Debating Wesley Clark: The New Republic (an online debate)

[VolcanoJen]

Wanna take a break from the candidate-bashing around DU? Here's a link to some rather intelligent and thoughful debate about Wesley Clark vs. the current field of democrats, from The New Republic. The debate has Franklin Foer taking Clark, with Noam Scheiber taking the current field (with heavy emphasis on Dean).

It's good stuff for us political junkies to chew over, no matter which side you're leaning toward.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=debate&s=foerscheiber090203

Excertps:

Franklin Foer: The political case for nominating Clark is inseparable from the biographical case. While Howard Dean skipped the war with a doctor's note, skiing away in Aspen, Clark went to Vietnam, where he was wounded four times and received a Silver Star. Where Bush partied his way through college, Clark finished top of his class at West Point, won a Rhodes, and took a White House fellowship. And unlike Clinton, his fellow Arkansan meritocrat, he had the discipline to thrive within a large organization. By all accounts, he ascended in the military because of visionary qualities. He was one of the first officers to talk about the complexities of modern military life. Where his colleagues were still worrying over the implications of shined boots and cleaned barracks on morale, Clark brought issues like low pay, teenage suicide, and spousal abuse to the fore. In the '80s, he pushed for the Army to use new management techniques that injected a measure of introspection, decentralization, and accountability into the command structure. As a strategist, he understood before almost anyone the limits of air campaigns and the importance of boots on the ground. (In Kosovo, he always argued for ground troops and felt hamstrung by the limited target lists the pentagon approved.)

But there are political reasons for a Clark candidacy that have nothing to do with biography. Because of his calm, competent demeanor and Arkansas accent, he sounds like a maverick even when he defends middle-of-the road Democratic positions on guns, affirmative action, and abortion. When he talks about policy, you get the feeling that he hashed out his positions in bull sessions with his fellow soldiers--not the type inclined to Teddy Kennedy politics. His statements sound nothing like party talking points to mobilize the base, just common sense intended more to persuade a skeptical audience.

Noam Scheiber: And, of course, as long as each of these campaigns can convince themselves they're destined for the role of "anti-Dean" in the forthcoming Dean/anti-Dean smackdown--which, according to the Post, all of them are more than capable of doing--none of them has any incentive to drop out of the race. Even worse for Clark, none of their aides, high-powered supporters, and, most importantly, high-rolling contributors have any incentive to defect to a potential Clark campaign. Needless to say, this dynamic is devastating for someone who needs the party to quickly coalesce around him if he's to have any shot of winning the nomination.

<snip>

In fact, you don't even have to buy this analysis in its entirety for the Clark case to come unraveled. All you have to concede is that none of the five top contenders has an incentive to get out of the race immediately after Clark gets in. If the majority of them don't, then Clark lacks the oxygen he needs to fuel his campaign fire.

And that's just the mechanics of the situation. The deeper problem may be Clark's shortcomings as a candidate. All the interest in Clark strikes me as the product of an almost childish desire to be rescued from an admittedly tough situation. (Have I mentioned this in those early morning--alright, mid-morning--office conversations?) Childish because it involves a heavy dose of hero worship, which has the unfortunate effect of romanticizing the object of said worship.

ON EDIT: Edited Scheiber excerpt to better reflect the overall gist of his position.

[Kahuna]

1. Great debate! Franklin is kicking ass, IMHO..

Poor norm has to result to GOP talking points about Clark's MTP assertion about 9/11. Anyone who reads the transcript can see that Clark was answering two different questions.

If you notice when Clark is being "grilled" he will answer all questions. No matter how many you pose is succession. That's what he did on MTP and Hannity. They asked him a series of questions. Clark being the briliant man that he is, answered every single question in succession. Because most people aren't able to remember and answer a succession of questions, people reacted as if he was answering one question. However, if you read the MTP transcript, you can see that Tim asked Clark a few questions without giving him an opportunity to answer each question as it was being asked. When Clark responded, he responed in the order of the questions asked. It was the leading up to 9/11 question that he said people in the WH were trying to connect Saddam to 9/11. He never said the WH called him on 9/11. He said someone called him on 9/11 (not the WH) and asked him to connect SH to 9/11.

Now this clown Norm is just repeating the falsehoods that he heard without checking the sources out for himself.

[Julien Sorel]

2. Awesome find!

Thanks.

[VolcanoJen]

3. I do feel that Scheiber makes some good points, too, though...

When Scheiber states that the toughest thing about Clark winning the presidency will involve getting out of the Democratic primaries alive, I think he makes an excellent point, and it's the one sticking point that concerns me the most.

[Kahuna]

4. He seems to be conceding that Clark may be a better

candidate in the general election if he can make it past the primaries.....Duuuuh? What the hell is wrong with Democrats????????
This is supposed to be about beating bush, not each other. Yet we act as if this is a beauty contest, with little regard to winning in Nov. 04 2004. That's pathetic. And we talk about repukes as if we are so intellectually superior. :eyes:

[VolcanoJen]

5. But aren't you concerned about the difficulties Clark will face...

... in the primaries?

I'm absolutely leaning toward Clark, and will wholeheartedly support him if he announces as a Dem and gets in this thing. But it's going to be an uphill battle for him in the highly-partisan and "rootsy" primaries. It's also going to fascinating, and historical, to watch, isn't it?

:-)

[Kahuna]

6. No. The way I look at it is....

If he's the right man for the job, Dems will nominate him. If he falls flat on his face, then so be it. Nothing beats failure but a try.

Maybe I have too much confidence in Clark's capabilities. We'll soon find out. :D

I almost see him as a superman. I think he can do anything he puts his mind to. If a dolt like bush can pull it off, I'm confident that Clark can too. I also sense that some high level Dems will coach him and prepare him to do well. (I'm thinking talents like Bill, Hill and Al).

[VolcanoJen]

7. Ohhhhhh I hope you're right, Kahuna!

I have faith... don't forget to watch Gen. Clark's appearance on CNN's Inside Politics today!!

:-)
Jennifer

[Kahuna]

8. I've got the VCR ready. I'll..

watch it as soon as I come in this evening. Reread my above post. I added stuff. :7

[VolcanoJen]

9. I agree with your new comments, Kahuna...

.. and I also agree with the strong vibe I get that the Clintons are involved in advancing Clark as a candidate. Heavily involved... and the Clintons are proven winners, which only bodes well for Clark!!

:-)

[dfong63]

10. more like this:

Franklin Foer: The political case for nominating Clark is inseparable from the biographical case. While Howard Dean skipped the war with a doctor's note, skiing away in Aspen, Clark went to Vietnam, where he was wounded four times and received a Silver Star.

while Clark was learning how to kill people, Dean was learning how to save people's lives. while Clark was dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium in service of American imperialism, Dean was improving the state of Vermont, helping people lead better lives at home.

But there are political reasons for a Clark candidacy that have nothing to do with biography. Because of his calm, competent demeanor and Arkansas accent, he sounds like a maverick even when he defends middle-of-the road Democratic positions on guns, affirmative action, and abortion.

sorry, but in my book a presidential candidate needs more than a cute accent to win. s/he needs some kind of a track record in electoral politics. and no matter how wonderful Clark's accent may be, it can't hide the fact that the man is afraid of the word "democrat", and steadfastly refuses to give a straight answer to the question of whether he's even a candidate.

[kang]

11. That's completely unfair

to charge Clark with serving "American imperialism." Soldiers don't decide foreign policy, they follow orders because they believe in our liberal democratic system. Clark entered the military and went to Vietnam for the very best reasons. I'm not a Draft Clark person (personally, I wish he'd try running for another office), but your attack was unfair.

As for the bombing of Serbia, Milosevic and the Serb military's actions in Kosovo had to be stopped. Just read up on his regime's crimes in Bosnia (see Srebenizca) to get an idea of what you're dealing with. If you're labeling the bombing of Serbia as "imperialism," that's just plain inaccurate.