TomPaine.com: "Wes Clark Raised The Bar"

[Tom Rinaldo]

This critique is posted at TomPaine.com's Uncommon Sense area, and I can only copy and post portions of it below but am leaving the link to TomPaine. It concerns the Real State of the Union Speech that Clark just delivered (which is now available in Video, Audio, and Transcript files at SecuringAmerica.com). This Tom Paine blog is not at all a fluff piece, nor is it uncritical praise of Clark. It is thoughtful and critical commentary on a significant speech, and well worth reading in full. No matter who we run in 2006 and 2008, these issues loom large:


"...It was against that backdrop of educated cynicism that Wes Clark addressed the assembly, and he only reinforced this emerging consensus. Clark believes that the state of our union is imperiled.

The former four star bases his assessment on numerous indicators of economic and political health—issues with which readers of TomPaine.com will be quite familiar. For this observer of Washington politics, however, the politically novel— and potentially quite powerful—analysis was Clark's assertion that America lacks an over-arching strategy for engaging the world. For Clark, this core strategic failing can be traced back to the end of the Cold War: "When we lost our opponent, we lost our strategy...at home and abroad." Now, according to Clark, "We must set the course right".

This, my friends, is significant. Gen. Wesley Clark just raised the bar of presidential debate in 2008. If this can be sustained, America may be talking about grand strategy at long last...

...Had Clark not mentioned our clear and present need for America to coalesce around a new strategic consensus as we did during the Cold War, I could have said Clark's speech showed a willingness to take on a variety of issues without bowing to fuzzy-headed conventional thinking here in Washington. Pushing for universal single-payer health care and declaring that it is time for America to start a dialog with Iran are two brave positions to take in this town. Coming from a four-star Vietnam vet from Arkansas, it could be formidable...

...The general now has a choice. He can either scrap the allusions to grand strategy or he can develop one. If he scraps the acknowledgment of our strategic disability, he consents to play on the Shrum-ian battlefield against the likes of Hillary Clinton. If he instead embraces our strategic deficit, he can rise above the fray."
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060131/wes_clark_raised_the_bar.php




Clark's web site now has his State of the Union speech up and available for viewing, both in Windows and Quicktime, and there is an Audio version available for those who do not have broad band, as well as a transcript. Please view or listen to it yourself:
http://securingamerica.com/

[MrSlayer]

1. Clark is brilliant. Should be our nominee in 08.

He has it all. Intelligence, experience and a real plan.

[LaPera]

12. He will be...watch!!!

[MrSlayer]

22. I won't be watching.

I'll be actively making it happen.


:toast:

[Adelante]

2. Tom, what did you think of this criticism?

"...The general now has a choice. He can either scrap the allusions to grand strategy or he can develop one. If he scraps the acknowledgment of our strategic disability, he consents to play on the Shrum-ian battlefield against the likes of Hillary Clinton. If he instead embraces our strategic deficit, he can rise above the fray."

I'm not sure I get it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. That's why I wanted to start this thread, to kick it around

Unfortunately I have to run out of the house right now to go to a fund raising committee meeting of our local Democratic Party Club, so I will return to this much more later.

I think the question is the right one but the critic expected more from one 20 minute speech than was possible, given the breadth of the issues Clark touched on. In short the choice presented is either a 1) laundry list of complaints about the status quo coupled with some clever ideas or 2) A comprehensive world view that orchestrates the types of responses that make sense to make. I think he was looking for something more than a litany of criticism of Bush, or a handful of sensible alternative proposals.

Anyway, I'll get back to you later...

[PATRICK]

4. Compare Chavez with Clark

at least as political military leaders becoming political saviors. Clark is really really hamstrung while circumstances, horrific and polarized have made Chavez the man of the hour for his people where "strongman" and "lefty" issues are critical pluses for his democratic nation and region. There are no such clear answers in this country. Clark in learning from the supposedly best and strongest center of American politics has entered a Democratic party quagmire of bad choices. Hillary's caught in headlights or crossfire untenable high point where there is no way to go but down, is not strategically helpful.

Purely strategically it is hard for a military mind to cross over into a domestic mess like ours without a real coup d'etat. Comprehending, dealing with it, being the timely mind and the genius is a tall order for any human past or present. The critique is looking for just that, and looking for too much.

I would settle for two things. Just for once a consciousness of the problems outside the DC pol mob and cutting through the garbage to act. The hardest for Clark, or any current Dem leader, is actually the first without which the second is impotent.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. In Clark's case his specific training and talents are an advantage

I question one line of yours, the one about the "military mind". Clark does not have what most would assume to be a typical "military mind" on the one hand, and on the other there are many attributes to a sophisticated "military mind" that have value in dealing with a complex set of circumstances in a crisis or near crisis situation. Strategy is a matter of life and death for military planning, it is not something that can be fudged with good rhetoric. A skilled flag officer can not afford to be blinded by narrow ideology. They are less likely to fall for some rosy scenario, like Iraq citizens throwing flowers at their liberators, than their politically driven civilian counterparts might be, because a military planner has to deal with what is likely to be rather than what they "believe" it should be.

[PATRICK]

16. Actually I consider

Clark's background and mindset an asset if it can get around the obstacles few can see or seem to want to get over. It is his life's training though added to being outside the curiously dysfunctional, weird American political box. Also he has been an insider with many of these politicos for years and may be making some of their false assumptions in the civilian game.

I guess there are the Caesar models(Napoleon and on and on) and the George washington models(Simon Bolivar, etc) and lot in between including many many with military service gone completely civilian. To become either one demands taking respected leadership over the psyche of the people and cutting the political chaff down to size. Clark is definitely capable and more definitely suppressed. It is the people or the troops that win with a winning spirit. The American people are in the doghouse there too.

All argument aside though, I think his task of trying to help the situation is as daunting as for anyone else. And look at the criminal dweebs and cowards enjoying power and privilege of de facto tyranny!

[Adelante]

33. Chavez model

You may have some insight into something I've been puzzled about, Patrick, which is not on topic, but you've reminded me of it. I've noticed that many of the DUers who would throw a Clark presidency out the window beforehand, because of a sense, which I reject, that it would be a "military" presidency, are the same DUers who embrace a "military" presidency in Venezuela. Have you given any thought to this; if so, what are your observations?

I agree with you the situation is daunting for Clark as well as anybody. It's a plain daunting situation.

[PATRICK]

37. My observation

besides things "over there" are always more lovable than "over here" is that the American military model is often typified by Powell, the business/war establishment and ethos which is scornful of democratic political institutions and almost anything to the left. Our military people may not have been educated in the School of the Americas, but they are the teachers and Clark as a maverick with no leftist opposition to plug into seems to puzzle as much much as raise suspicions. In America today he gets all the immediate debits and less and less credit that comes from his resumee and then ignored in the margins. the way to break out would have been to take the chance of running for governor somewhere and quickly proving himself. Otherwise I think he is stuck as a dark horse, the non risky, fixed status. But too much time has passed if ever there was that opportunity. Ironically, an ever more unpopular war and movement against recruitment is unfairly tarring(among the general blocs like women) presidential generals like Clark more than anti-Bush vets like Hackett, which is equally ironic. You can't have any doubts and divisions in your support base at least.

If vets do well this year by being Clark-like, his dark horse will surge ahead of the predictable crop of presidential contenders who have shown less signs than ever of a winning change- going for the jugular and the overwhelming decisive vote.

I think when things go against you reasons or excuses multiply like rabbits. Too close to the Clinton crowd and supposedly NWO globalists, and, well, it just goes on because there is no place to go even though Clark is dutifully playing by the rules like any of the more seasoned pols who squeeze him out. He should team with a powerful governor(s) instead of the Foggy Bottom well wishers.

Totally outside the National Savior model, I would hope he could be the one to really clean house and reassert the rule of law, see in clear terms the rigged battlefield and ways to attack, move the military ethos back from the right and privatization and dangerous cross over careers to business. There are a lot more and a lot more compromising military folk enjoined into war business than are represented in more government service as elected reps.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. "I would hope he could be the one to..."

"I would hope he could be the one to really clean house and reassert the rule of law, see in clear terms the rigged battlefield and ways to attack, move the military ethos back from the right and privatization and dangerous cross over careers to business"

These are key reasons why I do support Clark. I think he has it in him. I think someone like Feingold does also, though he would be less able to take on Pentagon insiders than Clark. But the clincher for me is I think Clark can get elected appealing to a broad range of Americans on patriotic grounds. That will give him more leverage once in office than many other Democrats could muster, assuming they are even able to win in the first place. The Republicans will play the scare card hard in 2008. Clark is best postioned to counter it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. OK, Take Two

Like I said above, I think the writer gives Clark less credit than he deserves, though he gives him greater credit than most have (if that makes any sense, lol). I think Clark has stated, here and elsewhere, some real building blocks for a grand strategy, not mere allusions. And the writer is correct that Clark articulates the need for a new grand American Strategy for the 21st Century if we are to remain a leading force in the world, able to guide our own destiny through out it. That is why he says that Clark has raised the bar. I think the allusion to Shrum, as the polar opposite, is an interesting one. I am not sure if he associates Shrum with lofty (and perhaps hollow) rhetoric or with attention to a laundry list of domestic economic issues.

The next question is, what does the writer mean by "strategic disability" and by "strategic deficit"? I think the Neo Cons have a strategic vision, and I think multinational business interests have a strategic goal, but outside of fairly far left circles it seems that Democrats are weak in visualizing, or at the very least articulating, either and/or both. The writer sees Clark grappling with those questions, and so do I.

Bush projects a vision for the future and Democrats call foul. We say his math is fuzzy, his rhetoric doesn't match reality, his policies don't match his professed concerns, and his vehicles won't take us where he says we need to go. But we haven't strongly articulated a counterbalancing strategic vision that incorporates our believes into consistent systematic action at home and abroad, now and into the forseeable future.

[samhsarah]

5. I like Wesley Clark a lot.

[democrank]

6. Clark` speech was brilliant.

Unlike AWOL Junior, Clark understands that we`re all in this together. Asinine policies have consequences. I hope to support Clark (again) in `08.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Interesting more haven't picked up on Clark backing single payer insurance

It is an important stand to make, though it continually amazes me why so many otherwise Liberal Democratic politicians still are hesitant to utter those words.

[bobbieinok]

10. whatever the truth is about what happened in the Clinton health care

attempt, many people think they learned the following

--Americans don't really want a change---or at least they're easily conned into thinking any change is BAD

--anyone really trying to improve the health care system in this country will be DESTROYED by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies...cheerfully aided by M$M 24/7

so any politician doubtless thinks s/he will lose bigtime if s/he tries anything

also, there's is probably a feeling that if someone tries for change, there will be a resounding SILENCE from fellow democratic politicians and voters

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I think you nailed the reasons

And I loved your wording: "many people think they learned the following..."

It's current Democratic conventional thinking alright, that you can't propose a sweeping overhaul of the insurance system and live to talk about it. But the need is growing greater, not less, and the traditional system of employer provided health benefits is collapsing. And there is a new opening now also. My girl friend likes to say, about the new multiple private provider Medicare medication payment plan, "they put people through hell just so they can say we don't have socialized medicine."

Then again Clark has challenged big money before. He made a strong strand against media consolidation last time he ran and shortly after that, in January 2005, his free air time dropped dramatically. Clark says what he believes is right. It's up to all of us to not leave our politicians hanging out to dry when they do that.

[dogman]

13. Isn't it too early for a grand strategy?

If he presented it now and it struck a chord with the American people the GOP would co-opt and adopt it as their own. I think we've seen this a few times already. With the wide open field for the Democratic nomination, I think the same would hold true for the potential candidates. There are so many factors in play besides on both the domestic and foreign policy field. Until we see the results of the '06 elections and what new crises Bushco creates in the world. I think there are too many variables at this time. Having seen how Clark develops his policies and stand on issues, I think this might be good advice for '07. At this early stage the grand strategy would have to be developed through the Party structure. That would be up to Dean and the leadership to work out and is therefore unlikely. Until the leadership acknowledges a leader it is not going to happen. There are too many egos and ambitions for a consensus. If Clark were "commissioned" to come up with a strategy, I'm sure he has the leadership and diplomatic/negotiating skills to do it. The problem is, only the nominee gets that power. An individual would have to win the Primary or be an essential adviser to a candidate to put the strategy forward. If a candidate came forward with this strategy now, Joe Biden would claim it as his own and run with it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Good points Dog

But there is a role for vision, and a vision that incorporates and responds to the major challenges facing our nation can be articulated now. Others can try to copy it but there's nothing like the real thing. Only someone who truly has a vision can be flexible enough to apply it quickly to changing circumstances. Someone trying to co-opt it would be caught flat footed when they are thrown off their rehearsed script. Besides we both know that Clark never begrudges anyone stealing a good idea of his IF they have the means to get it implemented.

When I think of "vision" it implies something on the scale of the Marshall Plan, or Containment, or the creation of a web of International institutions after World War II, a guiding logic to our myriad actions.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. Clark can become another FDR-type of populist leader if he does

the same sorts of things. In may ways, he has stronger credentials in terms of his very midwestern values (the values that were based on community solidarity in hard times). And he is a "General" at a time when the nation is in crisis on many fronts. He speaks strongly against the hate-fear based ideologies that now dominate much of the population, the ideology of fascism, by simply calling on our the best instincts. And he doesn't concede any ground to bigots.



The one question I have is whether he has the insight and guts to build a campaign against corporate power in general, like Roosevelt did, as well as against the ideology of fascism. The times are very similar structurally, but corporate power and corruption is now far more entrenched and and on a scale that makes the monsters Roosevelt faced look like toddlers.

Roosevelt could whip the monsters into temporary submission before they devoured everything, acting even as a friend, for their own good. But, in my view, they now need to be destroyed and their remains sterilized if we are to have any future at all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Roosevelt had the Depression to anger the masses out of apathy

We are in difficult and dangerous times now obviously, but not yet at that scale. Clark is the only Democratic politician I know now who has the ability, due both to skill and his record of patriotic service, to rally the awakened without alarming the sleeping. It is a difficult task. The Right has controlled public debate for a decade and many who should be on our side now still aren't.

The hurdle, obviously, is Clark managing to get elected, but given the pulpit of the Presidency, I think Clark can reshape the national political dialog and change our national priorities. I believe he has that potential, to profoundly shift the middle, in the way Reagan did, except in the opposite direction. Once that is accomplished not only Clark, but many other clear sighted Democrats also, will be free to have at the monsters you speak of.

[ConsAreLiars]

19. The depression is here now. In two years time the fear and anger

felt by the people will be as intense as when Roosevelt ran. They will turn to fascism, or against corporatism. That will be the choice they are given to make. Not suggesting that he run on against what is euphemistically mislableled "the free enterprise system," but against heartless greed, rampant corruption, and such, and against the abuses that we see. The universal health care plan is one example of how to do that.

[justabob]

24. re: rally without alarming

I think he is the guy to gently rouse the sleeping.... Back before he was 'drafted' to run in 2003, he had an organization - Leadership for America - that was loosely based on Samuel Adams and the Committees of Corespondence of revolutionary times. There was a forum associated with his org that had an admittedly tiny membership, but just about everyone who was there was just an average joe/jane. It was just people talking, like neighbors over the fence. The majority of those people NEVER thought about politics or the major issues, but something about Clark drew them there. It was not partisan, people could speak and compare notes with little fear of being shouted down, belittled, etc.... Sadly, when the campaign got going, LFA was shut down and the "professionals" took over.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Gently rouse the sleeping

That's a good way to put it. Clark gets past their Republican spin induced defenses by appealing to Patriotism, and then he tells them the truth, appealing both to their genuine self interest and an intrinsic belief in a positive version of America that doesn't betray our professed ideals.

[HootieMcBoob]

17. kick

:kick:

[Quixote1818]

20. It's Depressing he is not our President!!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Mz Pip]

21. I saw him tonight

at a fundraiser in San Francisco. He was amazing. Smart. Articulate. Personable. Funny.

I thought how much better we would all be off if he were in the WH instead of Bush.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[SaintLouisBlues]

23. I'm jealous

I've yet to see Clark in person.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Wasn't that San Francisco Group date with Wes just so lovely

Mz Pip? :hi:

I was so glad to see you there.
His Karl Rove memo bit was to die for. Funny and sad all at the same time! The point that the National Security shield will be used everytime for everything for the 2006 election is a scary but too real thing. Wes Clark gets it, and I hope more of us catch on before it's too late!

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Rub it in why don't you? What was the memo from Rowe bit? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

28. Well.....

Wes swears he didn't write it himself....but that his keyboard or some other devine intervention took over and wrote if for him.....

He quipped that he had worked at the White House, and that this memo is in the exact format. As he held up the memo, he said....see the title is all in Caps, just like the White House does, and it has 4 lines of header.....

It was a satarical memo (with too much truth to it to be truly funny, although it was funny) in where Rove basically states how the 2006 election can be won by the Republicans. Wes read the memo in where Rove directs the Republican congressional candidates to discuss all issues as though they were National Security issues. Rove directs the GOP to use the National Security "Shield" for issues on Environment, budget, wiretapping, corruption, health care, Iran, etc., etc. Rove goes on....according to Wes' memo to mention that National Security is how everything can be trumped (basically what I have been saying all along).

Anyways, I spoke to him at several different intervals.....and the last thing I heard him say was my name, as though he was committing it to memory! I won't divulged what we discussed in this thread....I'll most likely post a thread in the Clark supporter DU group a bit later!

Bottomline is that the man "gets it" and you can be assured that he will do what he can to keep the GOP from getting away with it. He truly is fighting for our Democracy by way of these upcoming elections!

The talk he gave us was very intimate and totally earnest! He's fucking concerned and worried.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. That sounds priceless

Hilarious also if it wasn't so god damn true.

[Adelante]

29. Doherty today calling Bayh out similarly

Evan Bayh: Tough. But Smart?

-snip

On Iran, the second-term senator unveiled one iteration of his tough-smart equation. Bayh believes it is fruitless to continue never-ending talks with Iran when the Islamic republic is not paying any real price for its defiance of the West (tough). At the same time, he is not prepared to advocate military action (smart). Therefore, Bayh believes that it is essential to impose a real cost on the Iranian leadership. Accordingly, he announced a "tough" set of proposals to show the Iranian regime that the U.S. is serious. First, we should impose a robust sanctions regime on Iran; second, we should pinch Iran's supply of refined petroleum products; third, we should seek global diplomatic isolation of the regime; and fourth, we should deny Iran outside investment in its energy sector.

Tough talk indeed, but is it a smart prescription? Most serious analysts say that Iran is five to 10 years away from having enough fissile material to make a bomb, and there is no evidence to conclude that Iran has workable plans for a device. Under such conditions, is it smart to choke and gag the fourth-largest oil supplier? Is it smart to back into a corner a state that may well have the capability to shut down all the oil from the Persian Gulf as well as incite full-fledged civil war in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan? Richard Clarke thinks not. Obviously, Bayh's behavior may just be pre-election positioning. And indeed, Gen. Wes Clark, with nothing to prove in terms of national security credentials, is calling for direct U.S.-Iran dialogue.

-snip

But Bayh's most interesting comment, at least for this national security observer, was made during his response to a question at the end. In his prepared talk, Sen. Bayh remarked rather broadly that our energy dependence on the Middle East and our fiscal dependence on China were damaging our overall security. As Bayh walked through his answer to a question looking for more of the senator's opinion about China, Bayh said something different. He said, "a comprehensive national security policy must include ."

And in that unscripted moment, Sen. Bayh showed that regardless of what his advisers were willing to put onto paper, the man himself may just see the bigger picture. He would do well to heed his own counsel, too. More than tough talk and smart tactics, America needs to align our economic engine with our national security strategy. We can no longer afford to fix the dysfunction (energy insecurity, debt, climate change) our economy produces.

Now we have two likely 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, Wesley Clark and Evan Bayh, on the record saying that, in effect, America ultimately needs a grand strategy in which our domestic economy and our national security strategy work in harmony.

-more

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20060203/evan_bayh_tough_but_smart.php

[Adelante]

31. Pulling this into the OP

These two paragraphs

And in that unscripted moment, Sen. Bayh showed that regardless of what his advisers were willing to put onto paper, the man himself may just see the bigger picture. He would do well to heed his own counsel, too. More than tough talk and smart tactics, America needs to align our economic engine with our national security strategy. We can no longer afford to fix the dysfunction (energy insecurity, debt, climate change) our economy produces.

Now we have two likely 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, Wesley Clark and Evan Bayh, on the record saying that, in effect, America ultimately needs a grand strategy in which our domestic economy and our national security strategy work in harmony.

Doherty actually hits on something here he himself seems unaware of: the domestic economy is a national security issue and the economic engine must be aligned to our national security strategy. Yes. And Clark has been saying so for years now. I would say emergency preparedness against natural disasters plays similarly. Here again, Clark's strategy has been a holistic approach to government policy, domestic and foreign, ever since the 2003 primary race. So when does this become the "grand strategy" Doherty calls for? Does it have to be called a "grand strategy" before it is the Grand Strategy?

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. This IS interesting

Doherty is sticking to a theme that is relatively rare on Progressive Blogs, how can we bring our domestic economic and national security needs into harmony within some coherent strategy that differs from the mulit-national corporate agenda and acknowledges that American workers do not want to see further declines in their standard of living despite an increasingly competitive world? Unlike many Progressive bloggers, Doherty does not rhetorically disparage the fact that the United States is in fact a World power that does have some legitimate self interests to protect. The Republicans have almost gotten a free ride on that one, milking it for every vote they can get while selling out the interests of most of those who vote for them.

[Adelante]

34. Yes, interesting

And correct.

[King Coal]

30. I was raised at a bar too. So what?

[Adelante]

35. Me, too!!

It was fun :)

[0rganism]

39. Clark wants a grand strategy? A new opponent? I got one for him...

Global poverty. It is the root of discontent, that leads to fanaticism and violence, that leads to terrorism and warlord parasites establishing their "protective" feifdoms. It is the heart of the economic disparity that enables corporate fatcats to syphon jobs away from American workers to maquiladoras in 3rd-world dictatorships. The only way the various "free trade" treaties can be put to work for the people rather than against the people is if we shrink the vast gaps between the needs of the poor and the means by which they can meet those needs, to remove the motivation of utter desparation.

Take on poverty just like we took on the Soviet bloc in the 50s. Fight it at home and abroad with as much zeal and vigor as was ever applied to the cold war. It is a fearsome enemy, to be sure: famine and pestilence are its weapons, war and death follow in its wake. It is both high-octane fuel for the capitalist engine of conspicuous consumption and the rust that will eventually destroy that engine completely.

The battle itself would change us all for the better, win or lose. In victory, we may find the resources to return humanity to balance within the biosphere and once again begin to seek the tree of life. But fail to face it at all, and we will see corruption and blight spread across the planet like never before.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. It's on his radar, I guarantee it.

Clark sees it as a central moral issue and as a key national security issue combined. He knows poverty leads to desperation and failed States which breed global instability.

More so than almost any other top military officer Clark worked closely, hand in glove, with NGO's on humanitarian issues inside the old Yugoslavia. And of course he wanted to intervene to stop genocide in Rwanda and is calling for a much more active NATO role to stop the suffering in Darfur. Clark also proposed a major AIDS initiative for Africa during his 2004 run.

I don't have time to go looking now, but he has written and spoken fairly extensively on the need to confront poverty.

[0rganism]

41. agreed, Clark's got a decent history & solid understanding of economics

I trust that dealing with poverty is more than "on his radar", since it's the common thread that ties so many of our current national and international problems together. If he can see the implications, there's no reason to avoid it as the unifying strategic issue. He should take his opportunity to confront it head on, and make the rest of the nominees see it as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. All through? n/t