As the pomp and circumstance surrounding the “leading candidates” for the 2008 Democratic nomination ensues, let me say one thing: Don’t be too quick to dismiss the potential of a Wes Clark candidacy.
While other candidates have been campaigning without officially campaigning for the last few years, Clark has been vigorously working to change policy, whether he was promoting other progressive Democrats for office, speaking out against the war in Iraq, or consulting leading Democratic with regard to peace in the Middle East.
As the Iraq occupation wears on and violence and deaths continue to mount, it’s become apparent that the next president will need broad shoulders in order to mitigate the disastrous effects of the Bush policy. We need a leader that can not only extricate American soldiers from Iraq with the least amount of damage, but also one who has the credibility to engage the Middle East in a constructive dialogue on peace. While military and diplomatic strategy experience for a commander in chief isn’t mandatory, it is no doubt exceedingly helpful when that experience is grounded in peace.
While opponents try to distort Clark’s position, using Clark’s first day of his political life flub or by taking quotes out of context, the truth is that Clark has been against the Iraq war from the very beginning. Not only that, but it could be said that Clark did more work to hamper the Bush administration’s push for war than any other Democratic leader rumored to run for the presidency in 2008. No, Clark didn’t have a vote on the infamous IWR, but he sure did attempt to influence those who did. His testimony against preemptive war in Iraq was quoted by at least two senators, Wellstone and Kennedy, in their voting statements on the IWR. He worked through the back channels to try to head off this war, and when that didn’t work, he ran for the presidency. Yet, his position has been distorted, which is not surprising since so many other candidates have obvious weaknesses in this area.
It has also been said that Clark has been a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. The truth is that one of Clark’s most endearing qualities is his loyalty – his loyalty to his principles, his country, and his fellow troops. No matter what policy decisions are made in Washington with regard to the military, Clark is fiercely loyal to the men and women that protect this country. For years, the Republicans have pushed the meme that those who are against the war cannot possibly support the troops. Is it not dishonest for us to do the same? Supporting the troops does not mean supporting the war.
Clark has been outspoken about the need for regional diplomacy, including the need to begin dialogues with Iran and Syria, (countries that have a reason to be worried about what a peaceful Iraq meant with regard to our future military ambitions). Clark doesn’t call for a public timetable, because he knows that the timetable is part of the negotiation process that needs to take in the region. He has no desire to establish permanent bases and no desire to see an escalation of troop deployment, as it is too late for military to decide Iraq’s fate. He understands the need for this broader peace process, which encompasses not only the Iraq occupation, but also the Israel/Palestine conflict.
In 2004, many claimed that Clark was in fact a Republican in Democrats clothing, either because he chose to do ONE Republican fundraiser just after leaving active duty or because he had voted for Ronald Reagan over 20 years ago. Never mind that Clark did a Democratic fundraiser that same week or that nearly 60% of Americans voted for Reagan, including many Democrats and newly minted economic progressive Jim Webb, (who not only voted for Reagan, but also worked for the man).
While others may have been turned off by these assaults, Clark worked even harder to facilitate the success of the Democratic Party. During the 2006 elections, he campaigned for 42 Democratic candidates and helped us to achieve a net gain of 25 seats. Clark was one of the most requested Democratic speakers for campaigns and delivered an incredibly moving convention speech for at the Texas Democratic Convention. Not only did Clark participate in highly successful advertising campaigns like Vote Vets’ “Because of Iraq”, but he was also one of the only major Democratic players to campaign for netroots hero Ned Lamont, when many Democrats thought it politically unwise.
Wes Clark is the type of Democrat that this nation needs right now – someone who is not a classical politician that politicks, panders, and focus tests before settling on a position. He is an incredibly learned, experienced, and principled man who throughout his life has sacrificed himself for the betterment of this country. His domestic policies are some of the most progressive and his foreign policy experience is the most pertinent to our day. This unique combination has the ability to be of invaluable assistance to the advancement of the progressive agenda and our country for years to come.
If he decides to run, please give him serious consideration.