I had wondered for a while why Obama didn't appoint Wesley Clark as Secretary of Defense instead of keeping Gates on. Turns out there's at least one really compelling reason: he can't. At least, not yet. According to Wikipedia: "By statute (10 U.S.C. § 113) the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years." Now, General Clark retired on May 2, 2000 - which means he will be eligible for the post of Secretary Defense as of May 2, 2010....
I just got off the phone with my friend Steve Clemons, who is hosting a discussion with General Wes Clark tomorrow at 4pm ET at the New America Foundation at 1630 Connecticut. Clark will be talking about our economy and national security challenges, and the event will be streamed on The Washington Note, on OpenLeft, and around the blogosphere.
I'm a big Clark booster and think he has a real sense of vision, something that is lacking among most luminaries in our political system right now.
In addition, journalist and friend Brian Beutler, who was shot earlier this year in DC, has reactivated his website. Give it a look.
A lot of bloggers have been hoping to see former Presidential Candidate, General Wesley Clark be tapped for Obama's number two spot. Of late, that likelihood has been slim at best. He hasn't been mentioned on any press short lists, he was a Clinton supporter in the primary (of course, so was oft-mentioned "short-lister" Evan Bayh of Indiana), and when he made the obvious (and highly appropriate) observation on national television that being shot down in Vietnam is not a qualification to be President, the Obama campaign couldn't distance itself fast enough in response to GOP criticism.
In fact, all things being equal (and given recent news reports about Bayh's early and steady support for the Iraq War), it seemed likely that Governor Kathleen Sebelius (who has been my first choice) was likely to get the nod (until she popped up with a Tuesday night Convention speaking slot and given the renewed Bayh rumors today. Arg.)
But in light of the violence in Georgia, the aggressive movements of the Bush administration, and the corresponding full court press by the McCain camp to exploit the conflict as a full-scale campaign showcase, it seems like a no-brainer that the Obama campaign will probably look anew at former NATO commander Clark who would have an easier time shining a light on any dangerous adventurism from the administration, as well as any crass political exploitation from McCain and company than would Obama alone, or an Obama/Sebelius combo.
In any event, expect to hear very soon. Maybe even Saturday to make the Sunday talk shows and newspaper headlines. It'll be important not to make the announcement too close to the convention, to maximize coverage and avoid letting it simply be absorbed into the convention media coverage.
I, for one, would like to see Clark for several reasons. He's not perfect by a long shot, but he was (among other things) one of the only Presidential candidates or potential Presidential candidates to come out early and clearly for Single-Payer Health Care - certainly as big a progressive priority as you'll find.
Gen. Wes Clark's slogan -- "Securing America's Future" -- is the theme for the night Barack Obama's running mate is scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention.
Clark's political action committee is called WESPAC -- Securing America's Future.
It is probably just a coincidence of bland messaging, but it is still encouraging. Picking Clark would be a wonderful way to stick it to McCain, and also to the punditry that went along with the Republican hyperventilation over Clark's non-incendiary comments. It would be a great step away from Democrats who can't message well, either.
Picking Clark would be a sign that Obama really is serious about shaking things up in D.C., not only in terms of policy but also in terms of media. Running directly counter to a recent media hissy-fit would be head and shoulders above what I have come to expect from Democrats.
Back in late October of 2006, during a rally in California, John Kerry accidentally dropped one word from a prepared speech, making it sound as though he was insulting the intelligence of American troops. Even though the prepared remarks, which were distributed to the press beforehand, made it clear that Kerry was doing no such thing, Republicans spent a week clutching their pearls over it.
First Read thinks that the Clark vs. McCain flap is a lot like the Kerry vs. Republicans in that the charges against Clark are bullsh*t, in that it won't change the campaign one iota, but also that it might damage Clark for a little while-at least long enough to keep him from becoming Vice-President. They are probably right about Clark not being VP, but given that none of the Capitol Hill Democrats who talked to the Obama campaign leaked his name, he probably wasn't under close consideration anyway. That's too bad, because Matt had convinced me that Clark was probably the best choice. As the top Democratic surrogate, as a progressive, as a former presidential candidate, and as a Washingotn "outsider," Clark would be an excellent Vice-President.
However, I would like to focus on one key way in which the Republican attacks on Kerry succeeded, but are failing in regards to Clark. Unlike two years ago, this time there is no parade of conservative Democratic congressional candidates stumbling over each other in a mad dash to condemn Clark on national television. Twenty months ago, Harold Ford Jr., Tim Walz, and other conservative Dems immediately appeared on CNN and Fox to denounce Kerry's remarks in exactly the same terms Republicans were denouncing him, making it extremely difficult for other Democrats to defend Kerry. When these Democrats joined in the fray, it gave the Republican attacks on Kerry a bi-partisan veneer. Further, these denunciations prolonged the story since, after Ford and Walz denounced Kerry, every Democrat who appeared on the cable nets during the next couple days was supposed to condemn Kerry too. Eventually, Kerry was forced to apologize, and the Republican attacks on him were vindicated.
In the comments to an earlier thread, T Maysle provides this excellent description of how Clark undercut McCain's entire cultural claim to the White House:
The cultural assumptions behind it bear scrutiny. Its the mythic hero template, the trial by fire, the Christ-like suffering and near-death for a higher cause, for America, for you and me.
When the hero survives the unimaginable trial by fire, he assumes magical warrior chief status. He has passed the test of life, the test of the god or gods, and ascended to a higher plane above ordinary mortals and TV pundits.
A lot of McCain's selling point is based on this claim of assumed status. Clark is popping his balloon.
Clark isn't attacking McCain's service, he is attacking the cultural assumptions behind McCains' rationale to be President. No wonder the McCain campaign, and indeed the entire Republican apparatus, is freaking out. Talking about hitting a nerve.
No one's saying that being a POW entitles you to the Oval Office or places you above criticism. But Barack Obama frequently prefaces his criticism of McCain with a nod to his honorable service. Which raises the question: What was Wes thinking?
Now, I honor John McCain's incalculable service to our country, but maybe Kurtz should have noted Clark's preface to his statement:
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war,"
So, while John McCain is a true war hero, Kurtz thinks that it is true that being a POW doesn't entitle you to being in the Oval Office, which is exactly what Clark said. And, even though I will never stop honoring John McCain's unparalleled service to America, Kurtz thinks that criticizing McCain is fine, as long as it is prefaced with a nod to McCain's service, which is what Clark did. So, while we should all bow our heads a moment in silent reflection on John McCain's service to America, I'm not really sure exactly what problem Kurtz has with what Clark said. John McCain's military service is tremendous, but perhaps if Kurtz didn't spend most of his article providing lengthy quotes from six bloggers attacking Clark, and only two defending him, he could have bothered to put together a condemnation of Clark was at least internally coherent, even if it still immediately compared Clark to the Swift Boat campaign. Because while John McCain is the greatest American who ever lived, surely the multi-million Swift Boat campaign really compares to what Clark did.
But really, while John McCain did his country a great service in Vietnam, the point here is that everything everyone in America says should begin with a nod to John McCain's military service in Vietnam. While I honor John McCain's service in Vietnam, I have to wonder why the person whose military record has received the single most praise of any American in fifty years is so touchy about his record. While I honor John McCain's military service in Vietnam, exactly how much do we have to honor his military service before he will start attacking people for not honoring it enough?
Since I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is "never," I'm done prefacing every sentence with a nod to his service.
This is good. The Obama accountability movement scores another victory, and this one is more meaningful than the last one. Now, Obama is refusing to condemn Clark's comments, and is making a much better response to the question:
Obama was asked by a young man, and responded calmly (with pleasant but mild indignation) about apologizing to John McCain:
"Are you going to apologize to John McCain, for what Wesley Clark Said", Obama responded, "why should I respond to something, that I never said, that happened on some Sunday morning talk show". Obama continued "I think we have more important things to talk about, and I'm not sure the average person in Ohio is thinking about this"
Now that wasn't so hard, was it? Refuse to answer the question. Deny legitimacy to the smear attacks against Wesley Clark. Refuse to condemn an important ally like Wesley Clark. Position yourself above the fray of oh-so-typical "can you believe s/he said that?" politics. This was always the appropriate response, and it is fantastic that Obama is now making it himself. It is a clear improvement upon yesterday's rejection of Clark's comments, a rejection which, I should note, was made by a Obama staffer rather than by Obama himself.
How important is Wesley Clark to the Democratic cause? Consider that, in 2006, he was the single most requested surrogate by Democratic congressional campaigns around the country:
In 2006, Jon Soltz of Votevets tells me, Clark was the single most requested surrogate in the country, with the possible exceptions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clark is heavily involved in both his own PAC and Votevets, raising money and supporting Democrats up and down the ticket. He has huge credibility with officials all over the country because he was reliable and helpful to groups, candidates, and activists. There is simply no one else who comes close to his ability and track record of delivering a persuasive and progressive argument on national security on behalf of Democrats.
No one in the entire country is more important to Democratic credibility on foreign policy than Wesley Clark. No one. And this isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of Democratic congressional candidates who requested him.
There are those who think that Obama is being super secret strategic on this one, and playing both the McCain campaign and the media for a fiddle. However, if you really want to be strategic, you need to see the whole board. Going well beyond this media cycle, and even going beyond this presidential election, Republicans score a huge strategic victory if they are able to permanently damage the credibility of the leading Democratic spokesperson on national security.
Imagine if the top issue in the mind of the electorate was energy and global warming. Imagine if, as a result, Al Gore become the most requested surrogate in the country by Democratic congressional candidates. Then, imagine if the right-wing began attacking Gore in an unfair manner for a benign, true statement. And then, imagine if the Democratic nominee condemned Gore for that statement. Now, you tell me, would dumping Al Gore for the rest of the campaign season be strategic in that case?
Taking out the leading Democratic surrogate on national security would be a huge victory for Republicans. This news cycle will come and go with little impact on the campaign, but losing Wesley Clark as a credible, effective national spokesperson would be a big blow to our cause. So, even if Obama doesn't want to, step up today and defend Wesley Clark. We need to fill in where other Democrats fail.
"The Obama campaign isn't going to let dishonest smears spread across the internet unanswered," explained campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor. "Whenever challenged with these lies we will aggressively push back with the truth and help our supporters debunk the false rumors floating around the internet."
The "Fight the Smears" website a good idea, because Democrats often face unfair smear attacks from conservative media. Eventually, all of those attacks end up on Fox News and, from there, pretty much everywhere else in our national media. It is good to fight back against these attacks. Otherwise, as we saw in 2004, they can end up costing Democrats the election. Even when elections are not at stake, these attacks can silence progressive voices in the media, and severely reduce the number of nationally effective voices for Democrats and Republicans.
I would only ask this of the Obama campaign: if you want us to fight the smears, please, for the love of God, do the same thing yourself.
When a supporter is attacked unfairly by the Republican Noise Machine, defend that supporter rather than condemning him or her.
After seeing Wes Clark speak twice in NYC yesterday, once on his own at a book signing, and later with Hillary Clinton at a fund raiser for her, it is becoming clearer to me how Clark's concern over stopping a war with Iran factors into his decision to endorse Hillary Clinton for President.
At the book signing Clark was asked, as a last question with time running out, if he thought the U.S. would bomb Iran, and he said "Yes". Clark focused his answer on what appeared to be most likely and why, he wasn't giving his personal views, though Clark repeated that he thought that bombing Iran was a "bad option." Clark pointed out that not only is it the stated policy of the Bush Administration that Iran must not be allowed to acquire weapons grade uranium, but he indicated that he personally talked to all of the current Democratic candidates about their views on this contengency, and they all essentially agreed with that bottom line (though it was not something that they embraced a chance to proclaim).
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Saturday by retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who sought the party's nomination in 2004 and whose sterling military credentials could bolster her bid to be the first female commander in chief.
Clark, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, praised the New York senator as ''a remarkable person'' with the skills and experience to be president.
''She will be a great leader for the United States of America and a great commander in chief for the men and women in uniform,'' Clark told reporters in a conference call with the former first lady.
Definitely a big pickup for Clinton. Makes me wonder if a Clinton-Clark ticket is a possibility, even if that would be a little Arkansas heavy.
After two previous runs for U.S. president, former Reagan diplomat Alan Keyes has announced he's again seeking the White House in the 2008 election, and he'll take part in Monday night's Republican presidential debate here.
Keyes told syndicated radio host Janet Parshall he's "unmoved" by the lack of moral courage shown by the other candidates, among whom he sees no standout who articulates the "key kernel of truth that must, with courage, be presented to our people."
Newt Gingrich is moving closer to a presidential nomination bid in a severely divided Republican Party.
"I will decide based on whether I have about $30 million in committed campaign contributions and whether I think it is possible to run a campaign based on ideas rather than 30-second sound bites," the former House speaker told The Washington Times yesterday.
I bet I could beat Newt Gingrich in a Presidential campaign, and I am not even old enough to run. The country would pass a constitutional amendment allowing someone else to become President before it would elect Gingrich. Go Newt, go!
Frustration at the top, energy from below. I've been doing these e-mail newsletters since 2003 when it was limited to the Draft Clark Campaign. This is the biggest one ever, even without factoring in presidential campaigns (and I'm open to listing events from all of the Dem. campaigns if I get plenty of lead time). It's interesting that despite the stagnation about stopping the war in Congress, there a rising tide of energy for change at the grassroots level -- H. Park.
General Clark went well beyond the mainstream Democratic Party in preemptively positioning himself, and those who stand with him, to confront a growing threat to peace, and also to our Party. For those who picked up on Clark's stance early the lag between him sounding an alarm and more people hearing it has been hard to accept, but as hard as it's been for the netroots to take that danger in, compared to the institutional Democratic Party they have been relatively quick to respond.
Summer is rolling on and Labor Day is approaching. George Bush and Dick Cheney are now almost certainly the least popular President and Vice President team in American History. John McCain, the G.O.P. pretender to the thrown who once was feared as the only man with sufficient stature and integrity to convince the American public to renew the Republican lease on the White House, has departed center stage after a war vote malfunction stripped bare his passion for the Iraq surge, exposing him as unelectable in the Super Bowl of politics. Meanwhile the Democrats have a very strong field of presidential candidates. At least the media keeps telling us so, and given the quagmire the G.O.P. now seems stuck in, it's hard to argue otherwise. That could be the reason why so few do argue otherwise, since conventional wisdom is much easier to repeat, but cracks that can fracture the veneer of Democratic complacency are hiding in plain sight, where many refuse to see.
STATE BLOGS
