Gene Lyons: Getting to Know the General (Wesley Clark)

[RamboLiberal]

http://proteus.affordablehost.com/~osment/GeneLyons/GeneLyons.html

In a recent column urging Gen. Wesley Clark to run for president, I mentioned a friend who questioned his political skills. Because Clark failed to recognize her after a couple of meetings as David Pryor or Bill Clinton would have, she suspected he lacked the personal charm to which Arkansas voters respond. After it appeared, I got a call from a book publicist who'd helped Clark with his book Waging Modern War.

At every appearance, she said, many in the audience were veterans who'd served under Clark during his three decades as an Army officer. The general, she said, recognized every single one, greeting them by name. She'd never seen him hesitate.

Given that Clark's willpower and ambition have been recognized since he graduated first in his West Point class in 1966, this struck me as a telling anecdote. Not every military hero earns the affection and respect of his men. I had two uncles who served as infantry grunts under Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Phillipines and in Korea. They thought him a vainglorious megalomaniac who'd sacrificed soldier's lives to win medals for himself --not necessarily history's judgement, but theirs.

Interestingly, it's a theme Clark himself discussed with the authors of two recent magazine profiles, by Tom Junod in the current Esquire and Duncan Murrell in the May/June Oxford American. Both are worth looking up for anybody intrigued with the idea of a Clark candidacy.

Clark told Murrell that Americans' current tendency to lionize the military is partly due to post-9/11 fear, partly to lack of experience with the real thing. "We've been the beneficiaries of that lack of familiarity," he said, sentimentalizing soldiers as patriotic icons without feeling the necessity of serving. One result, as Murrell writes, is politicians who feel free "to use the military as a symbol, sending soldiers off to wars that don't affect most American families directly by putting their children in harm's way."

[Trajan]

1. The MORE I hear of Clark .....

The MORE I hear of his thoughts and beliefs ....

The MORE I like him ......

[Larkspur]

2. Clark has no political experience

His military background won't translate into getting people who are suffering economic hardships to vote for him. Also feminists, like me, may be turned off by his military background if that is all he will tout on his campaign.

And unlike Eisenhower, who had the complete backing of the Republican Party, Clark will not have the complete support of the Democratic Party, which is fractured right now.

And Clark won't hurt Dean as much as he would Kerry. Dean's base is the alienated Democrats and the 50% who don't vote. While Dean doesn't have his bases's total support now, he has got a plan to win it. Clark has no plan and he'd end up using the same strategy as Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, et all -- farming the same shrinking caste of donors the other elite candidates are.

I seriously doubt that Clark will run for President. I think that he'd make a good Defense Secretary candidate for whoever the Dem nominee is. His strength is the military but he has no idea how to handle our domestic agenda.

[RamboLiberal]

3. His degree in economics and his background in business

qualifies him in my eyes and I would bet to a lot of voters.

After a brief stint in New York City working in the national poverty program, Clark was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University from August of 1966 until 1968, studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

Clark is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a business services and development firm based in Little Rock, and is the Chairman of the Board for ³Leadership for America², a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America's future.

General Clark also serves as distinguished senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a director of the Atlantic Council and a board member of the International Crisis Group. He was recently named chairman of the board of WaveCrest Laboratories of Dulles, Va., a technology company specializing in electric propulsion systems to help the country migrate from gas-based transportation systems to tomorrow's hydrogen based economy. As chairman of the board, Clark is supposed to provide leadership and direction for the company¹s business goals and objectives. Clark also serves on the boards of Messer-Griesheim, Acxiom Corp. of Little Rock and SIRVA Corp.

http://www.draftclark.com/biography.shtml

[Trajan]

4. I think you give short shrift to Clark ....

perhaps due to your explicit advocation of Dean .....

I would ask: .... WHAT experience did Dean possess prior to his winning the governorship ? ....

What experience does ANY person possess BEFORE he vies for public office ? ....

You have to eventually get your feet wet if you intend to swim, so perhaps we will see if Clark can handle 'politics' once he gets his feet wet .....

I do know this: .... Clark may be the MOST prepared candidate in the entire democratic field: .... his military experience is solid and unimpeachable .. a HUGE plus with moderate Democrats and Independents: ... Like Clinton, Clark was a Rhodes Scholar ... and graduated Oxford with honors .... Clark graduated top of his class at West Point ....

We dont know a WHOLE HELLUVA LOT about Clark's domestic policy preferences, but nearly EVERY utterance re: Social security, Health Care and other social legislation, has revealed his strong sense of duty to maintain the safety net developed since FDR ....

Since Gore left: .... I have not connected to any specific candidate, primarily because none 'speak to me' in any way that connects ....

I will vote for ANY Democratic candidate that wins the nod at convention, but as of now, I havent any horse in the race ......

Clark, even without explicit experience in the trenches of washington politics, seems a viable possibility: one whom I truly respect ....

Perhaps I am able to see this because I am not so closely associated with one or another candidate .....

Perhaps you have a vested interest in denigrating ALL other candidates in favor of your own ? .....

Perhaps .....

[Larkspur]

6. Dean proved himself in Vermont

He inherited a $60 million dollar deficit and the lowest bond rating in New England. By the time he left the governorship, 11 years later, Vermont had a surplus, the highest bond rating in New England, and had cut Vermont's debt by a quarter. And on top of that, he was able to raise the minimum wage, grant health care to every child, cut child abuse in half, conserve thousands of acres of land. Clark has not.

Dean has earned his economic qualifications with explicit policy making decisions. Clark has not.

Dean had to fight liberals and conservatives in the legislature to get a balance budget. Clark has not.

Dean won 5 re-election bids, none of them close and won majorities even when facing 3-way races. Clark has not.

[RamboLiberal]

8. You know I support Dean and Clark

I don't know why at this stage in the race someone has to back only one candidate. And why even in backing one candidate why it is necessary to bash another candidate.

Both Dean and Clark are qualified in my eyes. So are Kerry, Graham, Dennis K, etc. And that is about how my list stacks up top to bottom.

But whomever ultimately ends up the Dem candidate, I'll support them to oust AWOL and the Dick from the WH.

[Larkspur]

10. Critisizing Clark is not bashing him

His lack of political experience will hurt him when trying to negotiate with allies and opponents to get his programs passed.

Dean has the political negotiating and decision making experience and skills of an executive, albeit his national level experience is limited, but his 11 years in Vermont wrestling with his own party as much as with the opposition strengthened Dean's ability to make tough decisions and have the courage to endure the consequences. Most of his decisions have been proven correct. Clark can not offer the same experience and skill set that Dean has.

As I said, Clark would make a fine Secretary of Defense. His strength is his military experience and national defense knowledge.

[RamboLiberal]

11. My point is that I think Clark with his Rhodes scholar background

his experience in business and on boards, plus a lot of his views on domestic policy will do him nicely. And being at the upper echeleons of the military I'm sure he's very familar how to deal with the politicos of both parties.

Actually I'd love to see a ticket of Dean/Clark or vice-versa since I think these two would make a very capable and handsome ticket. What one lacks the other would provide.

And think of the passion their two camps united would bring to a campaign. This would be Rove's worst nightmare.

[FightinNewDem]

15. No political experience???

Don't kid yourself.

Clark served as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. This is an extremely sensitive position, one which requires one to be not only a soldier but a diplomat and an administrator as well. Clark had extensive interaction with European foreign and defense ministers, gaining experience which would serve him well as President (or VP, or Secretary of State).

[11cents]

5. If electoral and governing experience are the criteria

...then the least-qualified candidates in the current field are clearly Howard Dean and Al Sharpton. Dean's sole experience is as governor of a tiny, homogeneous state. By contrast, Bob Graham (for example) has been governor of a large and demographically complex state, and now represents that state in the Senate. Kerry also represents a large and diverse state and has been a Senate leader on an array of foreign and domestic issues. Conclusion: Dean supporters see something in him other than his electoral and governing experience.

>Also feminists, like me, may be turned off by his military background >if that is all he will tout on his campaign.

That's definitely not all he will "tout," but I have to say that I'm a feminist, and as such I explicitly disavow the notion that women are somehow wired to throw up our hands in nurturing, earth-motherly horror at the notion of someone with a military background as president, or at the notion of military action per se. I think this kind of idea is tailor-made to exclude women from real power in the here-and-now in favor of a pie-in-the-sky future matriarchy. "Feminists like me" is OK if by that you mean feminists of your particular stripe, but "feminists, like me, ..." -- nope.

[RamboLiberal]

7. I'm also female and I won't discount Clark for military background

In fact I would think that having seen the hell of war, losing men in war and being wounded himself, that he would hesitate more in getting in to a military confrontation than the current crop of Chickenhawks.

[Larkspur]

13. I'm a single and childfree feminist, so nurturing is not my fortee

I'm a software engineer and a feminist, so I think in metaphors that promote partnership over authoritarianism and system design over ad-hoc individuality.

If Clark decides to run and is only going to be a one-dimensionaly candidate -- military might man -- against Bush, he'll lose. A presidential candidate has to be versitile and since the office of the presidency is a civilian office, those politicians who have demonstrated excellent governing skills in civilian offices, like governorships, will be better fit to be president than those whose expertise is military matters.

Dean made tough decisions in Vermont and those decisions covered a variety of issues. Yeah, Vermont is a mostly a homogenous state, but he had tough battles there and yet was able to be elected 5 times and always win majorities. Clark hasn't shown the kind of toughness that I want in a president. He impresses me as a military man and I'd want him as Secretary of Defense or something along that line.

[RamboLiberal]

14. From what I've seen of Clark on TV - he's truly multi-dimensional

The man can speak to social and economic issues. I'd love to see him in a debate with either AWOL or The Dick.

As I stated before I'd love to see him as the VP candidate to Dean. Where I'm afraid Dean is going to get unfairly hammered by the media whores and the Repugs is on national security. Clark on the ticket IMHO would counter a lot of that.

Now if Dean is elected and Clark is not the VP candidate, then yes, I think he'd be well qualified as Sec of Def. With his NATO experience he may also serve well as Sec of State.

[11cents]

9. re: I'm also female and I won't discount Clark for military background

Yes, one of the points I've tried to make is that someone with a military background will probably be *less* likely to exploit military imagery and the military itself than is the current chickenhawk administration. Clark has had interesting things to say about how the professionalization of the armed services has led to military personnel and the military way of life being idealized by Americans even as most of us have less likelihood of having a direct connection with the military.

I didn't mean to imply that I think Dean is unqualified, BTW, just that his appeal does not have to do principally with his background as governor of wee Vermont. He's actually spotlighted that background somewhat less than, for example, Clinton touted his governing background in 1992. The fact that he was able to be elected in a very small and distinctive state really says nothing about his abilities as a national candidate, which is something he's in the process of proving on the campaign trail. I think he knows this, and his supporters do too when they're not trying to contrast him with Clark.

[Pallas180]

12. Clinton was from the "wee state of" Arkansas. Anyhow Clark hasn't

even made himself a candidate., so what are you all
talking about?

You have 9 dem candidates. Now. Why not concentrate on
those.

btw, I'm disgusted with Kerry and the DLC bashing other
democrats publicly.

stupid bastids