Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Articles
Democratic Underground  
SEARCH DU
Powered by FreeFind

THE DU T-SHIRT OF THE WEEK:

Click here to purchase DU Merchandise

Sweatshirts, mugs, and mousepads also available!

DONATE TO DU!
We rely on donations from our readers to run this website. If you think we're worth it, give us your money!

SUBMIT ARTICLES
Authors - we publish a wide variety of new material six days a week. If you would like us to consider your article for publication, click here.

BOOK REVIEWS
Find out what other Evil DUers are reading. And buy through our Amazon Affiliate Program.

LINKS DIRECTORY
We have over 1,000 progressive websites listed in our Links Directory.
· Democratic Party
· Forums/Communities
· Government
· Humor and Parody
· Issues and Activism
· Merchandise
· News/Commentary
· Personal Homepages
· Research and Dirt
· State and Local
· Add a link!

GET DU GEAR
Check out our fabulous range of T-shirts, mugs, baseball caps... etc.

Why Wesley Clark?
December 10, 2003
By Mickey Isikoff

Editor's Note: Democratic Underground welcomes articles about individual Democratic candidates for political office. Publication of these articles does not imply endorsement of any candidate by the editors of Democratic Underground.

I was firmly in the Anybody-But-Bush camp, and in fact I could be happy - or at least live with - many of the candidates, including Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards. Even maybe Dean, although his personality grates on me. He reminds me of too many of the doctors I know who are so arrogant and sure of themselves that they become stubborn and refuse to admit when they are wrong. But the reason I decided to support Wes Clark and not one of the others is that I believe they are unelectable, and Clark is George Bush and Karl Rove's worst nightmare. Why do I believe that?

Because I believe the election this year, unlike in most years, will not be decided on domestic issues but on foreign policy: the war on terror, Iraq, our relationship with our allies (or lack thereof). The economy is turning around and although it is not clear yet where the job market will be in a year, it seems clear to me that at best the economy will be a wash as a key election issue. That leaves foreign affairs as probably the pivotal issue in the next election so let's look more closely at that.

Foreign affairs, especially in a time of war, has always been a Republican issue. True or not the Dems have always been painted as weak on defense and the military; and this year especially, because of 9/11 and the war on terror, Iraq etc., Republicans have been literally foaming at the mouth to use this as an election issue. So much for not politicizing 9/11. The reality is both parties are going to politicize the hell out of it and the one that does the better job will win the presidency.

The Republican strategy, which we can already see, is to paint anyone who disagrees with the president as a traitor. This will work when it's reinforced by 200 million dollars of advertising. I'm afraid I have a rather low opinion of a large part of the electorate to believe that. Just remember what Bush and Rove did to McCain in South Carolina and what they did to Max Cleland in Georgia more recently. Yes, if you say it enough you can make some people believe that black is white. So the Democrats need a Teflon candidate when it comes to this issue. Three candidates, maybe four, have tried to meet this qualification; most notably Lieberman and Kerry, but also Gephardt and of course Clark (who can do it without trying - that's what four stars on your collar gives you).

Lieberman is a sweet guy, everyone's favorite grandfather and I think he would make a good President even if he is a little more conservative on some domestic issues than many Democrats. But does anybody really believe he's going to win the nomination? Not a chance! Maybe Vice President, but not President. Let's be realistic: he's unelectable and those that support him are wasting their time and money on a lost cause.

Well what about Kerry? He has been positioning himself as the logical candidate to run in a time of war because of his military experience, as well as his 18 years in the Senate and his experience with foreign affairs. I think he would make a good President, maybe a great one. But his campaign has gone nowhere! I'm not sure why, and neither is he, or he would have corrected it. And the other consideration is - if he somehow got the nomination - could he win the election? Could a liberal from Massachusetts win the election? Let's see, I do believe that we tried that once before without much success. Kerry is no Dukakis, but the result would be the same. The Republicans would paint him as another northern liberal and that would be that.

Gephardt is another issue. I think his chances of getting nominated are remote, and his chances of getting elected even more remote. I don't know how his pro-labor anti-trade stance would play in the general election, but even with his somewhat nuanced stand on Iraq he would be painted as a traitor and it would stick.

So who are we left with? Who can stand up to a 200 million dollar media smear that seeks to portray him as a traitor to his country for opposing Bush's foreign policy?

We are left with Wes Clark, the four-star general, the winner of the Kosovo war, the Rhodes Scholar. Rhodes Scholar? Wasn't there a previous president who was a Rhodes scholar? How did he do? Let's forget the zipper problems for a minute - I don't think they teach that at Oxford. I seem to remember that the country did rather well during his terms: some prosperity, a little budget surplus, a few jobs created. Not bad, and he could actually read. He didn't have to rely on his aides for the morning news. And he could speak English. What a refreshing change that would be. So Rhodes Scholar may be a pretty good thing to have on your resume if you are running for president. Certainly better than being a C student who drank his way through college.

Can the Republicans try to paint Clark as a traitor? Absolutely they can and they will. They also will try to portray him as arrogant, intellectually dishonest, hot-headed, ambitious, back-stabbing and probably a child molester. In fact they have already started, just look at some of the right-wing web sites. Can they make any of this stick? Well, they have 200 million dollars with which to try - that gives them a whole lot of mud to throw. It might ultimately work if the Democrats let it. But the facts remain: four-star general, Rhodes scholar, winner of the war in Kosovo, and besides all of that he has become a good campaigner and he looks presidential. That's a pretty good combination.

These are the reasons that I came to the conclusion that I had to get involved in this election and support Wes Clark. This is a critical election and other like-minded people need to think long and hard about what's at stake and get involved too.

Can he beat Bush? Maybe. If the war or wars are the key issue as I think they will be, then he has a very good chance. In time of war who would you want for president?

So Wes Clark it is - at least for me - and, I hope, other Democrats, thinking Republicans, and Independents.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage

 
© 2001 - 2004 Democratic Underground, LLC
 

Important Notice: Articles published on the Democratic Underground website are the opinions of the individuals who write them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC