|
I was asked by another poster to post this statement to this thread, and I am honoring that request:
Wesley Clark said it best when he commented that Democrats aren't used to having Generals in our Party. Just as true it seems, Generals aren't used to being Democrats. Everyone knows by now that Clark was rather late arriving at our Party. Most V.I.P.'s show up earlier, except, sometimes, for the Guest of Honor. What has Wesley Clark ever done to earn that type of distinction?
It is a good and fair question. Too often though it's posed as a Trick Question: "What has Clark done for the Democratic Party to earn the distinction of being our Presidential nominee?" What's the trick? It's simple really. All political parties exist (or so it is claimed) to advance the greater interests of the American People, not the other way around. The election of November 2004 isn't about selecting the next Chairperson for the National Democratic Party, it is about choosing the next President of the United States, the one who will be sworn to uphold all of our interests.
Talk all you want about third party movements and Independent candidacy's; for a century or more, the successful path to the Presidency has run directly through one of two dominant parties. Democrats tend to criticize some of our leftist friends for diluting our forces, either by running as, or supporting, a Green Party Presidential candidate. Yet some now imply that Clark, a man who chose a non partisan career of service and Independent affiliations, should perhaps be running as an Independent candidate, rather than compete with longer tenured Democrats seeking our nomination, or simply not run at all. That line of thinking fails to directly address the fundamental questions. Who should Democrats be supporting to become our next President, and why? Who is best suited to serve and protect the American public? Who can most likely succeed in the quest to unseat Bush the Pretender? Not succeeding at the latter is almost too depressing to contemplate, but contemplate it we should.
Obviously Democrats hold core beliefs on the values our society must embrace, and the direction our nation should take. Without those a political party is just an expedient shell. Someone seeking our Party's support must uphold those beliefs, so what about General Clark? I think anyone capable of reading or listening knows by now that he does, in spades. Personally I agree with Michael Moore, Clark is surprisingly progressive on almost all issues. Democrats never agree on everything, but if Clark is who he says he is, the overwhelming majority of Democrats, not to mention Independents and moderate Republicans, will celebrate a Clark victory over Bush.
That's the rub for many, isn't it? Should we believe what Clark says and writes now, just what is really behind his good words? There are certainly those who reject Clark for some deeply held principles, or deeply rooted suspicions, and your decision for now is simple; back another candidate. But I'm addressing the rest of us here. Clark has proven his courage and literal selflessness on a field of real battle. That can't be faked. He stood up to the military establishment in the Pentagon, and fought hard and successfully in favor of humanitarian military missions, at the ultimate expense of his own career. That is public record. Clark comes from humble roots and is a self made man who lived for decades on middle income wages in the U.S. Army though fortunes were frequently offered him as an incentive to leave. I know enough people who I trust, who know and trust Clark's abilities, his motivation, and his sincerity, for me to trust Clark also. I've met him. I believe him.
But it's too much of a gamble to select Clark some say, why make it? Gambling is a better metaphor than it might initially appear. Why would anyone not bet on a relative sure thing over something, or someone, less proven? Easy, it's for the greater pay off when you ultimately win. In Clark's case, for me, the question isn't whether is Clark more or less likely to beat Bush. I think the public at large has a much easier time respecting and accepting Clark than do core Democratic voters being asked to chose between a number of attractive choices. Many of Clark's perceived weaknesses in the Primaries turn to advantages in the General Election. One quick example; men embrace Clark more quickly than most women, maybe it's that military thing. Running against Bush rather than another Democrat, Clark will do fine with women, a traditional Democratic area of strength, AND Clark will deeply encroach on Bush's hold over most white males. The arguments have all been frequently made, so I will simply state here that I believe Clark is the man best able to defeat Bush in the Fall.
For me Clark's huge upside is AFTER he gets in office. I think he will make a truly great President. I think Clark possesses greater personal skills than any President since FDR. Equally impressive, Clark is a great communicater. He knows how to speak to Democrats, that's obvious from his campaign, but he resonates with almost all Americans. Here is a man with George McGovern and Michael Moore endorsements who most Americans don't view as "one of those liberals". Clark is a Trojan Horse alright, our Trojan Horse. He can carry our message past the media and propagandist walls designed and built to keep Progressive speech out. Clark steals Republican Thunder to deliver Democratic Lightning. He will transform the political landscape in a way none of our other candidates could. He will restore the Democratic Party to majority status. And what is the downside to this gamble? We may end up with another Clinton. That is a risk I am prepared to take.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
