Clark on the Hill...via Matt Yglesias

[trillian]

Signs of Life

The Note reports:

Spotted on Capitol Hill yesterday: Wes Clark, speaking, according to a source who was there, to a standing-room-only gathering of Democratic Senate staffers with a national security bent. Clark gave an upbeat account of the Party's fight to forge policy alternatives to President Bush's plans. He urged Democrats to stop talking about exit strategies and timelines and focus on how to win in Iraq.

He also joined Leaders Reid and Pelosi for a closed-door meeting of their newly announced National Security Advisory Group, including bold-faced names Perry and Albright.

They frame this as an early, early, early look at the '08 field which is very Note of them. The important thing here, though, is less that Wesley Clark was on the Hill than that his appearance attracted a standing-room-only gathering of Democratic Senate staffers eager to here what he had to say. This seems to indicate to me that the National Security Advisory Group concept will actually go somewhere, with its members actually doing stuff, and staffers and legislators actually paying some attention. Ezra Klein is right to say that the politics of security are largely about image (the politics of everything are), but the important thing to note is that you can't just whip up some issues and an "image" cooked to order when it comes time to run a presidential campaign. You need to have some idea of what it is you're trying to market, and some experience with various people actually trying to market it. And perhaps most important of all, one key element of "image" is not looking uncomfortable discussing these topics, and one easy way to do that is to actually be comfortable and confident that you know what you're talking about and understand where you want to take the country.

March 15, 2005 | Permalink

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/03/signs_of_life.html#comments

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Clark will most likely run in 2008!

He's my first choice!

[trillian]

2. Yup........mine too!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[roguevalley]

3. I can die now. If that man became president, I could die if I had to

and know my family was in good hands.

[Gloria]

4. My friend and I have been waiting for him to make his move....

his new site went up the other day, with a URL ..on the order of "securingamerica" rather than WesPac.


Be still my heart.

[EC]

5. It looks as though the Dems know they will have to be

ready to clean-up Bushys mess when it finally gets out of hand and he doesn't know what else to do, they can just step in and say "Watch how it's done, kiddo...."

[ZootSuitGringo]

6. Maybe SOME Democrats learned their lesson?

Might they understand what cost them the election?

I guess if the biggest fuck up in the National Security of our country can still be President, and the 2nd biggest fuck up in National Security of our country be Secretary of State, I guess we Democrats can at least start looking more closely at the one that won our last war.

[FrenchieCat]

7. You said it honey, and

know this-- We are fighting for American Democracy here. The next two elections will be wars in their own rights.

We sorely need a General to lead us to victory....

that's for goddamn sure!

[Dinger]

11. Here Here Frenchie! (nt)

[sybil]

15. THIS General...

...SPECIFICALLY! I know that you agree F.C. :pals:

Wesley Clark, a man for all reasons!

[FrenchieCat]

16. Yes I do agree

I'm ready to kick some GOP ass!

[Clark2008]

13. Wonder if the rest of the corporate media will start taking notice

There was a long article in The New Yorker that pointed straight to national security as the reason the Dems lost in 2004, but never even MENTIONED Clark as a possible candidate for 2008.

Needless to say, they got about 100 letters today regarding their failure to see outside the beltway.

[ZootSuitGringo]

8. The original Note article

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

[Jai4WKC08]

17. The sub-title in the original source

2008 Democrats

Not talkin' about Reid and Pelosi there, heh.

:kick:

[RITPTV]

9. A little off topic

What does everyone think of Yglesias?

While I disagree with him on a few points, I believe he makes forceful arguments. I picked up a copy of American Prospect and found his article informative.

[Donna Zen]

10. Clark is in Haiti today

Subject: ending and preventing conflict.

A 180 from the bushCo doctrine.

Best line:

one key element of "image" is not looking uncomfortable discussing these topics, and one easy way to do that is to actually be comfortable and confident that you know what you're talking about and understand where you want to take the country.

^^^^^^^^

The American electorate often too busy scraping together a living, may be unable to find the time to read every position paper, but they know when someone isn't just full of the usual BS.

A republican fundy from Alabama told me that he wanted to vote for Wes Clark because he was the only one that made sense.

Now, will the Democratic party be able to make sense?

[CarolNYC]

19. The element of "image" line...

I like that line too.

It's so nice to read that people are flocking to hear what he has to say. This must make him so happy.

Others might be shaping their 2008 runs, he's working on shaping the party so it can be successful in '06, '08 and beyond. The fact that people on Capitol Hill are eagerly listening to him, that he was a featured speaker at that Dem House member retreat, that this National Security Advisory Group is doing something and he's involved, must thrill him. I spoke to him at a fundraiser shortly after the Democratic Convention and he'd been so excited and so moved by the whole experience. He loved standing in front of all of these Democrats who not only listened eagerly to what he had to say but applauded wildly when he said it. One gets the feeling that he loves the Democratic Party and being a member of it, even if it hasn't been so kind to him at times. I think he sees resurrecting the party as a challenge and he's never been one to shy away from a challenge.

I also like how they report he gave an "upbeat account". He really is an optimistic realist and it's infectious. One of the beauties of Gen Clark is that being around him you begin to believe that you can do anything, that everything will be OK no matter how messed up if only we work hard enough and don't back down or give up. It's exhilarating, empowering and comforting all at the same time.

[Leilani]

12. This is terrific news.

There are many things that can be done to take back this country from the radical right wing, & this issue, of national security must be on the list, if not at the top.

When Americans believe that Dems will keep the country safe, then they can begin winning elections again.

[Clark2008]

14. Dems should be able to promote an image that shows we

can keep the people safe from terrorism AND corporatism at the expense of the middle class and poor.

[springhill]

18. I guess I don't get all the excitement............

What does "winning the war" mean? How many more deaths to win a war we should never have started? I want to get the hell out of there.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. What you apparently don't understand...

Is that one of the major problems with Bush and his war is that he refuses to define what "winning the war" means.

One reason is because he doesn't want to be held accountable to whether or not we've won anything. Much better, from the Bush pov, to have a shifting standard, by which he can point to whatever happens, or rather whatever he can get the media to show is happening whether it is or not, and say, "See? We're winning!"

Another reason is because what Bush considers "winning" has nothing whatsoever to do with American interests. It was always about winning the '04 election by looking tough and "resolute" and by distracting voters from the fact that Osama and Al Qaeda are alive and well. And if he can line a few Big Oil pockets in the process, so much the better.

Now my turn... what do YOU mean by you "don't get all the excitement..." and what winning the war means? The article doesn't mention anything about the war, or whether we should be there in the first place. Nor have any of the replies in the thread.

The article says that the Democratic congressional leadership may be finally getting smarter about how to address national security, maybe even win us a few elections, by listening to the one man on our side who understands the issues and knows how to talk to voters about them. That's pretty exciting, imo, and should be to all Democrats.

It also tells us that Clark is getting some long overdue recognition in the media (by one ABC reporter/pundit, at any rate) for his presidential prospects, as well as recognition within Congress (which has always been there, but ignored in the media) for at least part of what he brings to table for our party. Those of us who are looking to "Clark '08" think that's pretty exciting too.

[springhill]

22. You say.........."The article doesn't mention anything about the war"

It doesn't? It says that we need to quit talking about timelines and pulling out and start talking about winning in Iraq. What do YOU think that means?

[Jai4WKC08]

26. You're right and I apologize

I had read this item before, and forgot that part. I only plead that DU doesn't let you look at the OP when you hit reply farther down the thread.

I guess it didn't stick in my memorty for a couple reasons. Mostly because to me, the point of the article is that Congressional Democrats are finally getting serious about national security, and they're looking to Clark to help them define (and frame) their message. (Whoohoo!) ;)

But the other reason I had sort of glossed over that part, I think, is because Clark's position has always been that we never should have gone into Iraq, but that now that we're there, we must have success (which he has clearly defined, unlike the Bushies). So it wasn't controversial or surprising when I read it the first time, and didn't make an impression.

Seems to me, no matter how stupid the war is, to let Iraq collapse into civil war and/or Taliban-esque control is just not an option. Not if we want some sort of regional stability and not mo' bigger war later on. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as it ought to be. Besides, I think we owe something to the Iraqis.

One more thing. I realized I was wrong when I read FrenchieCat's most excellent explanation and went back and re-read the OP. Should have offered my "mea culpa" then, and apologize for being remiss in that too.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I'll add to Jai's analysis this additional view to further clearify....

because it is elementary. You see, there was this guy by the name of John Kerry who was the hope of the Democratic party in retaking the white house during the most important election in our lifetimes.

Well one day, during the General election campaign, John Kerry said this: "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place". Mind you, a war that Kerry had actually voted to give Bush the power to wage.

Soooooo

Karl Rove, aka, ventriloquist to Dummy BushJr said this in response:
"How can we elect someone to lead us in a war that he doesn't believe can be won, and that we are all wrong?" You see, Rove knew something that Kerry's team obviously didn't understand. Voters don't like leaders who would proclaim us "losers" in mid-stream. So Rove labeled Kerry a pessimist Defeatist.

and then the people voted, and somehow the Dummy won(partially because many voters perceived that Kerry and Democrats in general had losers' mentality).

Many believe that at this point, that the Iraq War, if handled properly, could be interpreted as a victory i.e. although 200 billion, 1500+ dead soldiers, 100,000+ Dead Iraqis later. This means that as Democrats, in order to not sound like defeatists (as people/voters don't really like those kinds of leaders anyway), Democrats must approach this current war to see the good in all of the bad, and at least have a plan in restoring the peace, and withdrawing troups as soon as the US can (under the circumstances).

It's called framing the issue in a positive manner. Not bad, bad, bad, but rather,"here's our Democratic plan for the war, and what we should do" type of attitude.

Clark was talking to Democrats about just that; reframing the War issue in a manner that doesn't leave voters to intepret that Democrats don't want to see this war won. You see, Democrats should want this war won, even though it was waged under false pretenses, handled terribly, cost more lives and money then was ever imagined. Democrats are accused too often of wanting things to turn out badly so that Bush can look bad. A majority of Americans don't want to worse to happen just to prove that point.

Do you get it now?

[Donna Zen]

23. What Frenchie said!

Reframe_ because the old frame is getting us no where.

[Texas_Kat]

24. Thanks Frenchie!

You and Jai are always right on!

[paineinthearse]

25. See complementary post

This is a link to a post I made last night after receiving notice of Wes' new PAC - Securing America.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1665996

Wes was my coice in 2004.

Is there a Wes Clark DU group?

[Jai4WKC08]

27. "Is there a Wes Clark DU group?"

Yep, sure is. Just click on the link in my signature. Or go to the DU groups section. They're in alphabetical order, but by the full name. So Clark's group is at the tale end, under "W" (for Wesley, not that other "W").