|
This was not written by me, it was taken off the Clark blog, where someone took it off the Kerry blog. It's great and I hope the author doesn't mind!
Over on the Kerry forum, someone was wondering why there are so many Clark posts. Well one person answered why Clark was so qualified. His rather long discourse is just great reading. I would think that he wouldn't mind it be posted here:
===
WHY CLARK?
First of all, no one here really believes for a second that a few posts on any web forum will actually influence the nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States to pick one potential VP candidate over another, do you? That's crazy talk. One man will make this decision ultimately, with some help from his closest and most trusted advisor's. That's all.
Having said that, now a disclaimer;
My name is Paul Roth. Between October of 2003 and February of 2004 I held dual positions as both Northern New Jersey Regional Coordinator and a member of the Committee for Media/PR in New Jersey for the General Wesley Clark for President campaign. Both positions were unpaid and voluntary in nature (check out when NJ's primary is held!), I never received a dime from the campaign.
Wesley K. Clark is the finest individual and most respectable human being to run for higher office of any kind in my lifetime. Unfortunately, the finest person does not always win elections ( see Bush V McCain 2000 for further evidence on this topic, for that matter, see W Bush V anyone he ever ran against in his life as evidence of this). During my too short stint with the Clark campaign I met the General and his Wife, Gert, several times. In addition, I got to know his closest family advisor, Brother-in-Law Gene Caulfield and his family very well (the Caulfields are from NJ). In all that time and exposure, I never saw any evidence whatsoever that the Gen. Wesley Clark the political media in Washington portrayed even existed, at all!
I feel certain that after the 2000 election, any Democrat will feel very comfortable with the theory that the press, especially the over-cynical Washington press, is capable of misrepresenting a Presidential candidate just a bit, right? Remember Al Gore the pathological liar? Anyone? George W Bush the real down-home, straight-shooter and all-around likable fuzzy kinda' guy? You haven't forgotten those two now have you? With that said, I'd like to break down a few popular media myths about Wes Clark if I may:
#1. Clark was a novice who waffled on just about every issue.
It is true that Wes Clark was a political novice, who, on the first day of his campaign gave an answer to a loaded and hypothetical question about the war which was too detailed and thoughtful for the political press. So, as is their way, they jumped on it as an endorsement of the war, which it was most definitely not. Later in the campaign, they raised questions about things he had written in the British media which praised the military effort in Iraq and said Blair and Bush should be proud. At the time, Wes Clark was a private citizen, a former four-star Army General with no political ambition whatsoever, who was very proud of our military, which he had helped to shape into what it is today. As a patriot first, he would never have written anything critical of our armed forces or even their commander-in-chief for a publication in a foreign country.
Ditto on the question of saying supportive things of the Bush administration in 2001, he had no political ambition at the time and expected better of the people in this administration, even though he didn't vote for it (more later on this). If you have any questions about his overall opinion of the war, I refer you to his book "Winning Modern Wars". In it, he makes very clear that while military strategy for the offensive push to Baghdad was excellent (conceived years before Bush 2 ever even took office, by the way). Not enough was done to prevent a war from the beginning and not enough consideration was given to what would happen after the offensive phase ended. After this read, you will understand his comment that "I know more about National Security than George Bush could ever learn in his lifetime."
#2. Clark, being a former General, has a huge and unwieldy ego.
This one is so far off base I'd laugh if it didn't make me want to cry. In fact, I have never, ever met a more humble individual running for any office in my life. Throughout his military career he was known for speaking his mind candidly but also for including other's opinions and for making anyone of any rank or background feel important rather than dominating them. He led, first and foremost, by example. This was no George C. Scott playing Patton.
This was a very different kind of General (which will be the title of an upcoming biography of Wes Clark). A General who looked after the housing, well being and health care of his troops. Questioned the Pentagon when he felt his officer corps lacked diversity and as NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe along with his wife made certain that school curriculum for military children were updated and sufficient. Furthermore, a General who took on the Pentagon, which resisted military action in Kosovo, to promote the short but successful campaign which brought down war criminal Slobodon Milosevic and saved over a million ethnic Albanians from slaughter.
In December of '03, a few Clark campaign workers walked into a pizzeria in Manhattan, not realizing that the restaurant was owned by former Kosovar Albanians. The reception they received was nothing short of breathtaking. The owners saw their campaign buttons and signs and immediately served them, refused any payment and told them with tears in their eyes that, "This man saved our people, when no one else would help, he was there."
Throughout his career, like Sen. Kerry, there are ample testimonies to his selflessness and bravery. As a four-star General in Europe, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he was in a convoy traveling along a dangerous mountain road when one of the trucks in front flipped over and careened down the mountainside. The first soldier in the convoy scaling down that hillside to try and rescue any survivors was none other than the convoy's ranking member, it's reason for existing, General Wesley Clark. This is indeed, a "Different kind of General".
#3. Clark is really a Republican.
Thanks for this one, Gov. Dean. Easy to see why Clarkies and Deanies don't get along so well! This was hardly the only time in the campaign that the good doctor opened his trap when he probably should have kept it shut. However, for us, it was one of the more obnoxious examples. Wesley Clark was, in fact, very up front about his political history from the beginning. Voting for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. as a career US Army officer during the cold war when these candidates clearly touted Nat'l. Security as their major focus seems fairly logical. As does returning to conscience after the cold war with votes for Clinton and Gore.
As a former Army officer, he did not have to reveal these votes but he was honest anyway. His father was an attorney for the Democratic Party in Illinois. His social leanings were always with the Democrats. Proof of this can be clearly seen in his career (see the above paragraphs). Once retired from military life, he returned to his home state of Arkansas, where something like 97% of voters are not affiliated with either party because it is not required to vote in a primary. Therefore, when asked, by us (more on this later), to run for President as a Democrat, he needed to register that way in order to do so. All this makes him nothing more than exactly the kind of "Reagan Democrat" that we need to continue bringing back to the fold if we want to beat Bush and take back the Congress. If you actually listened to him once during the campaign, there would be no question as to his politics.
#4. The Clinton's wanted him to run in order to help further Hillary's career.
One of the more bizarre ones to emerge from the Republican spin machine. A clear signal of how much they feared his candidacy. Theory was, that Clark would lose to Bush, thus clearing the path for Hillary to run in 2008. Where to start picking this one apart? Hmm. How about here, what did Bill Clinton or Hillary have to do with the "Draft Clark" movement which actually got Clark to run, nothing. And if Bill and Hillary really hate each other as much as the Neocons say, then why would Bill support a candidate who would help Hillary, who's really a lesbian who killed Vince Foster and after all Bill is such a sexist womanizer why would he ever want to return, as a former President, to the White House as the first ever "First Man" or "First Husband" or whatever they would call him anyway? My head's starting to hurt so I'm going to stop trying to figure this out now.
#5. What makes a General believe he would be a good President?
Answer: WE DID!!!!!
One of the most frustrating elements of this campaign was that, after talking about the Draft Clark movement quite a lot before Clark announced he was running, the political media had what seemed to be the most sudden attack of Amnesia in history after he announced his candidacy, when they NEVER ONCE MENTIONED IT AGAIN! I defy anyone to find me an example that proves this wrong. It's not as though it was an important angle to the story, after all it was only a little over two-hundred years ago the last time this took place. What was that guy's name again....oh, yeah, WASHINGTON!
You see, a real grassroots movement took hold on the Internet after two brothers living in separate states started a web forum about this former General who was consulting on CNN during the Iraq war and what a great President he would make. The more folks researched him, the more they liked the idea and came to realize how outstandingly qualified he would be. Suddenly it wasn't such a crazy idea anymore! The media got wind of this and started talking a little about it and now folks from all over America were coming on board and agreeing this was the kind of President we'd always wished for, hoped for. Then Bill Clinton described him as a "rising star" and it was off to the races in terms of grassroots support.
But Clark himself, owing to his humility, stayed quiet on the subject. He consulted with family, friends and politicians as to what this would mean to his life and that of his family. Inevitably, he accepted the challenge to serve his country again, in the most ultimate fashion. As of Sept. 17th, 2003 he was a candidate for President of the United States. At this precise moment, the entire political media completely forgot the preceding six months. At many points, they actually asked him why he had "entered the race so late"?
I'll save the post-mortem on the campaign for another time and forum. Suffice to say that the media's poor treatment of the Clark campaign didn't help any. Did anyone ever think of pressing Gen. Hugh Shelton when he made his "character and integrity" statement? Did anyone ask what might have motivated a fellow General, with a personal axe to grind going back to the kosovo war, to make such a damning and irresponsible comment without offering any detail as to why he felt that way? No, instead the media relentlessly dumped the question back in Clark's lap as though he should offer the explanation. In doing so honestly, he would have made Gen. Shelton and others look very bad publicly. So instead, he humbly suggested that they ask Shelton for the details, they never did.
As for the question of Clark as VP nominee, well, as a biased individual, I think he would be an excellent choice. Especially when you consider the most important criteria; Is the VP qualified to take over the nation if, god forbid, something happens to the President. None of the other candidates for this role hold a candle to him in this capacity. Again, ultimately this choice is not ours and it should not be. It belongs to John Kerry and he has to live or die with the choice he makes.
In closing, I'll make one more important point. Most of Sen. Kerry's support, the vast majority in fact, has been mobilized in the last six weeks. Prior to that, it did not exist. It is predicated almost solely on the recent notion that he can beat Bush. This is in stark contrast to Gen. Clark's support. Which, though now smaller than Kerry's, was based from the beginning on Wesley Clark himself and what kind of individual he was. The fact that we believed he could beat Bush was simply an added bonus. If the Kerry campaign would like to capture some of the politically untraditional intensity seen in the Dean and Clark campaigns. Intensity which led Wes Clark's campaign, after entering in September, a full year after most others, to raise more money than any other candidate from October 1, 2003 thru the end of January 2004. Then Clark makes an excellent choice. You would all be quite shocked at the immediate injection of energy and enthusiasm this choice would bring back to the campaign. I can think of tens of thousands of reasons! Thanks for putting up with my long-windedness.
Pro-America
Anti-Bush
Kerry's Wes Wing
===
Just amazing stuff!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
