Reply #35: I went back and found an archived thread I posted weeks ago. [View All]

[Tom Rinaldo]

I posted this on January 26th. The only thing I would change is that Clark just kept getting better as a campaigner. The last time he was on Meet The Press he was masterful, for one example, quite a contrast to Bush. My feelings haven't changed, other than my sorrow being deeper, so I will repost it one more time. I was trying hard not to blame the media when I wrote it originally. I don't think I could be so generous now:

"I Wish More Democrats Could Have Gotten to Know Clark Sooner

The media by and large hasn't helped, but mostly it's just the way it is. As Clark says, "Democrats aren't used to having a General in their Party". I have watched over the weeks as respect for Clark has grown, here on DU in particular. It isn't always a matter of people choosing Clark as their preferred candidate, but it is a growing appreciation for his basic integrity, and realization that he really is an exceptional person to emerge now out of the military, at exactly the time when American's Sons and Daughters, in the Armed Forces, are being moved around like pawns by Chicken Hawks gathered around their geo-political chess boards.

Clark is an outsider, and for the first time in his adult life he is a totally free agent, able to speak out about what he believes in openly and publicly, and Damn, he is doing just that. I understand why it was difficult at first for so many to trust Clark, and why some still don't, but I have never trusted someone running for higher office this much in my lifetime, and I am 54 now. To quote that wonderful phrase, Clark speaks truth to power, and he doesn't back down, and he doesn't cover up, and he doesn't take the low road ever.

It took Clark several weeks to begin picking up the basics of campaigning. You know, how to speak in sound bites, how to sound emphatic without giving ammunition to your enemies, how to deflect a question so that the answer is about what you want to talk about rather than what the questioner wants you to say. To tell you the truth, although he has gotten light years better in just a few months, Clark will never truly master it, because it feels unnatural, and almost dishonorable, to a man who would rather communicate his actual thoughts and ideas. Clark knows how to be deceptive during warfare against an enemy, if that is what is needed, but he doesn't view the American public as an enemy. He thinks this is our country and that we always have a right to know what our leaders are planning for us, and why.

Clark has been an instructor at West Point, he has been a commander of units that were under performing, and he took them and brought them all up to a standard of excellence. Clark is a superb communicator, but he isn't a verbal trickster, never has been, never will be. Some think that will handicap him as a candidate. I think the opposite. His clarity and candor has been refreshing to behold in his recent interviews. Clark knows how to explain his positions, even if sometimes it takes him more than a minute to do so. He is incredible answering questions live before a crowd. He takes each question seriously. People know Clark is not a traditional politician, and that is a good thing.

Now Clark is learning how to give rally speeches. He's doing just fine at it. If he lacks a few flourishes that someone like John Edwards has perfected through years spent as a trial lawyer, Clark makes up for it in intelligence, and sincerity, and the power of his ideas and vision for America. Some of the larger strokes still need to be filled in, but the direction he is pointing at could not be clearer, it is clearly progressive, and it is clearly inclusive. I would rather have a President with some details lacking from his policies, than have one who had them filled in over the years through negotiations with special interests, using their input.

Clark is at his worst in the dreadfully artificial Debates, with time divided between 7 to 10 contestants, sparring with malicious inquisitors, all striving to land the perfectly honed barb or clever turn of words. Some narrow political skills may be showcased in those formats, but not leadership ability. Still Clark does alright there, if he is not kept out of the game by low blows and coordinated ambushes. Clark will do far better in one on one debates, where he is given more time to make his points, and the opportunity to directly follow up on them. Clark will be debating George W. Bush, and I long for that contrast in "leadership philosophy" to be so starkly revealed.

The place where Clark has really been tested, is told in the story of his life. Can Clark lead us in times of danger? We know that he can. We know he can assemble the right team, and demand excellence, and succeed in the harshest of circumstances. And now I think more of us are seeing the humanity in Wes Clark, and seeing past his uniform to the reasons why he wore it, and what he felt called on to defend. Clark is not politics as usual, and the powers that be know it. They know they don't have their hooks into him. They don't know how to control Clark, and they don't want him speaking truth to the American people. I pray to God that enough people have heard Clark by now that they won't soon be able to turn off his mike. Clark is saying things that need to be spoken."