Clark and Webb have much in common--the military theme is obvious--as they both spoke truth to power long before the Iraq war started. Senator-elect Webb in the WaPo article and Gen. Clark in his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in 2002.
The Donkey In The Room: Wes Clark 2008
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on November 19, 2006
Tradition says an elephant in the room doesnGt get talked about, but traditionGs just another word for conventional wisdom, and CW until a few months ago said the U.S. Senate would stay under Republican control and George Allen was running for President. The elephant in the room can wait, letGs focus on an underreported donkey; General Wesley Clark.
Read on.
Political pundits seem determined to talk right past Clark until he rears up and kicks them in the teeth. The beltway crowd is more tightly scripted than a corporate radio play list: GǣWeGre about to play some back to back Spice Girl Hillary hits, but first hereGs an Oldie but Goodie from Joe Biden, and donGt dare touch that dial , weGll have some of that hot new Obama sound coming up for you shortly also!Gǥ Poor John Edwards isnGt the freshest face on the block anymore.
That beltway only recognizes early momentum when they manufacture it themselves, so it shouldnGt surprise anyone that they fail to recognize Wes Clark; after all they didnGt GǣmanufactureGǥ him. ClarkGs sheer talent and ability always wins him some friends in high places, but the tail wind pushing Clark on essentially comes from the roots. At least that was true for most of two years since the 2004 Presidential Elections, but that now is changing, and that too is underreported. Wes Clark scrambles media signals. They canGt really get a handle on General Clark because he doesnGt fit neatly into the holes they already have pegged for Democratic Presidential candidates. ItGs amusing to watch them fumble pegging Clark when they do try; until I remember that Gǣtalking headsGǥ still speak for real power in America. Then it stops being funny.
ThereGs a lot to be said about the fallacy of political pundits and conventional wisdom about Wes Clark, too much in fact. So IGll narrow my focus to an almost startling disconnect that the pundits themselves make in those rare instances when they find themselves compelled to comment on ClarkGs possible presidential candidacy. They just canGt make up their minds where Wes ClarkGs strongest support comes from. They are down right schizophrenic about it. Actually itGs worse than that even, because they are also in denial about their illness. The blocks Clark draws support from are not that hard to assemble into a complete picture. ItGs not like one of those marathon jig saw puzzles that take over the dining room table while you try to sort it out. Basically, Wes Clark appeals to liberal Americans, Wes Clark appeals to moderate Americans, and Wes Clark appeals to conservative Americans. That about covers it, and the thing is, the pundits already know it. They know all of it, but somehow they just canGt hold those pieces of information together in their heads, not all at the same time.
I believe the last time Chris Cillizza from the Washington PostGs GǣThe FixGǥ column actually mentioned Wes Clark as a Presidential contender was way back in December 2005, when he wrote: GǣClark replaces Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold as the wildcard in the field, thanks to the fervor and energy for him among some in the party's liberal base, particularly Internet activistsGǥ Chris also said this then about Clark GǣOn paper, Clark's resume is unmatched if defense and foreign policy issues are still dominating the national landscape in three years time. Gǣ That is increasingly looking like a safe bet Chris.
More recently, on October 12th, Chuck Todd in the National Journal wrote a few words about Wes ClarkGs potential 2008 chances: GǣHe's tried to become the surrogate/endorser/fundraiser-in-chief for military vet candidates. We're not sure it's worked.Gǥ Well I beg to differ with Chuck, but with hindsight now available after the mid term elections, he may differ also. Todd wrote that before General ClarkGs featured role in GǣBecause of IraqGǥ, VoteVets powerful national 2006 campaign ad. And of course Wes Clark was the first National Democrat to strongly back Jim Webb in Virginia, back when Webb was considered a long shot to even win the Democratic Primary. Plus Clark worked hard for Democratic Vets Joe Sestak, and Patrick Murphy, and Chris Carney in Pennsylvania, who all took seats away from Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives. Even when Democratic Vets supported by Clark lost, like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, or Eric Massa in Western New York, the races were tight, and the Democratic Party came out of them all stronger than they have been in years.
So I want to get back to that Gǣstartling disconnectGǥ I mention above. DonGt any of these pundits wonder what is right (as opposed to wrong) with this picture? The same beltway pundits who are so eager to consign the netroots to a separate, but unequal, political basement waiting room, for being too leftist for the mainstream Democratic Party, are well aware of Wes ClarkGs support from that activist constituency. They are also well aware of Wes ClarkGs support for and from AmericaGs military Veterans, a constituency typically thought to be significantly more conservative and less Democratic as a group than most. These pundits watched Wes Clark welcomed by Ned LamontGs campaign for the United States Senate on one day, and welcomed by Harold FordGs campaign for the United States Senate on the next day, but none of them can add two plus two together?
Meanwhile tired conventional wisdom continues to be spun. Anna Quindlen, in the October 30th issue of Newsweek, makes the case for Hillary Clinton in 2008 while conceding: Gǣthe biggest problem Senator Clinton may have is with the liberal wing of the Democratic PartyGǥ. According to Quindlen, thatGs because, among other idealistic liberal litmus tests for winning their support, Hillary flunks on Iraq. When describing what Democratic Liberals yearn for in 2008 Quindlen has this to say: GǣRight now that means a candidate who did not vote for the Iraq war.Gǥ
http://www.msnbc.msn...
I can think of a Democratic General who not only didnGt vote for the Iraq war, he warned Congress against it before Congress ever voted. That could be one of the reasons why Wesley Clark consistently wins far greater respect and support at universally regarded as liberal Democratic activist sites like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground than does Hillary Clinton. While on one hand Quindlen frets about Hillary ClintonGs tepid support from liberals, she argues for her electability by pointing out: GǣShe only has to take the states that John Kerry took, and then one moreGǥ. Funny, werenGt they saying the same thing about John Kerry in 2004? He only has to take the same states that Al Gore took, and then one more? Rounding down, thatGs closer to a 15 state strategy than a 50 state strategy (Kerry actually took 19 Sates and the District of Columbia) and to my mind itGs a tacit acknowledgment that Hillary ClintonGs hoped for path to victory is to hold onto her own base, despite tepid support from liberal activists, while trying to pick off a couple of the Republican States that Democrats have failed to win in over a decade. That strategy of course opens the door for Republicans, under McCain, to take almost all of their own States for granted while they sail off to go raiding in bluer waters.
Maybe Hillary can pull it off, maybe, if you like to gamble, but I donGt like the odds. Call me odd I know, but somehow the idea of running a candidate who didnGt vote for the Iraq War, who motivates a strong element of the Democratic activist base, and who appeals to veterans and military voters, has a certain compelling logic to it. John Kerry defined himself as a Vietnam Veteran, some are likely to say, and look where it got him. True, but John Kerry was defined by his opponent as an elite, rich, liberal Massachusetts former war protester, which kind of watered down KerryGs appeal to that relevant constituency in conservative states. Consider these comments from the November 11th Arkansas Times:
GǣNow that the 2006 elections are over, Gen. Wesley Clark is turning his attention toward deciding to run for president. Sources tell the Arkansas Times that Clark has said he will make his decision within the next two months.
ClarkGs spokesman, Erick Mullen, said, GǣThatGs true, but we donGt have a timeline for when a decision will be made just yet.Gǥ
Mullen added, GǣAll options are on the table. Gen. Clark was the [Democratic Congressional Campaign CommitteeGs] number-one requested surrogate, especially in red states and swing states during this cycle.Gǥ
http://www.arktimes....
One might think that political pundits would at least be interested in talking about the prospects of a potential Democratic Presidential Candidate who opposed the War in Iraq AND has strong National Security credentials; who has substantial liberal activist support AND is requested by Democrats to campaign in the most conservative districts in the nation. One would think so, but first you have to find such a Presidential candidate, which is pretty damn hard to do if you refuse to look at the Donkey in the room.
Wesley Clark for President 2008.
This diary can also be found on Democratic Underground at http://tinyurl.com/y...
The ASC testimony (really good to see him smack down Perle) can be seen/read here: Clark HASC testimony Sept. 2002 http://tinyurl.com/o...
1. Money.
2. Money.
3. Money.
4. Money.
Viable candidates are either self-financing--as Kerry was to a large degree in 2004; or they have locked down recognized mega-fundraisers who will ensure viability during the primary.
If Wes Clark had $20 million on hand right now, he would be getting more serious attention. If you solve the fundraising issue, you solve the coverage issue.
I read the above diary, and also understand the writer's frustration. We certainly had a hell of a time getting media exposure for Jim Webb during the primary and throughout the summer months.
The shift in focus though came because George Allen started making a buffoon out of himself (a news worthy event--incumbents don't usually heckle constituents and then wait a week to apologize); then the polls started closing (which was another story unto itself); and then the challenger started outraising the incumbent (another news worthy event); and the polls started closing even further (another news worth event), and so on and so forth.
News outlets love novelty; and they would undoubtedly love to report a story about a candidate who raises $50 from 1,000,000 individual donors. That would be a newsworthy event. The fact that Wes Clark has an attractive resume, some very dedicated followers, and might in theory make a very good president isn't enough.
This quote too would be an interesting one to follow-up on in a press release from the campaign:
“Gen. Clark was the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s] number-one requested surrogate, especially in red states and swing states during this cycle.”
The big issue though centers around Clark's fundraising numbers.
1. In reference to the first question, this has a whole lot to do with money, money, money. Most news outlets don't take up charity cases. A candidate has to be able to get his message out on his own and demonstrate political viability before most of the mainstream press will pick up on the story.
2. "Worthiness". I consider Wes a very good candidate and think he would make a very good, if not great president. This is a separate question from "Why isn't Wes Clark receiving more love from the MSM"?
As far as this relates to Jim Webb, I agree with you Gordie that the "Money" factor wasn't a consideration for me. I just figured here's a great candidate running at an important time in our history, running against a field of not-so-appealing candidates. What can I do to give Webb a fighting chance?
I don't feel that same urgency with Clark, in part, because in 2008 it appears that there will be other appealing alternatives.