Don't expect knocks on other Democratic contenders here. Don't expect knocks on the last job performance of other Democratic contenders here, either. And don't expect knocks on the lifetime accomplishments of other candidates.
The truth is, this year's run-up to the nomination is packed with quality. And the way I see it, the nominee shouldn't just be the last man standing, but the one candidate who unequivocally stands out among the very best. Brimming with the necessary qualities and leadership experience, and most of all, equipped with tried and tested values and principles to take on the toughest job on Earth: President of the United States of America. That is why, instead of looking down in search of disqualifiers to weed out current contenders to beat Bush, I look up and see Wes Clark as exactly the right man for the job. Because I believe he's the best of the pack, for exactly that job. In making decisions that often entail life and death, a President doesn't engage in public debate. A President has an impressive staff to back him up, and is put constantly under huge pressures from multiple interested parties, attempting to sway his opinion one way or another. What qualifies someone as a President, in my opinion, is an unambiguously positive answer to this question:
can I place my absolute trust in this man that he'll be able to withstand pressures, ranging from the Pentagon to the Press, and make the right decisions in the interest of the People? In the case of Wesley Clark, I do - without hesitation.
Politics in Congress is a murky business. Being able to steer principles and objectives enacted in Law through the shark pool that is "politics as usual" on the Hill takes extraordinarily dedicated and talented men and women, whether serving their constituents in the House or the Senate. But I think it's fair to point out that the dynamics involved in the Presidency are quite different from those that define a successful Congressman or woman - not because they're of a "lesser" nature or calibre, but because they're essentially different. Comparisons based on that criterium are as arbitrary as choices between apples and oranges, when the choice before us is of a much more fundamental nature:
who is the very best prepared and qualified person to sit in the Oval Office and lead this country back into the future? No one other than Wes Clark gives me that highest degree of trust and security in his informed, balanced and principled decision making at the very highest level in this entire world. The job of President is just that important.
Comparing the candidates among themselves, several of the current Democratic contenders have faced personal, fundamental and real choices of life and death: Howard Dean can probably claim to have saved most lives through his direct, personal intervention, as a Doctor. Several of the current Democratic candidates have faced deeply uprooting situations of personal adversity: Dennis Kucinich can probably claim to have overcome the largest professional setback, swinging back from a crushing majoral defeat to become a highly succesful and much admired Congressman today. Several of the current Democratic choices have personally gone through economic hard times, to experience great wealth later: John Kerry can probably claim to have lived the most dazzling rags-to-riches experience. And several of the present-day Democratic candidates have personally contributed to improving the well-being of fellow citizen: as a trial lawyer, John Edwards can reasonably claim to have delivered the most empowering legal victory to benefit a single citizen.
With all due regard and profound respect for these accomplishments and experiences: if these were deal-breaking criteria for settling on a candidate for President, I would submit that Wes Clark is, at least, a highly competitive option. As much as he regrets not having been succesful in convincing the White House to stop the genocide in Rwanda that massacred some 800,000 human beings, he can at least take comfort in protecting the lives of 1.5 million Albanian Kosovars. In spite of that success, or more likely precisely because of it, Wes Clark was kicked into early retirement, with an aggravating smear concerning his "character and integrity." For a professional officer, that is a profoundly injuring insult - yet his dedication to the service of his country remains unassailable, as attested by his answering the call of the Draft movement, soldiering on for the People that he loves so much more than a well-earned opportunity to enjoy a comfortable retirement, after an amazing progress from very humble beginnings. And finally, Wes Clark has made a substantial contribution wherever he could, to provide empowerment and an equal opportunity to those who served with him, challenging and fighting the insidious powers that keep the underprivileged locked in their socio economic cell.
But still, I believe these arguments aren't truly decisive. Not even the curious circumstance that Wes Clark is a historically unique candidate for the Presidency: unlike
any other candidate in these General Elections, he can claim to run for the first time for elected office
as an experienced head of state. It's an anecdotal fact, therefore it doesn't carry a decisive weight, but it's still true: when he was Supreme Allied Commander of Europe at NATO, he enjoyed the diplomatic status of a head of state. That's not merely an honorary and diplomatic courtesy towards a military commander of the world's current sole superpower, it is a necessary prerequisite to ensure that when it really counts, such as in the face of an armed conflict, he can negotiate on equal footing among allies and with foes, as he successfully did during the War in Kosovo. It bears reminding that
eighteen allies put their armed forces where their formal support was; the sheer political survival of many European governments -- some with conflicting interests towards former Yugoslavia -- necessarily
relied on Wes Clark's ability to successfully conclude that war. It is a pity that this critical aspect of Wes Clark's career hasn't received much scrutiny, beyond superficial mention, because there is
enormous relevance in considering the experience of forging, maintaining and leading an alliance in a war, into victory, when considering his candidacy. Not necessarily because he has ample experience in devising and executing a war plan, but because he is experienced in preparing, negotiating and enforcing a
peace plan.Aside from Wes Clark's impressive foreign policy and national security credentials, I can wholeheartedly embrace his current
policy proposals. But frankly, with probably the sole exception of Dennis Kucinich, I don't see more than a marginal advantage here, and a relative minus there. I make a distinction with Dennis Kucinich: whether in foreign policy (Iraq) or social security, he
does present a more "radical" or, in more neutral terms, a more groundbreaking electoral proposition. The overall differences in the policy proposals of the other current contenders -- including Wes Clark -- are not that great, in that one or another of them presents an overall far greater attraction; it's a matter of individual relevance or importance. In my opinion, an exercise of matching the current candidates on
this site shows these overall great similarities. If you accept that premise, it leads to a choice, essentially between a metaphorical jump and a bridge. The "jump" would be represented by Dennis Kucinich's policy proposition, whereas the other contenders can be grouped into an alternative that crosses a "bridge" from the current policies to where we want to go. Again, I don't see merit in arguing objectively in favor of either approach; I can only state my subjective preference for the relative moderation of the "bridge" project.
All this leads me to the following, final consideration. Looking at Wes Clark, I see a candidate with executive leadership experience that closely matches the type of decisions that a President must make; I recognize myself in his libertarian approach of judicial wedge issues (e.g. abortion, faith-based education) and can wholeheartedly endorse his politically progressive propositions, carried by his wise moderation and firm determination. But more than anything else, I see a very decent human being, in whose judgement based on his values and principles I trust, who is exceptionally fit to become our next President.
That is why I firmly believe that Wes Clark should receive the formal nomination as the Democratic candidate.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
