A thought for the "Clarkies"

[Armstead]

There are obviously a lot of Clark supporters on DU. Here's a humble suggstion from someone who has no dog in this hunt yet. (I like Clark, but I have some concerns too.)

If Clark is planning to run for the nomination in 08, he should come out and say it clearly very soon, and position himself as a serious and committed candidate now. Although he can't formally declare himself this early, he can make clear he is planning to run, and establish an identity as a bona fide candidate.

Normally, I get impatient with talking so much about 08 this soon. However, in this case, Clark has to overcome a couple of serious hurdles that means he needs a head start just to be even when the nomination races actually start.

1)He is not an elected official, and he has never held elective office. While that may be a good thing in some respects, there is an ingrained bias in the system against that in the public perception. People who run for president on that basis seem like an "outsider" and insurgent, who can't really win. Plus, it means he doesn't have a public record or list of accomplishments as a legislator or state executive.

2)Relatd to that, the "buzz" and political/media machines are already in motion for the usual suspect Democratic candidates. Most notably, for example, the presstitutes and some Democratic establishment figures are already touting Hillary as an inevitability and Warner as a new hot prospect.

People like Hillary can afford to be coy about running at this point. However, Clark can't, because he has to do a lot more catching up on all levels just to be even when it's time for the home stretch.

He also needs to shape his persona and the public prception of his positions and "message" early. On the positive side, that means getting the basics of what he stands for and what he proposes to do out there clearly. On the negative side, it means getting the inevitable possibilities of "Swift Boat" or "He's Michael Moore" attempts to smear and distort him out of the way early.

Like I said, I'm neither a Clark supporter or opponent at this point. But I don't want to see yet another pre-fabricated "campaign" in which the results are pre-determined long before the actual campaigns begin. Clark could help make it a real contest of ideas,and he could be a great prsidential candidate. But he needs to create a clearer political identity now.

Just my thoughts. What are yours?

[liberalnurse]

1. That is nice jesture.....

I sure hope things stay within a healthy posture. We need to all be united. Thank you.

[I_am_Spartacus]

2. I think Clark has another problem.

Clark has been critical of the Iraq War, but he hasn't been fully anti-war. His argument has been that the middle east is important to American economic and security interests and that Bush's bad leadership got us where we are today. He has said that we should have used a coalition and should only have used force as a last resort.

He has positioned himself as a a better leader who could have done a better job securing america by engaging in strategy in Iraq that could have more effectively achieved America's interests.

I don't think voters get the impression that Clark would have done nothing in Iraq. I think the feeling one gets from Clark is that if he were president, there would have been a stage where the US were in Iraq building infrastructure, influencing the government, perhaps with a smaller military force that was putatively balancing threats and helping to train Iraqis (in the same way that we have bases in Europe and Panama and South Asia). I think they imagine that there would be this middle stage that is similar to the one now, but without the insurgency and it wouldn't have been preceded by war as a first resort. It might have been proceded by a war as a last resort though.

In other words, Clark doesn't present the argument that we shouldn't be in Iraq at all.

I think the tricky situation this creates for Clark's candidacy is this: If evidence comes out that the US completely fabricated its evidence against Iraq, Americans might not think that the problem was that we didn't have leaders who were better at geo-political/military strategy (which has been the resume Clark has offered). People will think that we need more leaders who don't see the world in geo-political/military terms. They'll think the whole problem is that we have a government run by people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield who see the need for intervention everywhere so that every little thing falaciously gets blown up into a security risk. They'll think that our military doesn't belong in foreign countries and should be out of Iraq. They'll think, as Jeffrey Sachs has said, that the best strategy against countries with bad governments is to help economically develop their neighbors and not to intervene in the country you don't like.

So, I think the information that is developing now -- with Scooter Libby and Judith Miller, and in Italy with the Niger letter -- can actually reach a point where it can work against a Clark candidacy. Clark makes sense if you believe that the case for Iraq was either true or slightly exaggerated in order to justify war as a first resort. But the Clark makes less sense if you discover that the case for invading Iraq was a total fabrication.

[LandOLincoln]

5. I think you're putting words in Clark's mouth.

My assumption is that he's a lot closer to Sachs' position than the one you ascribe to him.

After all, we ARE in Iraq, and he's been dealing with the situation as it is, not as he would have liked it to be.

[I_am_Spartacus]

14. He has written many articles about the war. If you'd like to pick

one of them, we can discuss it here.

[Donna Zen]

8. Clark has been clearly anti-this-war

He has called the entire thing 1) a war of choice 2) part of a "flawed concept."

As for the Sachs take, he would find Clark entirely in agreement with him. Geo-political strategy may not make for convenient sound-bites, but it effects everything that is happening now, both domestically and world-wide. We currently have no foreign policy other than the one being installed by PNAC.

As for the original post: I agree that Clark will need to establish a clear route to a presidential bid that is very different from that being taken by the usual suspects. I also hope that he can do it. He is not a politician, and America is long overdue to elect someone who cares more about the country than their personal political fortunes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. One reason why Clark argued before Congress against military action

in the case of Iraq was the fact that the evidence wasn't there to support military action. Clark, like virtually everyone else, suspected some (chemical or biological) probably remained inside of Iraq but he argued that was the wrong standard to use in deciding whether force against Iraq was needed. Iraq posed no immanent threat to the United States, even if it did have some chemical or biological weapons. That was Clark's point. His discussion of what the United States should do if it could be proved that Iraq was an immanent threat was contingent on hard evidence being produced, which never existed as we all know. Even then Clark opposed the Bush plans on how the United States should proceed under those circumstances. Most Americans, even FOX viewers, are smart enough to know that was against invading Iraq. That is why he was then often referred to as the "Anti-War General".

One reason why Clark even contemplated scenarios that involved use of force against Iraq, other than the fact that Congress specifically asked him to testify about what he would recommend under that hypothetical scenario, is because at the time a broader issue than Iraq alone was on the table, and that was the Bush policy of preventative war which Clark strongly opposed. To fight that misguided and dangerous policy, Clark outlined the type of steps the United States should exhaust before using force, and Iraq was the case in point everyone was using then when a discussion about preventative war came up.

[I_am_Spartacus]

16. My argument is this:

the more fraudulent the evidence of the neccessity of military intervention appears, the less the imperative will be for voters to support candidates whose argument for themselves is that they have a better take on the capabilities of the military to help achieve national and economic interests, even when their take includes using the military as a last resort, and using as a first resort behind-the-scenes "silent and deep" methods to achieve political change.

The military metaphors (whether in a war-time, or covert-ops, or surveilance, or defense context) lose their resonance when you start thinking that the entire case for there being a security risk in Iraq was fabricated.

If the security risk didn't exist in the first place, why would you elect someone who argues "I will secure America better"?

I think Clark has the most resonance when people feel the security risks are genuine and that we need a president with the appropriate military analogies as their guide for action.

Edit: To make this point clear, 9/11 and America being involved in an Iraq War helped to create a political mood in which Clark made sense. (Would Clark have made sense as the candidate in 2000, even with the Cole attack and other terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration?)

The Libby trial could potentially reverse that mood. It is possible that if it comes out that the case for the Iraq War was completely fabricated, I think America could possibly turn the dial back past 9/11 on their guage for how they perceive security risks to America.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. "If the security risk didn't exist in the first place..."

"...why would you elect someone who argues "I will secure America better?"

Several possible reasons. The most obvious is because you think he is the best person for the job, you like what he believes in, you like what he has achieved in his life, you think he tells the truth, you agree with his priorities for America, etc. etc.

But to speak more directly to your point, because most Americans believe that security risks always exist to our country. It has been their experience for virtually their entire adult life that that is true. That ever present sense of threats in the world receded somewhat under Clinton, but it is the trump card Republicans have used to dominate Presidential politics since 1952. That's 53 years and counting. Since then Democrats have held the White House for 20 years. By 2008 Republicans will have held that office for 36 years, almost twice as long. For most of that time Democrats were the majority party in Congress, so you can't blame it on a right wing media driven tidal effect. Americans elect Republicans to be Commander in Chief largely because they sense there are dangers in the world, sometimes known, sometimes unknown, and Republicans project confidence that they will keep America safe.

There are dangers in the world of course, but usually they aren't the ones that Republicans are scare mongering on. There are economic threats, health threats, environmental threats. Clark writes and speaks about these at great length.

[I_am_Spartacus]

24. I added two paragraphs to the last post

before you posted this one that I think address this.

I'll aslo add that the trump card that someone pulled preventing a better ratio of Democratic to Republican presidents wasn't national security. It was assassinating two Kennedys (and possibly a King, Jr) at key moments and stealing an election in 2000 which had nothing to do with national security.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. OK, I read your revision. It's possible to an extent.

It is also possible that the events that Bush/Cheney set in motion may have their own ugly momentum that will force all of us to confront the reality of threats emanating from extreme Jihhadist Islam in our lives before the 2008 Elections.

I'll grant you RFK in 1968. Johnson was elected with an overwhelming majority in 1964 so I don't think it is fair to use JFK's assassination to explain Republican domination of the White House. Sure in a Sci Fi world any change in the space time continuum sets off unpredictable ripples, but they can't be definitively tracked. Nixon got reelected in 1972 so that one counts as a choice of a Republican for the White House. And if Nixon wasn't so paranoid about political opposition and hadn't been so stupid about Watergate, there is an excellent chance that Jimmy Carter would not have been elected in 1976 as a reform candidate. That could be argued as an outside of the box political event also.

Clark would not have been given sufficient attention to become a viable National politician were it not for 9/11. I agree with you there, but he now is seen as a National politician and you can't put that Rabbit back into the hat. Giuliano was an unpopular Mayor prior to 9/11. His image was forever changed by it. If the Republican Party was not so Fundie, he would now be a viable Presidential candidate with or without any more attacks on New York.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I gave you a sincere reply above, but I must say

I find your slipping in concepts like "candidates whose argument for themselves is that they have a better take on the capabilities of the military to help achieve national and economic interests, even when their take includes using the military as a last resort, and using as a first resort behind-the-scenes "silent and deep" methods to achieve political change.

"using as a first resort behind-the-scenes "silent and deep" methods to achieve political change". That isn't Clark. That is your spin, and it is a back handed way to inject it into this thread which had a clear useful and direct OP that called for an honest discussion that you are instead steering toward your own agenda.

[LandOLincoln]

21. I dunno, Tom...

feels kinda like we're back in, say, 1932 all over again, doesn't it? :rofl:

[I_am_Spartacus]

26. "Silent and deep" is actually a phrase Clark uses.

As we work to help establish the conditions for democracy in Iraq, our most useful role elsewhere is surely behind the scenes. For example, the situation in Lebanon creates a power vacuum which could lead to the same kind of instability that ignited civil war there 30 years ago. We can, and should, be working diplomatically to provide the support, balance, and reassurances necessary for the revival of independent democracy in Lebanon. We should engage Syria to encourage cooperation in Iraq and liberalize its politics at home. At the very least, we should be helping to craft what comes next before we tighten the noose further on an already-shaky Assad. In our eagerness to help, we'd do well to heed the motto of my Navy friends in the submarine service: “Run silent-run deep.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.clark.html

So that isn't my spin. That's actually Clark.

[LandOLincoln]

28. You seem to me to be saying that once the American

people understand that BushCo took us to war in Iraq based on lies, we will return to a pre-9/11 complacency where national security will no longer be an issue. What did 9/11 have to do with Iraq, besides giving the Neocons the pretext they needed to take us to war?

When (or if) the majority of Americans come to understand that Saddam had no role in 9/11, al Qaida will still be out there, bin Laden will still be out there, and national security will be as much of a concern as ever.

Also, it's clear that--despite the military metaphor--Clark is talking about DIPLOMACY when he says we should "engage Syria," and that it should be quiet, circumspect, and behind the scenes as far as possible, considering our diminished standing in the world, and especially in the region.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. It was the seeming packaging of concepts that I meant

I thought you were speaking to a larger context, and I thought you were implying that Clark was emphasizing covert military operations and/or widespread attempts to undermine legitimate governments to advance American interests as an alternative to the direct open use of force as the basis for American foreign policy. The discussion here I felt had moved past simply Iraq onto the broader question of National Security in general. You did not frame your comments as to context, and you edited Clark's in a way that seemed to indicate to me what you believed was Clark's agenda regarding American projecting influence. If I read your comments to imply what I thought you were implying, I probably was not alone in that. If I was mistaken, I apologize for the confusion on my end. The quote in the context provided above is fine by me:

"We should engage Syria to encourage cooperation in Iraq and liberalize its politics at home. At the very least, we should be helping to craft what comes next before we tighten the noose further on an already-shaky Assad. In our eagerness to help, we'd do well to heed the motto of my Navy friends in the submarine service: “Run silent-run deep.”

It is a far cry from the PNAC/Bush agenda, engaging with rather than threatening, developing contacts rather than imposing new governments.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Please note my at least partial retraction in post #29 above

Fair is fair. If I misunderstood the actual intent/meaning of the post I was replying to, my comments above should be revised. Editing period was over or I would have added this note to my original comments.

Edited because I figured out that #29 posts above not below this one on the topic thread, lol

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

47. Now that you mention it, I have noted a tendency

for those with self-aggrandizing handles to be less than forthright and perhaps even "traveling incognito," if ya know what I mean.

IOW freepers

[Donna Zen]

45. Unraveling this mess:

Currently I'm reading Assassins' Gate, The opening chapters cover ground in which I'd be entirely lost if I hadn't devoured so many other books and articles that have presented parts of this journey from 1969 to Iraq. I can only comment that each of the regimes players had different motives or at least different philosophical underpinnings. For me, the book has produced a big "Ah-ha!" because it has added new meaning to many things that Clark has said. I think about his article in which he stated that the neocons misunderstood the lesson of the Cold War. There are layers of information beneath that observation, and I'm sure it pissed off the lot of them royally. They've based many of their assumptions on the Cold War.

The thing is that Clark knew ALL of this and more when he testified; he knows the rocks these guys live under. That is why he took his case against the resolution behind closed doors. He said that during his last Wolf interview. He said he was sorry that he couldn't convince enough to stop this.

I suggest you read the book, the depth of Clark becomes apparent. We need a time-line to unravel this mess.

[LandOLincoln]

3. My perception is that he's been doing all the things you

suggested...and that dang librul media is still pretending he doesn't exist.

Case in point: Heard Chuck Todd on WJ this morning, talking about Edwards' regret re his IWR vote, as well as his astonishment that Hillary is still talking about sending more troops to Iraq. Also mentioned that Edwards thinks setting a date certain for troop withdrawal would be a mistake, something Clark's been saying all along.

But not a word about Clark being the "go-to" guy for Dem congresspersons on Iraq; not a word about his WaPo piece of a month or so ago; not a word about anything except that the party is divided over Iraq...and that that's the story Todd says he's going to be pursuing.

That's what you get, I guess, for proposing to roll back the tax cuts for the top 2%, for talking about breaking up the media monopolies and restoring the Fairness Doctrine, and for having unassailable national security creds. TPTB are just as afraid of a Clark candidacy now as they were in 2004, and just as determined to ignore him now as then.

on edit: typos

[Armstead]

9. That's one reason I suggsted it

Clarkhas to work harder to get the media to start mentioning him.

[Nimrod2005]

4. Sorry, you are wrong on both issues

#1. The General is a strong candidate BECAUSE he is an outsider. Last time he ran he got in a little too late, which brings me to your point # 2: What buzz does he need more than he already has, the guy has ran for president before and he is on my TV radio or Internet 24 hours a day.

[Armstead]

6. If you read what I said....

I said being an "outsider" can be an advantage, especially in periods like now when the public basically is fed up with establishment politicians of all stripes.

However, it's one of those things where the public has a bit of a split personality about it. They wonder why someone would run for president without following the traditional path of working up the ladder. Plus there's just the subconscious "aura" that people who have achieved high elected office emit.

Also, "buzz" is one thing. Actually having a candidate who is an acknowledged candidate takes it to a different -- and more coherent --level.

[I_am_Spartacus]

7. His PAC spends more money that it raises and he does worse

in polls now than he did in the summer of 2003 or summer 2005 (in the last poll I saw he was at 4% support for the presidency, down from 5% and 6% during the summer and lower than the support he had before anouncing he was running, which was in the 18-22% range, if memory serves).

So he's going to need some kind of buzz to build momentum.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I think he's come about as close as he reasonably can

this early in the game, to indicating his strong interest in running in '08. When asked about, he always says that all options are on the table, and will often talk about what mistakes he made last time around, and how he would do things differently next time.

His main focus right now is on campaigning for people running in the recent elections and in the '06 elections. He is also working very closely with Congressional Dems on coming up with a unified message on foreign policy and Iraq, and working on various projects like getting Ed Schultz onto Armed Forces radio. He's been cris-crossing the country speaking at Democratic functions and raising money for local parties and candidates. I think he feels that the performance of candidates that he endorses and campaigns for, will serve as some indication of his own viability as an '08 Presidential candidate.

I think that he's doing just about everything that he should be doing right now, though I think I do agree with you that I would like to see him talking more about domestic issues, and fleshing out his positions and identity in that area. His positions are well known to his supporters, but probably not so much to others.

I'm thinking that he's really going to go for this in a big way once the '06 elections are over with. That's really the apropriate time for unfolding a full blown presidential campaign. Any earlier than that will just make you look bad. Remember that after the midterms, there's more than a year before the first primary elections.

Hillary may be an unstoppable juggernaut, but if she is, there probably isn't much that anyone at all can do about it, and trying at this point would just make that person look bad.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

[thebigidea]

12. and if he IS going to run, he better ditch the FOX gig doubleplusquick

that is NOT a good resume booster, no matter how much you could go on about "winning them over in enemey territory."

That's all well and good, but not for someone who is going to run for President.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. You've overlooked...

One of the big advantages of Clark's Fox gig. It's an innoculation against the inevitable swiftboat attack that will come if/when he should decide to run.

Fox has the largest market share of any news program. A large percentage of those who watch Fox are moderates of both parties and independents--people who don't pay close enough attention to politics to realize the propaganda line they're getting from Fox, but close enough to make some nominal effort to keep up with news. In other words, precisely the people who will almost certainly vote in the general election, but who can be way too easily influenced by the RW attack machine.

If they come to know Clark from seeing him for themselves, instead of waiting to hear what the GOP is gonna tell them, they will form at least their initial impressions on the truth. Very few average voters know who Clark is yet, so they are still open to forming an unbiased opinion, and it's much harder for the RW to change an already formed opinion than to create a new one. As long as Fox allows Clark to speak what he believes without editing, and treats him with some modicum of respect when he's on--and so far they've done both--then he will be defining himself to the electorate in a way that will be much more difficult once he declares his candidacy.

I'm not saying this is the main reason Clark is on Fox. He has said on a couple occassions that he believes the success of Democratic candidates at all levels is based largely upon the party "brand" and that we suffer from many many years of the GOP defining us as a party that is weak on defense, tax and spend, anti-religious, anti-family and the rest of the bullshit. So Clark is working very hard, and not just on Fox, to try to change the overall misconceptions of what the Democratic party stands for that so many people hold. He sincerely is more concerned at this point at helping the party win in '06 than to "boost his resume" for '08.

But if you think the Fox gig is hurting him in the long run, you ought to think again. Democratic primary voters in general are not nearly as anti-Fox as they are here at DU (sad but true--they should know better), and GE voters even less so. Nor is it just us Clarkies who "go on about winning them over in enemy territory." Whenever Clark appears on Fox primetime, he earns kudos at all the places who monitor the RW media (NewsHounds, Crooks & Liars, MediaMatters etc), as well as the liberal blogs and among activists at the local level. Clark's time on Fox is not hurting him except in a very small segment of the left who mostly wouldn't support him for the nomination anyway.

[thebigidea]

23. you honestly think working for FOX will "innoculate" him from attacks?

when he's running for President against the sleaziest political party on the planet? They'd swiftboat him if he was healing lepers with a wave of his hand.

and its not about "Real people" being pro-Fox unlike us "unreal people" on DU, its that being a "news analyst" for a few years on a dinky cable channel is NOT Presidential resume material. I'd say the same if it were MSNBC, CNN, the History Channel, QVC. So don't pull that fringe leftist stuff, that's not what I was getting at.

Its a monstrous dive into the dumpster from NATO, Generaldom, etc. He needs a better gig that is more relevant to being President, and answering questions from Alan Colmes ain't it.

[LandOLincoln]

25. I think it's one of the smartest things he's ever done, and I'm

delighted that he's out there, letting folks who are otherwise exposed to little but Rovian BS get a good long look at a Democratic politician with brains, heart and major cojones.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Of course they will swiftboat him anyway

But it will be harder for them to make the mud stick among people who have come to like or respect Clark already.

I'm not saying it will be enough, but it will help. If Clark becomes a top-tier candidate in '08, for every Fox viewer who rejects the swiftboating because they have come to knw him already, there will be 10 totally clueless people who will hear their opinions around the water cooler or at the bunko table.

Sorry if I mischaracterized your argument as being "fringe leftist." I think what I said about anti-Fox sentiment does apply to some, but if you're not one of them, I apologize.

You may be right about the stature of the job not being "presidential" altho I think he's getting a lot better coverage than "answering questions from Alan Colmes." Clark provided the rebuttal immediatelly after Bush's first big speech on Iraq after the election, and did a damn good job of it, much to Brit Hume's chagrin. I kind of think any of the potential '08 candidates would have killed to have had that particular opportunity with that big of an audience.

So personally, I don't think stature is a big issue. Clark's CNN gig didn't seem to hurt him any back in '04, and if anything, people have become more used to seeing big names doing analysis on the news channels than they had before. I definitely think you're wrong about its being a "dive into the dumpster." There are dozens of generals doing commentary on the news; former NATO SAC George Jowlan has practically taken over Clark's old job at CNN. Granted Jowlan is unlikely to run for president, but I doubt anyone thinks he's lowered himself to do it.

Moreover, whenever Fox shows Clark's face, it's with the words "Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander" under it--he may have had that written into the contract, but it profits Fox to boost his credibility too so maybe not. Clark's biggest problem right now is name recognition--he has almost none--so I think any potential problem is more than off-set by a very tangible benefit. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but for certain remaining unknown is a non-starter.

[wiley]

41. That was brilliant

I am greatly enjoying this discussion. Thanks for posting this thread! Although I do hope that Clark runs in 08, what he is doing for 06 and the Dem. candidates and party is extremely helpful. Whatever he does he already has my "favorite son" vote in 08.

And if the people are looking for a straight talking, honest leader who can manage the country in 08, Clark will do extremely well regardless of the Iraq war/military experience issues.

[karynnj]

13. Three comments

I think there are legal ramifications of actually declaring he's running. This is why people signal they're interested by setting up a pac and going to Iowa and NH. So, I'm not sure what he does to make it more obvious he interested.

I don't know if the Republicans would start the "swift boat" stuff early - unless it's in their interest. They tend to reserve their ammunition.

I do think he needs to define his political identity to a greater degree. I strongly think ANY candidate needs to get their biography and political identity out. If last year taught us anything the media will not help. (Kerry's biography was incredible but how many - even in Democratic circles - learned it.)

[Armstead]

15. A clarification

I realize there are legal implications to saying "I am formally announcing my candidacy..."

However he can declare without formally declaring. Many candidates do that with the signals you mentioned.

Biden, for example, has made clear that he really wants to run for president, without actually saying he is a candidate, and saying he is currently exploring his chances....Actually, even though I am no fan of Biden, I think he is handling that in a fairly classy way.

[Texas_Kat]

39. There are many potential candidates in 08

who are obviously running.

Joe "Me, Me, Pick Me" Biden is only the most "outed" one. The expose of Warner's 08 for Prez website on Raw Story was a clue to his intentions.

Clark is doing what he needs to do -- helping Democratic candidates in 05 and 06. Right this minute he's with Bill Nelson of Florida. Doing what he does best, bringing red state voters back over to the blue side.

[Patiod]

34. They've already "swift-boated" him

There was a nasty, totally biased article by someone named Boyle (who had sloshed around for years trying to smear Clinton with Whitewater) in the New Yorker in 2004.

Of course he interviewed only Clark enemies; Clark rose fast, and roused a lot of military jealousies and animosities. He also clashed with Defense Secretary Cohen and sided with Albright, arousing Cohen's wrath - Cohen was the primary source for the bitchy article.

[Texas_Kat]

36. Yep,

and caused Fred Kaplan over at Slate to write a piece entitled:

Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.

It was an excellent de-bunk of the New Yorker article.

(edited for formatting)

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Thanks for an intelligent discussion

And you do raise good points. Clark does need to signal his interest in running for President early in order to assemble the pieces of a winning campaign in time. We agree. And Clark has to fight to receive media attention for a possible run, and we all know about the power that the media has. On the upside if Clark were to announce firm intentions of running for President soon, the media would have to include Clark as someone running in 2008. That is an advantage of being emphatic about it in public now.

However there are disadvantages about being emphatic about it in public now also, and any advantages gained by going public now do not seem compelling enough to me. Keep in mind of course that I am using the phrase "in public". Biden has been explicit in public about his interest in running in 2008 and it has not changed the public landscape for him. Talking heads only talk about Biden if it serves their interest to do so. With Clinton around to talk about, usually it doesn't serve their interest to talk about Biden.

Clark I believe is moving forward on a time line that makes sense. Clark has given the Democratic radio response to Bush twice since Dean took over the DNC which puts him on their heavy hitters rotation. Clark has worked closely with Congressional Democrats in DC, he has traveled across the nation campaigning for Democrats and raising money for them. Clark is paying his dues and doing heavy lifting for the Party. That is one piece of the puzzle that he needs to put in place for a possible 08 run and he is.

Clark also has masterfully used the media considering his outsider status. He has done good and important work on behalf of Ed Schultz getting onto Armed Forces Radio. Ed liked Clark anyway, but you know Clark can expect some good radio exposure on Ed's show if he runs in 2008, Ed has the highest media rankings of any Democratic talk show host. And Clark has been a commentator on FOX now, which has made him a three dimensional and knowledgeable spokesperson to FOX viewers, which makes it a little harder for FOX hacks later to attempt to define Clark in harshly negative terms to their viewers.

I agree that Clark can't be coy but I don't think he is being coy. He's gone to New Hampshire, he's gone to Iowa. The people in those important 2008 states know exactly what that means. So does the media. So do other Democrats. I would assume that Clark is talking to potential large donors in private about a possible 2008 run. I assume the same is true regarding potential staff people. Clark is building up the web site connected to his Political Action Committee, and doing more to involve grass roots supporters in its operations.

Clark's message will need to come into sharper focus, agreed there also. Running for President has become a four year campaign nowadays, with most of it, like an iceberg, under the surface for much of that time. Clark is spending two years solidifying his standing in the Democratic Party the old fashioned way, he is earning it through hard work in the trenches. That is a key element that will be different for 2008. Promoting himself more directly now would interfere with his efforts on behalf of the Party in the build up to the 2006 Congressional elections.

Here is a example. Clark put a lot of personal time and effort into working for Tom Kaine's election for Virginia's Governor. Further, Clark supporters who had shown a willingness to campaign for Clark in 2004 were directly encouraged to travel to Virginia to help Tim Kaine win there. Tim Kaine won, and now of course there is more interest here and elsewhere in talk about Mark Warner running for President in 2008. Kaine is a Warner guy, he has to be and there is no reason why he shouldn't be. Clark knew that helping Kaine win could indirectly help Warner move more into the spotlight, but that didn't stop Clark from giving real, not just lip, support to Kaine. If Clark were more actively thought of as a Presidential candidate it would complicate his efforts now on behalf of the Party.

[Armstead]

19. Thanks for an intelligent response

:)

[Jai4WKC08]

27. Just one thing I'd like to add

to Tom's thoughtful comments.

Lots of folks helped out Tim Kaine in VA, and it was all good. But it should not be missed that some, like Kerry and the Big Dog, only campaigned in the NoVa/DC area, whereas Kaine took Clark to Roanoke where the population is MUCH redder.

Likewise, Clark is campaigning with Bill Nelson in FL today, on Veterans Day (no accident there, I think), and they are visiting those regions where Nelson has so far had the least success in fundraising. I'm not as familiar with FL demographics, but assume those would tend to be the redder regions as well.

And not too far removed in principle, when the DCCC finally got the bright idea to help out Paul Hackett in his very red district, they paid for robo-calls by Clark and not any of the more well-known Dems. Granted, a large part of Hackett's appeal was his military background, and Clark's help reinforced that angle. But certainly there was also an understanding that an endorsement from Clark was valuable in a mostly red district and I don't think you can say that about too many others among our national leadership.

Point is, it seems obvious to me that the people who run campaigns and state parties know a lot more about Clark and his effectiveness with voters, and specifically which voters, than the voters themselves do. That's not enough, of course--he will need to get his message out to the larger audience as the OP asserts. But it's a good start.

[Donna Zen]

35. Good points Jai

There was a thread here a while ago that I stayed away from. It was about "Who Had the Greatest Cross-over Appeal." Now there is no question in mind as to the proper response, because WKC can simply go anywhere for Democrats. And for the all of the belly-aching about the fox gig--maybe some people need to start thanking the good General for taking their message into the Lion's Den.

There is one other thing to be considered: to run for the presidency, General Clark would have to give up every job he now has. The others like Biden run their campaigns on the people's dime or they are independently wealthy can afford to spend their time on the stump. Wes and Gert spent 38 in the military, and while they are not poor, they still have a mortgage.

If General Clark now sees his contribution to the country he so dearly loves as getting others elected, then I thank him. I also help him by contributing to his expenses through WesPAC. As he has said: "It is not about who gets the credit; what matters is getting the job done."

I expect that given the current state of politics in America, many people can understand just how important a message that is. Accepting that he means, it is part of accepting exactly what he is doing now.

[UndergroundRadical]

30. General Clark is a great man

That's why I support him so much. I honestly think he would be wasting his time in running in 08' though. Hillary's running then and everybody knows what that means.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. I don't "know what that means."

I don't even KNOW that she's running.

Charlie Cook, whom I happen to think is one of the most astute of the political analysts, was on C-SPAN in early Oct, and he made this analysis that struck me as insightful.

Cook said conventional wisdom is that Clinton is gonna win the nomination. This is based on the fact that she wins most legitimate polling with slightly more 30% support, far more than anyone else. BUT, he added, her name recognition among Democratic voters is "about 100%, give or take zero." And of those voters, pretty close to 100% have an opinion of her, good or bad. And she's ONLY polling 30%, which means some 70% know her and don't want her. Cook says he might be wrong, but he doubts that she has any real chance of changing those already fixed opinions.

So I don't think any of us "know what that means" or how well she'll do if she runs. Obviously she has certain advantages. Name recognition, big-monied supporters, the novelty of running a woman that is attractive to many Democrats, and the fascination of the corporate and RW media who push her name at us at every opportunity. But she has some big disadvantages too, and they'll become more evident to voters as the primaries get closer.

[UndergroundRadical]

38. Okay, I'll give you that....

But in all likelihood we all know she's *probably* going to run. And if she does she will easily win the nomination. Now I know not everybody here likes her.(including myself) But she is currently the leader of the party so to speak. I mean she had one hand on Bill's left nut the whole time he was in power. lol I hate to say it but I think she's our next presidential candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

40. All I can add is that

If late-2001 polls would have proven true, Lieberman would have won the 2004 nomination.

All the polls this early out are about name-recognition. Don't put too much stock in 'em.

Clinton is very smart, and yes, she knows politics from her time with hubby's campaigns. But she's not a great speaker, she's seen as taking opportunistic positions on many issues (can you say "flip-flop?), and there's a lot of Clinton-hatred out there. And more so, a lot of fear of the Clinton-hatred among Democrats who don't hate her.

It's not a given that she will win if she runs.

[no name no slogan]

43. It means if Hillary wins the nomination, Dems == fuX0r3D

Hillary would be the worst possible choice in '08. The RWers peg her as a "liberal", while her record in the Senate is pure Rockefeller Republican.

In other words, she's the worst of both worlds: a double-talking "New Democrat" who will be a "godless liberal" for the conservatives, and an Iraq war-supporting, anti-choice pandering, corporate lapdog to the lefties.

[election_2004]

42. And on that note, the Hillaristas need to....

Hillary Clinton's cult-like loyalists need to make a valid case for why their desired candidate's policies and strengths are SUPERIOR to any other Democrat, rather than just regurgitating the pro-Hillary MSM talking points.

[Sparkly]

44. I think there's always a risk of "over-exposure."

Kind of like some celebrities that flash and burn. It's easy for people to get sorta sick of you if you get too much press too early, and especially when there are millions of dollars and thousands of shriek-monkeys EAGER to make the General into a joke, scared to death of running against him.

Without having yet read what others have posted here, I think he's right to focus on 2006, and stay out there writing, speaking, and keeping his PAC growing. It's too early to announce anything else, imho.

[Clarkie1]

46. I agree. eom