Clark's Candidacy Will Make Military Service a Litmus Test for Dems

[DJcairo]

"Clark's team was exploring several venues in Little Rock for an announcement, including a park named for World War II Gen. Douglas MacArthur, a Little Rock native. This site would underscore what Clark's advisers consider his greatest strength --a his longtime military background.

Clark believes his four-star military service would counter Bush's political advantage as a wartime commander in chief, friends say. The retired general has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/16/elec04.prez.clark.ap/index.html

Clearly, Clark will emphasize his military background and hope that voters believe running a contraversial, yet ultimately successful war in Kosovo will be enough to convince still undecided voters to vote for him. The only other Dem in the race with considerable military experience is Kerry. Kerry has also chosen to emphasize his military background in addition to his nearly 20 years in the US Senate. For voters who may be wary of trusting Clark to know what to do on domestic affairs, Kerry's record of service, both in the military and the Senate makes him an alternative choice for those new to the campaign interested in Clark's candidacy.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

1. Actually it may make opposition to the war a litmus test...

Or at least it will further legitimize it.

As you posted:
The retired general has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates.

[virtualobserver]

19. I think that you nailed it......

it will be refreshing to have the top candidates sharing that.

[deutsey]

2. Yeah, "Hail, Caesar", right?

Personally, I think military service is good for a president to have, but in a democratic republic (if that's what we are), it shouldn't be a litmus test.

[Uzybone]

3. So how does it make it a litmus test?

The two candidates with distinguished military service are gonna play it up in thier campaigns. Shocking aint it??? I dont think that suddenly makes military service a litmus test.

[Vis Numar]

4. screw your litmus test

That's repug talk.

[ixion]

5. military record will be an issue this time around

but I don't think it will become a litmus test in the long run. We need to get people back into the mentality of 'land of the free and the brave' instead of 'land of the enslaved and terrified', at which point it will cease to be as relevant an issue, IMHO.

[w4rma]

6. Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. will make finishing medical school and governing

a litmus test for Dems.

That makes as much sense to say as "Clark's Candidacy Will Make Military Service a Litmus Test for Dems".

[PAMod]

23. Yea, and Sharpton's litmus test will be the dead on funny debate zingers

If you can't turn on the crowd like Sharpton, you might as well pack it in.

[chaumont58]

7. Clark's advantage?

I have a sneaky suspicion that Clark's military service is not that big an advantage. I don't believe Bush is strong and I sure as hell don't think many people(outside of Tweety and the professional whores inside the beltway) consider him a reincarnation of Lincoln or Wilson or any war time political leader.
I admire General Clark's record. He has a lifetime of accomplishment. The current candidates can say the same thing. If Clark want to start a new career as a politician, I would just as soon see him start with a job other than the highest elected political office in the land.

[MarianJack]

8. Not necessarily a litmus test...

...but a candidate with military experience will make it more difficult for the chicken hawk in chief to wrap himself in the military as he CLEARLY intends to do.

Even if Clark or Kerry are not the nominee, they, as well as people like Max Cleland should be very visible in the campaign to counter this.

[Upfront]

11. Kerry Is Histoty

His vote for the war has stopped him cold. With Clark coming in, and being against the war, yet with the military background, Kerry falls fast.

[DJcairo]

14. In what way-in the way he leads in national polls?

Or is it that he is a astrong 3rd in Iowa and a strong 2 in NH. No, I don't think it's "stopped him cold" in fact the raise is tightening up and teh front runner (Dean) is stumbling.

[Larkspur]

9. Clark should remember that Gen. MacArthur was fired by Harry Truman

and Howard Dean is the closest reincarnation of Truman that we have.

By emphasizing his military background, Clark will unintentionally emphasize his lack of elected political office. How will he choose between military and civilian budget spending during our war on terrorism? We already have pro-military types in the Admin who favor screwing social spending in favor of military spending. How's Clark going to handle these delicate issues?

Dean at least has experience balancing a budget and weathering the storms of political protest from both sides of the political spectrum. Clark has not.

[dsc]

10. McCarthur versus Truman part 2

sounds great to me. I think Clark would be making a big mistake to announce at McCarthur's statue. Forgetting about the Truman thing McCarthur is a right wing icon. This would be a pretty big mistake on his part.

[Donna Zen]

12. If Clark is successful

it would actually make military service a non-issue for Dems and Rep as it should be.

By negating the meme: Dem=soft on defense...a bold-faced lie which is perpetrated by repub to drive a wedge between Dem critters and the voters, thus causing all of them to vote in a knee-jerk fashion rather than with any kind of informed opinion, the Clark move could remove that from the discussion.

This long term advantage has little to do with who Clark is and much to do with how he is being perceived. Especially by the left. The only down side of this is if we trip over our bias while closing our eyes to an opportunity that will ultimately broaden the base, advance the progessive ideals we stand for, and shut Tom DeLay to "shut the fuck up!" Clark will govern as a civilian and a liberal if given the chance.

[CMT]

13. don't agree at all with that

Clinton didn't serve in the military and he did pretty darn good as commander in chief. Most Americans have not served in the military. there are countless ways you can serve your country without being a member of the armed services. I think someone who protests an unjust war is doing more for our country than most. I think people in Americorp are doing a great deal of good. I think people who go to school to be doctors or nurses are doing a great deal for our country. I think that people who never went to college and get paid crappy wages but work with the elderly or people with disabilities in nursing homes do a great deal for our country. All people who volunteer in any way either in a food pantry or as a big brother or sister is doing a great deal for our country.

Military service is a wonderful thing for those who choose it and is to be honored but it isn't the only service that counts.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. The Only Chance To Beat Bush Is To Be Strong On Defense

Balancing the budget of urban-less rural state is nice and all, and having medical experience is a political novelty, but 2004 is going to be a game for the big boys. If Clark had, say, 20 or so years of political experience, and an actual agenda, he would be impossible to beat.

No one that is seen as weak on Defense is going to beat Bush. Perhaps 200,000 supporters might think the anti-war position is feasible with the general public, but the general public doesn't seem to think so.

Time to get some tested experience in the White House. This is no time for foreign policy amateur hour. Unfortunately for Clark, this is also no time for amateur hour on domestic issues either. Only one man has the chops to handle the crisis at home and abroad.

<>

[deutsey]

16. Good luck of convincing America of that

I mean that seriously. If Kerry "has the chops", then he really needs to show that he also understands what I see as the mood of discontent in the electorate. To me, (and I don't mean this as a slap to Kerry...I was a Kerry supporter at first and still like him), he has been very much on the "amateur hour" level in that regard.

I just haven't seen, personally or in news reports, where Kerry is tapping into this mood and channeling it in a constructive direction. I'm sure you'll have examples and I welcome them. I just haven't seen it nor have I heard anyone else talking about it.

Just my two cents worth. I want Dean to win and, in my heart, I believe he's the best candidate. However, if Kerry ends up being the nominee, I want to see him more effectively tap into this mood (I've seen it firsthand too much to believe it's just isolated to me) and give it expression, use it to inspire and motivate and excite the people, and most importantly, direct it at Bush. I don't mean pandering, I just mean someone who can connect with the undercurrents of what people are feeling under Bush. To me, that's a crucial element of leadership, and so far, I just haven't seen it much in Kerry. Of course, I haven't been looking very hard either, but then, I shouldn't have to.

Meant in an amicable spirit, Dr. Funk! :hi:

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Don't Mistake Anger For Leadership

Kerry has been blasting Bush for months, only the Dean people haven't been paying much attention. But he's not the kind to bang on the pulpit. He is very down-to-business, which is not as flashy, but it is what is effective at the end of the day. Dean has sound and fury, but I wonder what it signifies. I really haven't been impressed at all when it comes to the issues. I'm glad that somebody out there is playing Howard Beale, but I don't want Howard Beale in the Oval Office.

One of the reasons that I wish Dean had backed up his comments to Kerry is that it would give them to talk about substance. With 9 candidates on the stand (now 10), all you can get is soundbite flash. And that doesn't impress me much.

I have always been willing to debate Dean people on the issues, but such discussions relate every issue back to the IWR. I know it is important to them, but I think ultimately it is a crutch. And a blinder to actual policy matters.

I think Dean is basically a good guy. He's a little gruff and a little thin-skinned, but he's got the right sentiments at least. I've always said this. But I honestly believe that he is out of his depth with Kerry.

He's certainly better at tapping into that discontent, as you've said, but I just don't think he has big picture the way Kerry does. I think that becomes more and more apparent everytime he does a real interview. He's great in monologue, but I've yet to see him hold his own when really confronted.

Again, this is in an amicable spirit.:pals:

Ok, you can stop grabbing me now. It's starting to creep me out.

[deutsey]

20. Perhaps I overstated the discontent

but he's going to have to put together a broad coalition of center/left/independent, and be able to energize each, to beat Bush's far right/corporatist coalition. Thus far, I haven't seen where Kerry's doing that.

Again, if he gets the nomination, I am counting on him to do this. But, frankly, I'm not counting on him getting the nomination...

:hi:

And please, if we're going to continue getting so close, use breath mints in the future! :evilgrin:

[DrFunkenstein]

21. Kerry Is Not A Polarizer

Although Kerry is much more liberal than Dean, in fact more liberal than most of the viable candidates, he appeals to the center - which is why he is able to make in-roads with centrists like the DLC. Although Dean is a centrist, he seems too unstable and polarizing for the general electorate. The sad truth is that, while most Americans are worried and disappointed by Bush, they really aren't angry. Dean supporters don't seem to understand how different they are than the people who gets their news from nightly TV.

Kerry has a sense of solidity that directly contrasts Dean's volatility. And while the latter may excite the bases, it would ultimately be an empty protest vote - a Nader vote on a much larger scale. In polls, even Dean supporters don't think he has a realistic chance. I find that a little scary.

It times of crisis people don't want a loose cannon, and no matter how "moderate" Dean may be in policy, in person he comes off as a loose cannon.

I believe that Kerry is right in touch with how Americans feel, although he needs to do a better job of expressing it. He felt Saddam needed to be held accountable, but that Bush bungled his way into an unnecessary war.

I've seen what the GOP is lining up for Dean, and it doesn't look good. They have quotes where he compares Bush to the Taliban, and regarding Saddam's fall, Dean says "I suppose that's a good thing." I don't care how badly the war goes, Americans just don't dig that kind of talk.

[deutsey]

22. Again, I hope you're right (or correct, I should say)

Kerry's a potentially easy target, too, especially when you consider that Bush went after McCain, a POW, for God's sake. And in their arsenal they can also link Kerry with Ted Kennedy and easily alienate a lot of people (I happen to like Kennedy, but sooooo many people associate him with Big Government and all that nonsense).

Again, I'm just saying whomever gets the nomination is going to have to have a strong, wide appeal to offset Bush's Legion of Doom. They control the mainstream media, they control the government, and they've got lots of corporate money and far-right religious/libertarian support. The Dem is going to have to rally, energize, inspire people who don't normally get involved in politics, along with the traditional Dem base and disgruntled Dems and even Greens.

I've seen that with my own eyes with Dean. I haven't seen it with Kerry...yet. If he finds his stride and gets the gold cup at the convention, he's got to be able to bring together many disparate groups to overcome the Bush machine. As I said in another thread, I hope Kerry can do that if he does get the nomination...for the sake of our country.

[kang]

18. A thought about the Truman and Clinton comments

First of all, Harry Truman fought in WWI. In fact, his political base in Missouri started from his Battery D comrades in the community.

The point about speaking in front of MacArthur's statue is dead on. Although as a Korean-American I exist today because of his and many other brave Americans' efforts during the Korean War, Gen. MacArthur lacked the proper respect for civilian authority and the Constitution. I don't think this fits Clark, since he has indicated a healthy respect for the Constitution in criticizing the Patriot Act as excessive.

Second, Pres. Clinton's lack of military service/experience impacted his performance as commander-in-chief to an incredible degree. To say that he did a great job is simply not true. I love the man and I voted for him in 1996, but his inability to stand up to Colin Powell on the issue of gays serving and his later actions showed that he was uncomfortable with military issues and the use of force. Not only did we fail to call in air strikes at Srebenicza to stop Mladic's cleansing campaign (8,000 Muslim men disappeared and systematic mass rape), but we also faltered in Somalia, and most importantly, Rwanda (800,000 Tutsis).

Free trade and all the rhetoric in the world about world unity doesn't make up for the fact that we didn't lead the world when genocide was clearly occurring. This in large part was due to Pres. Clinton's belief that the public would not accept his leadership on this issue...that his word that the cause was justified. This was unfair, but the fact is it all stemmed from the GOP labeling him a "draft dodger" (talk about hypocrisy!).

Clark's more or less immune to this. In addition, one can hardly say that his service wouldn't make him a better commander-in-chief to the extent that he won't need to learn anything about military operations, logistics, budget, etc. At this given time in our history, I'd rather have a president that has to learn domestic policy and make decisions (he's studied economics so he's not a complete rookie) on the fly in that arena rather than playing catch up on foreign policy and nat'l security issues that may pop up fast and early on in an administration.