1/9/04
<snip>
Attitude, however, is not the only thing that energizes voters. For one thing, I think there's a difference between anger and frustration. And frustration, I believe, is what a majority of Americans feel towards the current Republican leadership. Howard Dean is angry. I don't blame him or think he's wrong for being angry. But when I hear Wesley Clark raise his voice in debates and interviews and campaign appearances, I hear someone who is frustrated. I hear someone who's just had it with the blundering leadership in the White House. This frustration which Clark so effectively vocalizes has a greater chance of attracting voters from all ends of the political spectrum in November than Dean's anger or Bush's cockiness.
<snip>
Once Clark was drafted, there was an odd period--during which Clark lost a lot of ground in national polls--when exactly what Clark stood for was not perfectly clear. What we knew was limited, but telling. Clark opposed the handling of the Iraq war as well as the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. He had filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's admissions policy which many, including the White House, claimed was an illegal quota system and not a legitimate affirmative action program. We also knew that he was a major agitator in the American military establishment to halt genocide in the former Yugoslavia during the last decade. While Clark was not registered as a Democrat, he declared on HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher' that he was proud to be a liberal. And that was about it.
Despite the initial stumblings, Clark was quick to formulate and release a number of policy proposals based on a platform he called 'New American Patriotism.' Some of his more cynical critics charged that the phrase was trite and lacked real meaning. To me, the same might be said of 'The New Deal,' 'The New Frontier,' or 'The Great Society.' All are rallying cries, meant to bring together Americans with the idealistic goal of fundamentally transforming our society for the better. Clark's proposals have included universal preschool, the strengthening of environmental laws, deficit reduction, taking steps towards universal health care, and most recently, simplification of the tax code accompanied by tax cuts for working families and small hikes for the wealthy. None of the proposals are very radical, but that's exactly why they should succeed--they are not pie in the sky. To the average voter, all of the Democratic candidates' policy proposals are going to sound the same. So then it's a matter of who can make the case for progressive governance to the American people most effectively. I believe that it's Wesley Clark.
Wesley Clark has proven his abilities as a leader. On top of his proven strengths in foreign and defense policy, he has put forth some truly innovative progressive policy proposals. In making the case for his candidacy, Clark has exhibited a good balance of forward-looking optimism and righteous frustration with the status quo. When all of the factors are considered, Clark would not only make a strong challenger to take on George W. Bush in November, but he would also make a fine national leader during a time of great uncertainty that teeters on the brink of crisis.
http://tinyurl.com/2a8h3
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(488 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
