Reply #169: Good. . .and bad news

[Voltaire99]

Out with the good first, so we can get on to the more interesting stuff.

Yes, it's good for the race to have an electable candidate who espouses some progressive positions. Clark is the meat-and-potatoes face of Kucinichism...just with more iron in the diet, har har. (Sorry, fellow Dennis fans: America might be ready for decency in politics, but the major parties aren't.)

Now for the bad.

Clark's war crimes in Serbia (willful bombing of civilians) and rash judgment (he foolishly ordered British paratroopers to thwart a Russian advance--an order wisely refused by the British commander) are not the stuff of valor. They're not even boast-worthy. They're really pretty sad and despicable. Before waving the Clark flag, do some critical reading about him.

This record hurts the Democrats in two ways. First, it gives progressives plenty of reasons to ask once more why the Democratic Party has become so wan and lifeless that it requires a bloody warrior to espouse liberal positions (one answer: America loves violence, and war is the ultimate bona fide in such a culture; but why then further this?). Second, the Clark war record gives plenty of ammunition to opponents who will be able to throw back at him the same charge leveled now against the Bush administration in Iraq: indiscriminate killing masquerading as do-gooding.

However, bearing in mind what Treepig wisely argues in earlier posts to this thread, we are in a right pickle. There stands Bush on one side, and there stand Lieberman and the Junior Liebermen on the other. At this point, unless the race dramatically changes, it's possible that the need to stop Bush-led fascism may require holding one's nose and voting for a man such as Clark. More's the pity.