Clark 2004: It depends on how one measures success
by Catherine McClendon, A Wes Clark Democrat
Margaret Edds has an interesting article on the Virginian-Pilot website, which clearly conveys the two candidates' strength and weaknesses in the upcoming senatorial Democratic primary race in Virginia.
The only sentence that I must correct is one in which she uses Wes Clark as an inaccurate, untimely example. She wrote: "From Adm. James Stockdale to Gen. Wesley Clark, American politics is rife with examples of strong military men who never successfully made the transition to political candidate."
To cite General Clark as one who has never been successful as a candidate in politics is an overstatement. Wes Clark came into the Democratic 2004 primary race one year (if not more) later than the other candidates running. He raised the most money in the crucial month of January. He shifted the debate to one on Foreign Policy experience during the primaries, which quickly highlighted the hole that Howard Dean had in his resume. Had it not been for Wes Clark's decision not to contest Iowa, it is very possible that the primary race would have turned out differently, but at least with the focus redirected toward Foreign Policy experience, Kerry came out of Iowa the victor.
Keep in mind that Wes Clark, without any "free" coming-out-of-Iowa publicity, still managed to come in 3rd in New Hampshire (ahead of 2nd place Iowa winner Edwards), placed 2nd in Arizona, North Dakota, and New Mexico; and won Oklahoma. In fact, he was the only candidate apart from John Kerry to actually win a state that was not his own (so to that degree, he was more successful than the experienced politicians in the race).
By the time Tennessee and Virginia came around, the newspapers were solely mentioning John Kerry and John Edwards, apart from a speeding ticket story on Clark's caravan. By the time he wisely threw in the towel to endorse John Kerry, Clark was still polling 2nd in Wisconsin.
During the general election, Gen. Clark was one of John Kerry's most utililized surrogates (he actually stood up for Kerry more forcefully than John Edwards ever did), and has been the Foreign policy insider for the Democrats ever since.
He's given three of the Democratic Radio addresses in the last year, was the point man when the Congressional Democrats announced their Security Agenda (though some may not have heard it as President Bush made sure to hog up the airtime with his same o'l same ol' stay the course announcement), leads a group of strong Fightin' Dems Vet candidates (many whom he had a direct hand in recruiting), has been the voice on advocating the US taking action in Darfur since 2004, and helps Fox News viewers get a perspective on the true realities of our Foreign Policies. Wes Clark is traveling all over this country, as we speak, standing by Democratic candidates (Including Jim Webb, as he did Tim Kaine, the new Democratic Governor of Virginia) and helping them raise their stature and money.
So I submit that calling him "unsuccessful" is a myopic view of what politics is truly all about, unless we are to hold all candidates with military background to the standard of General Eisenhower. General Clark put it this way a while back: "Having your ideas adopted is winning". And so it should be, as long as one's involvement in politics is for the right bottom-line: To make a difference.
Please don't rule out General Wesley Clark in 2008. He did not win his first ever contest as a candidate, but then again, it depends on how one measures success, doesn't it?
