Clark is ready, willing and able to run again
By Dan L. Bosco, A Wes Clark Democrat
A few points being offered up around the web for why Wes Clark should not run for president in 2008: He can't win because Democrats won't vote for a military guy; he can't win because he has no experience in governing; he can’t win because he’s a genuine liberal Southern general; he can’t win because the election will be about domestic policy; he can’t win because he can’t handle the bumps of a presidential campaign; and, somehow or other, he's going to ruin any chance of becoming Secretary of State.
I wouldn’t use such a positive assertion that "Dems won't vote for a military guy", period. I think it much rather depends on what people (i.e., Democrats) perceive as "a bona fide guy". In fact, I see no electability issue whatsoever for the primaries if the proposition is "a bona fide and competent guy (who happens to have had a career in the military)".
"Southern" combined with "liberal" as a no-no factor is nonsense. Somehow, I recall a Southern guy—if memory serves me well, from the same state as Wes Clark—who didn't do too bad in the primaries, and even had some success the 1992 elections.
As to "genuine liberal", well... I go back to "perception", because whether I like it or not, that is a big part. His "flat" $50,000 federal income tax threshold plan, his pro-union stance, his pro-choice stance, on and on I could go; I don't think it's about anything but perception, in fact. And since we're talking about 2008 and 2004, I believe that the fear factor in the 2004 contest of being painted as "liberal" by many candidates that was present right up to the grand finale ticket of Kerry/Edwards will have dissipated substantially in these next primaries and elections. Besides, I believe that Cheney and Bush will both be much less visible, to not ruin the GOP candidate(s) by association with the ever increasingly clear disaster area that is the Bush administration.
So, I think "liberal" won't be such a red button, either way: not as a defining trait of a Democratic candidate (I think it'll be merely a required qualification, not a discriminating factor) and not as an effective wedge from the GOP, because their chances will very likely depend on the degree of success as coming across as "reasonable" and "moderate"—which in effect will be a step to the left. At least, that's how I see it at this point—while we haven't invaded Iran yet (!)
But most importantly, and unlike his starting situation in the by all means very, very short run in the 2004 campaign, Wes Clark has had ample opportunity to build up his credibility as a "genuine" Democrat over the past years, especially during the midterm elections last year. I've come across quite a lot of people here in Northwest Nevada who have come to reconsider their instinctive but understandable wariness, borne from little exposure, after hearing /reading about and of course, seeing him campaign. I'll be the last to hold up this state as "representative" but I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a battle state, where Democrats trend more toward Blue Dogs than Yellow Dogs.
In conclusion, I think Wes Clark has matured long enough to overcome the scary, hardly-known ex-military guy tag quite effectively.
Harking back to that other guy from Arkansas, who had a lot of political energy and capital invested in the really monumental domestic policy issue of social security and health care, my memory insists that he had to let go, and water ambitions down to finally deliver the much less palatable version we all know or at least remember—until the current White House occupant moved in.
Now, I'll be the first to assert that domestic policy is very important; if only as a litmus test of the candidate's profile in elections. But I think it's just as fair to assert that, out there in the cold reality, domestic policy is extremely sensitive to the whims of the moment, where fickle Congressional maneuvering plays a massive part, where public opinion can move all about the map due to quite unforeseeable circumstances, etc. etc. That leads me to observe that a President's grip on a key domestic policy issue is mostly defined by the quality of his (her) staff, including the VP, rather than the depth of experience or even expertise in that peculiar domestic issue.
As I see it, it's a management issue, and as with many things in life: experts are more prone to screwing up with micromanagement than Big Idea people, more result-oriented and driving toward ultimate success.
And finally, having a rock-solid domestic policy plan doesn't take a genius, frankly. Once more, staff and advisers determine the quality and feasibility of the plan; the credibility is a matter of perception. As long as there's a substantial basis for credibility (again, harking back to the 2004 campaign, I see little lacking in his domestic policy package then) I see no problem, let alone a no-no factor for Wes Clark as a rock solid domestic policy proponent.
Wes Clark is really underestimated in his campaign skills from 2004. I think there's no such problem today. The biggest "panic moment" in his 2004 campaign took place very early on, when he came across as "waffling" on Iraq. That was, without doubt, attributable to his lack of professional campaign experience; I don't think he'll be easily placed in such a tactical bind, again.
But most importantly, I can't recall a "gaffe" that would have precluded him from acceding to a hypothetical Kerry cabinet. I can't recall—not even in the silly "lieutenant moment" (instigated by the ever snarky Bob Dole)—anything that transpired in the 2004 campaign that would have made a cabinet position politically imprudent. So why project fear of the mere possibility of a serious accident as an inhibitor for Clark's ability to serve at the pleasure of the President? I honestly don't see that.
More than looking forward to it, I'll be ready when he announces; I think he should run, precisely because he's so focused on delivering the best policies, the ones this country needs, instead of the most marketable, that he's hands down the best guy for the job.
He should run—especially this time. Because he's ready, willing, and able.
