Notes from an event for Wes Clark
Yesterday [Feb. 4, 2006] I went to an evening reception for Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO and former (2004) candidate for the Democratic nomination for president who finished third behind John Kerry and John Edwards.
Notes from an event for Wes Clark
Yesterday [Feb. 4, 2006] I went to an evening reception for Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO and former (2004) candidate for the Democratic nomination for president who finished third behind John Kerry and John Edwards.
I spent the first hour wandering around, chatting to a few people, including a couple of guys who are part of the campaign to unseat Rep. David Dreier (CA-26) and who seem to have their heads on straight, a couple of guys who have started a Democratic club in an area about 10 miles south of me, and various other people who clustered around as conversations formed, broke up, and re-formed. I avoided the carb-intensive food but succumbed to the lure of a couple of real Cokes.
Admission was $100/pop...buy now, the price will go up in 2007. A loose count put the crowd at about a hundred...earlier in the day at a rally in Hollywood there was a free event that drew 400-500 people, so this wasn't too bad. The crowd was 2:1 or a bit more male, mostly 40+ in age, and overwhelmingly white...sorry, it's hard for me to leave the demographer's eye at home. At least some military, active or reserve, were there in mufti; the haircuts give them away and one guy was [subconsciously?] standing at parade rest while the general spoke...from his age and demeanor, I'd guess a major or light colonel if active, a rank or two down if reserve.
The side discussions were interesting. Aside from the fact that I think Francine Busby has a much better shot at Randy Cunningham's seat than Steve Young had at Chris Cox's, I was interested in a recurring theme: the need to frame a Democratic approach on Iraq, the war on terror, and security issues that would be responsibly pro-security but anti-Bush and anti-Iraq in particular, but without taking on the colorization of Cindy Sheehan, whom many felt, at best, has been co-opted by raving loons. Somewhere in the middle of all this Clark arrived and was surrounded by folks wanting a piece of him; with nothing particular to say, being mostly in "observer mode," I hung back and stuck with the conversations I was in. When the point was brought up, many people bought into the notion that Clark was probably a leading "outsider" candidate versus Hillary being the 8,000-lb. "insider" candidate. [For all that many of the blogosphere go gah-gah over Russ Feingold, I think his campaign is DOA and I've got $20 that says so to anyone who wants to take the bet.]
There was some entertainment by some musicians whose names I didn't recognized but had at least a B-list pedigree to their credits. Pieces included jazzy piano instrumentals and a heartfelt but winceable not-a-Springsteen, not-a-Mellencamp anthem to why "we need Wes Clark." Memo to Wes...if your not-a-campaign takes off, you're going to need a better musical theme than any of these. "Winceable" and "completely non-engaging" are the most charitable words I can use to describe these.
Then Clark was introduced by someone who cited Clark's schedule for the day, for the past month, for the past six months, and then drew a big laugh when he said, "This is a very busy man for someone who isn't running for president." For someone who isn't running for president, I came up with three "General Clark for President 08" buttons and one bumper sticker of the same...though I'm still reserving judgment.
Then Clark spoke for about 20 minutes and took questions for about 20 minutes.
Clark talked about the politics of national security. He said that Bush and the GOP define as many issues as possible in terms of national security and do so in a way that, if you accept it, they can't be challenged. Discussion of national security on GOP terms is the GOP's anchor in its plan to maintain a monopoly on national power and that Democrats won't be able to successfully challenge the GOP until they find a way to talk about national security on their own terms. "Security," he said, "does not begin somewhere in northwest Pakistan...it begins on Main Street in the attitudes in this country." He made the point very strongly that it doesn't make sense to pursue policies that create terrorists faster than we can kill them. Clark was the first speaker I've ever heard in person acknowledge bloggers, saying that it was important to use every channel to get a Democratic national security message into the national dialogue.
Clark cited Roman history, going back to the last days of the Roman republic at the time of Cicero and Julius Caesar, when dictators were elected for a year at a time to deal with threats to the state. [I wish I'd captured his wording on this, he was quite eloquent. He's polished up a lot since 2004 and didn't make any rookie mistakes, either speaking or answering questions.] Clark is deeply critical, deeply suspicious, deeply of the Bush's administration push on wiretaps, etc., without judicial authorization.
Clark stressed the need to think about national security in terms that go beyond Iraq, first order of business being Iran. Unless I mis-read him, I think Gen. Clark expects Bush to strike Iran this year.
He critiqued Bush by saying that while Bush was correct about North Korea, Iran, and Iraq being threats, he wouldn't have pushed them together with the "axis of evil" rhetoric. And he castigated Bush for going after Iraq, which was the least of the three problems, and have gotten bogged down there. Clark said that Bush just ignored Iran for three years, had no diplomatic channel in place (we're good enough to attack them but can't be bothered to talk them directly), and that we harassed Iranians in the U.S. instead of encouraging them to send capital, skills, and people to foster economic development to make the mullahs irrelevant [a stark contrast to the blustering jingoism of Bush].
Clark thinks the air campaign against Iran will last about two weeks, followed up Special Forces on the ground, including in Teheran, to knock out the Iranian facilities. And at that point, what have we got? An ongoing problem. The president of Iran is a hero to his people who stood up to U.S. aggression [author's note: the U.S. is not the only country that uses nationalism for domestic political effect]. I asked him about the Shiite Iranian-sympathizers in Iraq; he agreed there would be a "blowback" there but that he didn't think it would be of magnitude to deter attacking Iran. [From my point of view, I think a Shiite uprising will make many Americans wonder just who in Iraq is for us and, that being the case, what in the blazes we're doing there.]
Clark showed himself to be a reader and a thinker, saying that the US needs to make some long term changes...militarily, diplomatically, economically...and that we need an government and establishment committed to that. He said something to the effect of, "If all you're looking to do is knock of some Republicans in 2006 and then revert to business as usual, have fun." He's looking for more.
He ended with a poignant answer-thought I wouldn't bet that the question wasn't planted-about the plight of wounded vets returning from Iraq. He described some horrible multi-amputees that he's met with, along with their families. He said that everyone needs something to do, someone to love, something to hope for, something to believe in [he did credit the sentiment as a quote of somebody else but my notes didn't catch it]. He urged everyone to contact the VA hospitals to help, particularly with jobs.
Reading these notes now is frustrating because there were so many points where I stopped to listen and absorb instead of taking notes. Clark struck me as being more thoughtful than I expected, over a wide range of issues, ranging from economic and military competition with China to economic potentials in Latin America. His discussion about China, in particular, struck me as coming from an informed, nuanced perspective. There were points in person where Clark was more passionate than I've ever seen him on TV; he has a tendency towards the overly restrained which isn't necessarily useful in politics...he could stand to "warm up" the intensity when he speaks (cf., Bill Clinton).
I'm not necessarily a believer in terms of Clark going all the way to the presidency. But at a minimum I think he would be an asset on the ticket or in one of the leading cabinet positions.
# # #