With Clark's spike in the polls and Dean's negative fliers, I think Josh Marshall has it right in
when he suggests: "This is where this race is going -- Dean versus Clark in New Hampshire, with Dean pushing whether Clark is a real Democrat and Clark pushing foreign policy credentials and electability."
Its shaping up to be a really interesting battle. I've been mulling over the content of Dean's flyers. It seems to me in many ways that whatever Clark's past (more on that in a second) he's certainly locked into a Democratic framework
now. I mean, there's only so much room for finesse: with a limited number of key issues that define the parties, Clark has pretty much made his bed.
On social policy: He's come out strongly in favor of gay rights, reproductive freedom and affirmative action. These issues, above all, would seem the hardest to reverse course on (because they're so value-based).
On economic policy: Clark's tax plan is so sweeping and broad that it's hard to see how that
wouldn't orient economic policy in a campaign against Bush or in a Clark adminstration. And this tax plan would pretty much lock any candidate into an extremely progressive fiscal policy - a massive redistribution of wealth by modern U.S. political standards.
And, of course, on foreign policy, he is the one candidate - of all who are running - who actually served in the Clinton administration: he was firmly in step with the Democratic principles represented by Madeline Albright; he embodied multilaterlism in his work with NATO, his diplomatic and military leadership in Kosovo and, most recently, his testimony at the Hague; and he has came out fiercely, adamantly against the war - much more strongly than the Congressional Democrats in the race.
How can you turn back from such a record?(Not to mention innumerable other questions and issues that he has addressed with a lot of substance and intelligence over the last half a year).
This brings me to a second point. All of the anecdotes which suggest that Clark was not a real Democrat hinge on his support of people (voting for Reagan, friendly words about Bush or Bush administration people). But is there any evidence of Clark supporting Republican
policies over the last 20 years? I think this in an important distinction to make. Of course, it is not unusual that military leaders avoid partisan politics and Clark was, finally, allied with the Clinton administration. But is there any record of actions that he's taken in a position of leadership, or concrete policies that he's advocated, that would suggest Republican values or ideology?