Wesley Clark in 2004, and a referendum on the future of war

[ConLaw]

Here is the link to an article about Wesley Clark called, "The General."

www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html

2004 will be all about National Security. And this point is brought up about that in the article:

>>And there will be pain. You get the sense, talking to the general, that he has thought it through and decided that the only way to beat Bush is to go to war against him. You get that sense because suddenly, as you are talking to the general, he stands up from his peaceful lunch, and suddenly he is doing Bush. Suddenly he is the warrior president, addressing the delegates at the Republican convention in New York in September 2004, saying that on behalf of the American people, he has fought terrorists at home and abroad, saying that he has fought and won two wars against states that sponsor terrorism, saying that because of his efforts, the American people are safer than they were three years ago and that—and here he finds the resonating Dubyan chord—"there is sunshine ahead."<<

Tell me everyone. What democrat can go up against THAT? Will an anti-war dem be able to cry "no WMD" and prevail against THAT? Will someone who nitpicks the war in Afganistan be able to go up against THAT? Will someone who says Saddam wasn't a threat and wanted to appease him be able to go up against THAT? Will someone who ceades National Security all together and cries "It's the economy, stupid" be able to go up against that?

""We read your book," a Bush administration official told him once. "No one is going to tell us where we can or can't bomb." To the general's mind, however, the difficulty of allowing NATO ministers to tell you where to bomb is offset by the power and legitimacy that international support confers. What is galvanic about the prospect of an electoral contest between the general and the president is that it becomes a referendum on the future of war and—since we are going to be at war for the foreseeable future—a referendum on the future of this country."

If you stick your head in the sand and say the economy will be the main issue in 2004, George Bush will hand your candidate his head. The democrats have to run someone who can fight this fight. The military background simply isn't enough. We need someone who can think like a warrior, who can anticipate future events, who can ask Bush the questions he doesn't want to be asked, not simply cry "BUSH SUCKS." We have to run candidate FOR president, not a candidate AGAINST the president.

[VoteClark]

1. YEAH!!!!!! You got that right. Go Clark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bread and Circus]

2. Excellent, well thought out post

Not only does Clark own the "National Security" card,
I dare say he has a fairly progressive agenda. In addition
to that he has the mainstream crossover appeal to make
that agenda happen. He can could probably do more for the
left than even Kucinich could do, just because of the mere
fact he can bring the country together, not divide it.