Wesley Clark

Posted on by

It’s becoming more likely that Gen. Wesley Clark will join the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. This excites the crap out of me. I’d love to see him run.

Sure, Howard Dean’s exciting, but the Democrats would totally lose if Dean got the nomination; he’s a liberal governor of a small New England state who’d have to appeal to a huge swath of the country, including much of the South. Liberal governors of small New England states only win the presidency on TV dramas. And that’s what this is about — winning the presidency.

A friend and I did one of the nerdiest things in the world a few months ago — we watched C-SPAN on a Friday night, because Wesley Clark was giving a talk. He was brilliant, he was thoughtful, he knew was he was talking about, he was charismatic and relaxed, he was dignified. He’s a retired general, so he has the military cred; not only would this make him look great to millions of Americans, but it would also help offset his moderate-to-liberal social views that might otherwise turn some people off. And he’s from the South, which would help him eat into W’s base. (Strangely enough, he’s a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas, just like Bill Clinton — not that that’s an automatic qualification, but it’s cool nonetheless.)

My friend and I watched his talk, and we just about spooged all over the place.

Dean is a pipe dream. Clark has a better chance of winning than any other Democrat out there.

I can’t wait for him to announce.

10 thoughts on “Wesley Clark”

  4. In all serious though, since we’re talking pipe-dreams and dream-tickets, here’s my absolute dream ticket (seriously):

    Hillary Clinton (Pres)

    &

    Patrick Monyhan (VP)

    &

    Condy Rice (State)

    I’d love to see that, never mind some are dead and some are lost to republican hell.

    .rob adams

  5. Clark is the pipe dream — as I pointed out on my own site earlier, he doesn’t have what it takes to enter the race at this point and draw attention away from the front runners with money, experience and name recognition.

    That’s not even what’s wrong with putting your faith in Clark. As long as we — half the country — admit out loud that even our moderates are too liberal for the rest of America, that we have to put forth Southerners and military men every time so as not to offend the opposition, no one is going to listen and respect us. Why is “liberal” an insult? Because liberals have behaved themselves and acted like pussies as proud conservatives have torn us apart. Easier to respect liars and thieves than cowards.

    Being afraid of liberalism is not a winning strategy for a party that can only define itself as more liberal than the party in power. You can’t sell a bill of goods that you’re ashamed of, and that’s why we don’t have a base in the North and West that we can count on. (Hell, for all the pandering Gore did, the South sure didn’t seem competitive three years ago.)

    Dean isn’t a liberal (and I’m not saying we should put one forward for the top job just yet), but he’s the first step towards rescuing the party’s sense of self-worth. He may not be able to go all the way to the White House…but this forced, difficult detour around liberalism makes the road there a lot longer and impossible to travel.

  6. What Mike said. Plus, Dean’s got a buzz about him that no liberal (and yeah, I think, relatively speaking, Dean IS a liberal, compared to Lieberman, for example) has had since the 60s. That buzz, as a qualitatively different phenomenon, might just carry him over the top.

  7. I appreciate what you guys are saying, but:

    First: McGovern had a quite a buzz around him in ’72, and he totally tanked. It’s not enough to appeal to your party’s base. A vast majority of Americans do not think like we/you do, and they’re the ones who decide elections.

    Second: the Democrats’ moderates are not too liberal for the rest of America. Most Americans are moderate. Gore would have had a solid victory in 2000 if people had voted on the issues.

    Third, if Dean isn’t able to go all the way to the White House, I don’t want him. I want W out of there, and I think what’s most important right now is not to restore the Democrats’ sense of self-worth (and anyway, nothing will restore their sense of self-worth more than victory), but to find the candidate that can kick W out by appealing to as many people as possible. We gay urbanites are not at all representative of mainstream America. That’s not a value judgment, it’s just a fact.

    You don’t get anywhere in this world if you’re not willing to compromise.

  8. What base, Jeff? It’s been completely alienated through years of neglect.

    I don’t like the idea of getting behind a candidate I know almost nothing about — the “on the issues” section of the website devoted to him consists of a few isolated quotes that hint at a progressive position that might be an illusion. (This is why we don’t usually elect people from outside the system, because we want to know what we’re getting.) I especially don’t like doing so given that Dean is far less liberal than his reputation suggests; his actual positions would play very well with the moderates who didn’t care for either Gore or Bush. Other than his support for civil unions and opposition to the war (which are not only mainstream opinions, but the reasons I want to vote Democratic, and not negotiable as far as I’m concerned), what gives him this reputation is his willingness to go on the offensive. Can someone win without going on the offensive?

    I’ll certainly campaign and vote for whoever wins the nomination, and Clark looks like he would probably be a good general election candidate, but I don’t see why we should toss Dean aside for him. We may be more liberal than most of the country, but they’re more conservative. Far more conservative. Why are we so convinced that it’s more of a problem for us?

  9. Y’know…after reading my comments again, I don’t really want to continue this line of reasoning. If Clark were to get in the race, steal Dean’s thunder (Dean would probably have to fuck up, though) and win the nomination, he’d be an excellent candidate. I just think Dean’s already a good one, “riskier” only in the sense that he draws people’s attention instead of being someone you can safely ignore.

    It’s not an issue worth getting angry over. More important: that Kerry would be a likely loser (for all of the reasons you cited for Dean and then some), that Gephardt would be a sure loser (beginning the campaign as he has emblazoned with the stamp of failure), and that Lieberman would not be worth voting for even with Bush as the alternative.

Comments are closed.