Three cheers for Wes Clark

[whometense]

Given numerous opportunities to slam Kerry in this Tim Grieve interview for Salon, Wes keeps his eye on the ball, and takes the high road. More democrats should be watching his class act and taking notes. (Note: regular Salon readers will know that Tim Grieve has always had the knife out for Kerry.)

...You tried to do some of that in the 2004 race. After your own campaign ended, you campaigned hard on behalf of Kerry, trying to add to his credibility on national security issues. Why didn't that message take then?

Because we were going against an accumulation of 30 years of statements by others. First of all, I wasn't the candidate, so that automatically reduced the amount of impact. And as you know from the campaign, a lot of effort was made to distort Kerry's message, which I thought was very clear and should have been very reassuring to Americans. But campaigns are adversarial, so there were competing voices out there. can't be done during the heat of a campaign. This is the time for the Democratic Party to have a strong and correct voice, prescribing a strategy for America and pointing the way ahead -- and being held accountable for it...

...But the right hammered Kerry in 2004 for not "supporting the troops." Is the trick to avoiding that next time by building this four-year message you're describing?

You've got to have a consistent message. I wouldn't put a set term on it -- if you had an eight-year or 12-year or 28-year term, that would be even better. What's behind all of this is the legacy of Vietnam, the frustration of veterans. People have gravitated to the other party based on a recollection of angry voices and rallies that condemned the troops when all the troops were doing was supporting a policy that a democratically elected government had put in place...

Returning to the idea of standing up for what you believe in, I keep hearing the line, "If Kerry didn't stand up for himself against attacks from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, how could we know that he'd stand up for our country?" Do you think that's the right analysis of what Kerry did wrong?

I don't know whether that analysis is right, but I don't think that, going forward, it's the question we should be focused on. What I'd like to focus on is, how do we ensure that the American people trust the Democratic Party?

This country needs a strong two-party system. There's no doubt that the Republican Party has arrayed a group of ideas that they express fervently and fight for. There's no doubt that the Democrats have a strong body of ideas. What we want is for the public to understand that those ideas encompass all Americans and all of America. They'll keep us safe at home and abroad. We're the best party to lead, and we'll stand up and fight for what we believe in.

[whometense]

1. Honest, guys, this IS Kerry-related,

though my fault I didn't put Kerry in the subject line.

[Mass]

2. I really appreciate Clark

so I am not surprised he understands what is important and what is not.

[TayTay]

3. Wes Clark is a good man

I like the fact that he is not joining in the Kerry-bashing. Good for him!

[rox63]

4. I've been wondering why Clark has joined Fox

But maybe he's trying to spread the truth to some of the serious kool-aid drinkers, in the hopes of turning a few away from the Dark Side of the Force.

[whometense]

5. It was a startling decision,

but you can only go two ways on Fox - either join and try to bring the truth as you said, or ignore and hope they sink under the weight of their own mendacity.

I can see arguments for either way, but I respect Wes Clark. There is a wonderful video online at Crooks and Liars of Clark taking on Hannity (and making him look like a jerk.)

[Pirate Smile]

7. I think the idea that you fight on all channels and all forms of media

(i.e. talk radio and Faux)goes along with the idea that you fight in all 50 states - to win local races, school boards, Secretary of State, state legislatures, etc.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Kind of like not conceding the south I suppose

or rather like the RNC Chairman trying to raid the minority base and lure some of them to the RNC, where they will vote against their own self interest in favor of some wedge issue. In some ways, one could say Wes is trying to go after the Fox News Repub base. He has a chance too, I think. And it might help him in 2008.

I'm not worried about his Democrat credibility as some are though.

He stood up for Dean as well. Classy guy, I think.

[karynnj]

6. Clark handled this well

It's nice that he didn't bash Kerry. He didn't particularly defend Kerry either on the last point. I wonder if this is because he was for striking back harder and preferred not to address the question in those terms but to move to the real implied question for the future - what do Democrats fight for.

I thought he was right that the "support the troops" was really related to Vietnam. I really didn't like that answer in that if you apply his logic, you can never speak out against a US war. I dislike that he repeats the claim that the 60s protests were anti troops. Most of us who protested knew people from our high schools who were drafted and we knew there was a draft - I honestly don't recall much anti-troop sentiment - although the anti-war sentiment was pervasive. Many of the people leading teach-ins were vets. (I wish Kerry could have communicated his record on veterans issues better. As Clark is likely to run, I wouldn't expect he would mention this, but I do think that Democrats as a whole need to show that as a group they've been the ones to fight for veterans.)

[whometense]

8. Good points,

and I agree about Vietnam. There's a clear gap between Clark and Kerry on the subject. But that's ok. I prefer Kerry's position, as it's much more like my own, but I respect Clark for not taking cheap shots at Kerry when he was clearly invited to do so.

The whole Vietnam/veteran issue is so fraught. It's hardly like I'd forgotten it, but if last year's campaign taught us anything, it's that Vietnam is not over, and that opinions are still as divided today as they were in 1971. Veterans are still hurt by and defensive about the perceived hostility/indifference with which they were greeted on their return. And Kerry is in the same uncomfortable position he was always in of opposing a war he fought, while still supporting and fighting on behalf of his fellow veterans. His position is not difficult to understand, but it's sadly easy to misinterpret in order to paint Kerry as someone he is not, if that's your goal.

Let's face it, the only reason the Swifties were able to get any traction at all is the lingering division over that horrible war.

[TayTay]

10. And because we are at war now

And there are doubts about the present course of the country and whether or not the countries current actions are effective, honorable and worth doing. There was an echo effect.

Patriotism is a tricky subject. It is easy to adopt a sort of patriotism that encourages the individual to submerge thier doubts about an action into a rah-rah boosterism for the country. This is the norm, at least at first, in any war. The truth-tellers who come back and tell you that the glorious myths of war about glory and great deeds and about how great it feels to strike a blow for Democracy are never, ever well-received. They puncture the carefully crafted myths that are necessary for a nation to go to war. (The US is always a force for good. The US would never treat prisoners badly or tolerate torture or abuse of prisoners. We are a good nation and anyone who questions that must be unpatriotic. All nations believe this stuff before a war. All nations.)

The VVAW protests were extremely effective in helping to end that war because it was the people who had fought in it who were telling the nation that the thing was a pack of lies. There is a certain percentage of people who will never look kindly on those who explode their myths. (After all, they didn't replace them with other comforting myths, they replaced then with very painful truths. People resent that.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. There's a gap, but also a bridge

I remember Clark saying at the Democratic Convention that John Kerry had the courage to go to Viet Nam and fight for his country, and then he had the courage when he got home to fight for what he believed was right for his country. The bridge is that Clark defines honest dissent as a patriotic act, essential to a healthy Democracy.

The sore point of course was the extent that some in the Armed Forces felt that they were personally being blamed for doing the wrong thing at risk to their own lives, which is something Kerry never said about them, nor did most protesters. But I was one of those protesters also, and I do remember that a small but still significant minority did blame the troops.

[elshiva]

9. This is good and Clark is good guy.

I like how he answered the last one!

[CarolNYC]

11. Hey guys!

It's nice to pop in here and find this nice thread....

One thing, Gen Clark really is into this whole Dems defending other Dems thing. I don't think anyone will be able to make him come out and criticize another Dem no matter how the question's asked. When I saw him at the Chris Heinz thing, there was fire in his eyes when he spoke about how upset he was that during the primaries there were Democrats who doubted Kerry or didn't fully support him. This seems to mean a lot to him.

Beyond that, though, from the times I've talked to him and Kerry has come up...and the times I've seen him speak in front of a crowd and Kerry has come up...I do think that Gen Clark holds a deep respect for Senator Kerry. My impression is that Senator Kerry returns the respect. I know the General absolutely LOVED being out on the campaign trail for him.

FWIW, I grew to have a deep respect for Kerry as I worked last fall to get him elected, too.

Take care, Carol :hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. Hidey!

I deeply respect General Clark and think he'd make a great candidate (second only to the one and only keeper of my heart, a certain tall Senator). He's always wonderfully classy and WAY more Dems need to take a page from his "defend other Democrats above all else" rule. He knows how to be a good soldier.