 at August 10, 2003 12:23 AM

LOL

gus3

Rear Echelon

Posted by: wolf at August 10, 2003 12:42 AM

hahahahahahaha

Yeah, that makes a lotta sense.

He'd still get my vote before Kucinich would.

Posted by: gus3 at August 10, 2003 05:09 AM

gus3

Luckily, I don't have to worry about which of the 9, or now possibly 10, candidates in the lefty lineup to vote for.
My vote will go to the guy on the right, the one who's already in the Oval Office and doing a fine job.
My motto is "A vote for a democrat is a vote wasted."

Posted by: wolf at August 10, 2003 08:30 AM

If I could have Bush without the domestic component, I'd vote for him again in a new york minute. The foreign affairs part I totally support. But this Patriot Act and associated Ashcroft remake of the US system of checks and balances is just too, too alien; where did it come from, and what is the agenda behind it?
If the Dems can't come up with a viable alternative, I just may not vote! (The first time in 30+ years, if I do decide to withold my vote.)

Posted by: JohnnyR at August 10, 2003 09:42 AM

If Wes Clark attempts to characterize Iraq as a quagmire, he's immediately lost any chance he might have had of getting me to vote for him. Mostly because I know that he knows better; he'd be doing it to score political points at the expense of truth. I absolutely loathe that sort of thing.

Posted by: David Perron at August 10, 2003 01:06 PM

Johnny R wrote,

"The foreign affairs part I totally support. But this Patriot Act and associated Ashcroft remake of the US system of checks and balances is just too, too alien;"

I never heard a decent argument against the patriot act from anyone against it. I mean all they say is 'fearmongering' and demagogery. But, where is the basis for suggesting that America doesn't need to give the FBI broader rights to protect the American citizens?

You'd be hard pressed to find many if (ANY) cases where one's privacy is invaded and the person in question was ever hurt by it. It is amazing how many Al Queda opeartives in America that we have captured and the thanks goes to the Patriot Act.

You get rid of the Patriot Act and you begin to start going down the path of , "Bah who cares about our borders. We are America, We are Immortal. No one can hurt us." Which is (a) line of thinking that could get us another September 11th.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 10, 2003 07:27 PM

We are at war, Mr. Miller.
Take a gander at a pre 11 Sep 2001 photo of the Manhattan skyline.
Then take a look at a post 11 Sep 2001 photo of the Manhattan skyline.
In my book, a few hurt feelings are far preferable to a lot of dead Americans.

Posted by: wolf at August 11, 2003 01:44 AM

JohnnyR:

The Patriot Act is the most derided piece of legislation to come out of Washington in decades. Unfortunately the left (and some of the right) seem to think it's something other than what it really is. Be a good American and read the damn thing. The actual text easily found on the internet.

Click here for the Patriot Act

It is a huge pain in the ass because it mostly refers to other laws that were already on the books, but those are easily found too:

Click here for the United States Code

For one thing the Patriot Act does NOT remove the requirement that law enforcement obtain a search warrant for searches and siezures as required by the Constitution. It also provides Congressional oversight in case it is abused.

I know for a fact that the ACLU has portrayed it as something that it is not. I compared what was on their web page vs. what is in the Act itself and they weren't even close. What do you expect from an organization that earns its' living scaring the hell out of everyone.

If you do the research and believe the Act goes too far then participate in the process, don't give up on it. Write your Congressman, write the Whitehouse, but don't write off 30+ years of voting.

Posted by: Bildo at August 11, 2003 02:56 AM

Well I noticed Clark in March on CNN and thought this guy could be our next president. Sorry I didn't catch you guys in the midst of your heated two day argument online here, I have been out of country for a while but I bet many of you feel like dummies now. Clark is the only guy in that squad of knuckle heads who has a chance against Bush and Bush has opened himself up to a lot of criticism. I have never voted for a democrat but if Clark gets the nomination I will be doing just that.

Kerry or Lieberman, good god I would rather lose an eye than see them as president. They may be good candidates, I don't really care, but they need to realize that presidents don't necessarily have to be the man, they need to surround themselves by them. They do however need to not repulse the voters of this country. Those two belong on radio.

Posted by: Nards at September 30, 2003 01:10 PM