Hmmm. Wesley Clark?

After the 2004 primaries I admit that I had written off Wesley Clark -- I can't now remember why. He just made a hell of a good impression on "This Week," which I did not expect. (The full transcript of the show AND video are now available at the WesPAC website.) For the most part, he did not seem vain or focused on himself, or divided between the one talking and the one backstage doing constant impression management, as politicians so often do. He was intently focused on the issues; what he said was (IMO) right; and he refused to be baited by Stephanopoulos into breaking off his enumeration of the complexities of each issue and answering a provocative, polarizing yes-or-no question.

On the Dubai ports deal, Stephanopolous kept trying to get hm to say whether he was for or against the deal, given Dubai's "mixed record" on terrorism. Clark countered that we're in a complex, global economy where even "American" companies have some foreign ownership and vice versa, that many countries with an interest in critical American facilities have "problems" and mixed records, and that America must not wall itself off (President Bush's message on hs South Asia trip as well). Clark kept steering the discussion to port security itself, saying that what matters is not who owns the ports but who regulates them and how well, and that port security begins in the foreign ports where the containers coming our way are loaded; by the time a dangerous cargo reaches our shores, it's too late.

On Iraq, Stephanopoulos asked if he thought we'd succeed in drawing down our troop strength by the end of this year. Clark said forcefully that that was exactly the wrong question to be asking right now, when we're "on the edge of the abyss" in Iraq. The problem, he said, is not one the military can handle alone, though the military is a part of the solution and right now we need every soldier there we have. The problem is political: who is going to run the country? We have to get the main Sunni players into the government, whatever it takes -- whether it's working to replace Jaafari, playing on the conflict between Persian and Arab Shi'ism ("What does that mean?" frowned Stephanopolous, but Clark went on), cracking down on the Shi'ite militias or conversely, working with Moqtada al-Sadr . . . Clark felt we could not let the country come apart into "an Iranian buffer state," a Kurdish enclave and a Sunni haven for terrorists.

On Iran, Clark pointed out that the Iranian government is far from unified, and he suggested that before we try sanctions, which we may need to do later, we try talking to them directly. He acknowledged that Iran's bid for nuclear status isn't all about us and Israel; it's a move of Shi'ism for predominance in the Islamic world.

Finally, Stephanopoulos tried to get Clark to say he was or wasn't running for president in 2008. Clark did a particularly good job of being coy without sounding coy at all. He kept the focus hard on 2006 and on "trying to get the right Democrats elected," including a number of military veterans who are running for Congress. He cast this not only in terms of party interest but of national interest: "One-party domination of government is extremely dangerous for America."

In other words, he didn't bother sounding like a candidate, dumbing down the issues or making sure to hit the Dem base marks, and that made him sound like a surprisingly appealing centrist candidate.

Comments

[reader_iam]

Amba, I caught part of this, and I too found Clark remarkably impressive in this instance (I, too, was notably underwhelmed by his candidacy). You won't be surprised, of course, that I think Clark's attitude toward the ports issue is right on, but that's not the reason I was impressed. He handled George well.

[amba]

Yes, Clark seems to have learned a lot from his failed candidacy. There's a certain freedom in losing -- you really have nothing more to lose, so you can afford to focus on the issues, which ironically is what the voting public longs for in a candidate! Clark seems to be in a mode of "do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may," and that may serve him better than having a political strategy and angling for position in the field.

[bruce]

WHY CANT YOU GET IT INTO YOUR HEADS THAT ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF ABRAHAM, MOSES, JESUS AND MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON THEM ALL).
THINK ABOUT IT HOW COULD AN ILLITERATE MAN INSPIRE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND 1400 YEARS LATER STILL BE HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE WORLD.

WAKE UP FEAR THE GOD OF ISRAEL AND THE UNIVERSE.

AS A WESTENER THE RATE OF ISLAMS INFLUENCE IS SKY ROCKETING ESPECIALLY IN EUROPE. SO STOP BURYING YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND (no pun intended) LIKE OSTRICHES.
STOP DEMONISING THE FUTURE FAITH OF MANKIND.
IF ISLAM IS AN ARAB RELIGION FOUNDED BY AN ARAB IT WOULD NOT HAVE SPREAD FURTHER THAN MECCA OR MEDINA.

YOU MAY READ THE TORAH AND THE BIBLE BUT I DARE YOU TO READ THE QURAN JUST AS A PURELY INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE.
WE IN THE WEST PREACH THAT WE ARE CIVILISED AND AN ADVANCED SOCIETY. EVERY DAY I WITNESS SCIENTISTS WHOM I WORK ALONGSIDE ABANDON SIMPLE LOGIC AND REASONING WHEN IT COMES TO MATTERS OF FAITH.

[catherineD]

Clark actually sounds much as he always has, but he has learned a lot about politics and the media. From what I've read, he actually has a southern strategy to take Florida and Ohio? out of play in the 2008 election, since their voting is so suspect. But Clark has never been a politician ready to compromise beliefs to get a powerful job. In 2004, Clark was a political novice without a good professional team, without Dem creds in the Congress and elsewhere, without a strategy. That's all changed. But he knows that getting elected won't be nearly enough if the Congress is still overwhelmingly Republican. He's got a 100-year vision for the United States on his website, securingamerica.com. I really like that.

[RonE]

I had the privilage to work for his campaign in 04' and I really felt that he had been led down the wrong path politicaly. He let the people around him change his attitude away from the issues first, incredibly intelligent leader that we all saw on "This Week." and in to someone who was almost afraid to give the wrong answer to a question.

If This Wesley Clark we see now decides to run, then we as a nation could ask for no better leader. We should only be so lucky that a REAL leader that people on both sides can have immense respect for should seek the Presidency. He would be the kind of President we not only desperately need, but deserve as a nation.

[Retired LTC]

I agree with Ron that Clark had a second-string staff in '04, mostly due to entering the race so long after all the first string had been hired by the other candidates. And as a new guy to politics, he was more inclined to take the professionals' advice than in hind-sight he should have been.

But all that is ancient history. Clark has learned enough about the game to go with what his gut tells him. He was always one to say what he really thinks, whether it's popular or not. He does appear to have gotten smarter about how the media isn't really interested in what a political leader really thinks, but rather what they can use to create controversy or "gotcha" sensationalism. And he's learned to control an interview well enough to make sure he gets his own message out.

I think Clark has the potential to be a formidable contender in the '08 primaries, if he chooses to go for it. But he's absolutely right that 2006 must come first, and seems to be working very hard to win back Democratic control of Congress.

[Gerald R. Simons, US Army Retired]

I served in the Army in Germany for 9 years, many of them with General Wesley Clark as Supreme Alied Commander of Nato. Everything I know about him is positive. I am a German Linquist and have many friends in the German military and civilians,as well as family there. Gen. Wesly Clark has made a deep impression on all of them as not only a military leader but a statesman and a diplomate. If anybody could restore the respect Europe has for our country It would be Gen. Clark. General Clark I salute you and you have my vote.

[GeraldS]

I have one more comment to make of General Clark. If he is to become the next President, he needs to have a more forcefull presence when appearing before the media, he needs to use a commanding voice but a bit toned down to inspire not scare those not in the military, He needs to be a general. I found him, holding something of that back in the last primary. I voted for him then too. I knew then he would make a great president and I know now that he will make a great president.

[Joe McGEE]

I worked for General Clark for a number of years when he was the SACEUR. He has the experience and the leadership we need in Washington. Leaders respect him and he knows how to work with them to solve problems. We need a leader like him in government.