I was amused when Bill Rehm responded to someone today (I think it was Morat?) by saying they were mischaracterizing something about General Clark and that he was sure I would be along soon to point that out with a few links proving as much. I got the hint and was already needing to take a break anyway so I stopped and decided to write out a personal appeal rather than giving all the links. I have still provided a few links but this is mostly just from me.
Generals generate lots of mistrust by their very nature I suppose. They are easily stereotyped as dictatorial and less than adequate at interpersonal relationships. Thus I guess it should be no surprise that some kossacks have an innate distrust of General Clark. My initial response to this distrust has been to question the logic of it and charge headlong into a spirited defense of the man I see as the future of the Democratic party. That hasn't had the success I had hoped for so I am going to present some of the same material but package it differently.
I have come to the conclusion that the stereotype is unchallengable unless one meets General Clark in person somehow and sees for him/herself that he is not so dictatorial or interpersonally challenged. Since it is impossible to bring him to most of you I will have to introduce him the only other way possible, by witness from those who have known him and by pointing out hints at his character revealed by his words. I do not think he is God and fortunately he doesn't seem to think he is God either. But I do think he is a good person and very smart.
How do I know he is a good person? I can't prove that 100% but besides the good vibes I have gotten from my admittedly limited personal interaction with him on three separate occasions, I have met lots of people in Little Rock who knew him back when he was still a nobody. I have yet to find one who says that he was anything but kind and nice, always the epitome of the ideal boy scout. But people do change over time, sometimes for the worse, so all my "vibes" and the testimony of his longtime acquaintances could be dead wrong and he could be one thing in private and another in person.
There are hints that General Clark himself has been on the wrong end of military authority from time to time. He sometimes tells a story of having his head banged in a locker his freshman year at West Point by someone wanting to show their authority. He also tells of the person who saved him from this treatment and became a lifelong friend. Just recently I recognized the name of the person that saved him in a story told by someone who had seen General Clark on the campaign trail. Lots of bear hugs and laughs and loud talk that day.
I have a theory about General Clark's personality and interpersonal relationships. I think that as an only child, like me, he spent a lot of time alone and is consequently often introspective. I also think that being an only child and losing his father early in life somehow made him sensitive to the needs of others and made him more prone to treasure friendships. One example of what I mean is the friendship he shares with his brother-in-law Gene, who is also an only child. Gene travels with the General and often gives him fashion tips, which I must admit that I find amusing. That argyle sweater that made so much news recently was one that General Clark had actually borrowed from Gene. The two are like brothers.
OK before I get too far off from the point I am trying to make let me see if I can put some perspective on things. The biggest example of General Clark showing his sensitive side was his insistence on getting involved in Kosovo to stop the ethnic slaughter of 1.5 million Albanians. As has been documented by several authors, but perhaps most notably by Samantha Power in A Problem from Hell, General Clark was deeply troubled by the failure of the US in Rwanda and when he saw what was happening in Kosovo he resolved to not stand by helplessly a second time. It was this refusal to drop the idea of intervening in Kosovo and ending the reign of terror by Milosevic that ultimately cost him his job and left him starting over from scratch with his dignity barely intact after William Cohen and Hugh Shelton arranged to deceive President Clinton and get General Clark's retirement leaked to the press before Clinton could catch on and undo what had been done. It is probably because he feels he let General Clark down that Clinton feels some loyalty to him, rather than the other way around. See Elizabeth Drew on the dismissal:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
But getting back to the personality problems that generals often have, one incident says a lot about both General Clark's independence while in the army, his insistence on including Gert in decisions, and another example of being on the wrong end of authority. General Clark was 41 at the time and a rising star in the army and he received a new assignment. The housing what was supposed to be available didn't materialize and the CO at this new assignment insisted that General Clark take temporary housing at another location on the base. He asked Gert and she wanted to move once and have it done (she had already moved a number of times during the General's career). After consulting with Gert, General Clark, then lieutenant colonel Clark I think, told the CO that he would not be taking the temporary quarters but would instead be looking for permanent quarters. The CO threatened to take away his housing allowance unless he complied, but General Clark stuck to his guns and said no. This instance shows that General Clark knows some dictatorial commanders but refused to give in to abusive demands, while at the same time showing himself less than dictatorial because his wife had genuine input. See here for this story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584548.shtml
General Clark also has a tendency to see his men, and indeed all soldiers as family. I have read various stories of men who worked with him that bear this out. One was gay and wanted to leave the service. I have seen posts from him at the Clark website. Another went through a divorce and went to General Clark for advice and counseling. Yet another (Eric Massa) became ill while working with General Clark in Europe and wanted to stay on,because they were in the middle of the Kosovo war and he felt he was needed there, rather than come home for treatment. Rather than being detached and letting the soldier decide for himself, General Clark treated him like a son and this time did give an order: go home and get the treatment you need and let us worry about the war. And in the middle of the war General Clark took time to cut through the red tape and get Eric home so he could have necessary surgery. And he also sent someone to keep track of Eric and let him know when Eric was in recovery so a call could be placed.
It is because of his sensitivity that General Clark was as deeply involved in the lives of his men and their families as he was. Way back in the early 1980s he was working to help battered army spouses. He worked to improve health care and pay and housing and schools for his men. I don't know of any specifics other than the schools. While in Europe he found that the military schools (there were 44,000 children spread out in bases over six or seven countries) were wholly inadequate. He got input from soldiers and made several policy changes. One change was that he gave parents more authority over the schools. He also overhauled an outdated curriculum and started a head-start program.
All the policy decisions and changes he made while he was a commander stemmed from wanting to take care of his men. Maybe he never held elective office but General Clark has something that is rare in either politicians or generals: He has an intense desire to take care of people and he is extremely intelligent. His policy choices, like every other candidate, are fleshed out by experts. But General Clark's vision is behind each and every one and he was part of the discussion for each and every one.
General Clark's specific experience on many domestic issues isn't recorded where I could find access to it but he does seem to have more than one would think. Hence this quote from the Drew article:
Ron Klain, Clark's senior policy adviser, says that as a result of Clark's military experience, "he's more like a governor than a senator. He has run bases: they have school systems, health care issues, race issues." Klain said that in briefing Clark, "it's much more a conversation you'd have with Clinton than with Gore."
Before I finish I want to point to other hints of General Clark's experience with domestic affairs. Reading this pdf will give you some idea of what was done to rebuild Kosovo but it doesn't tell General Clark's part of the story.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/MR1753.ch7.pdf
His part of the story is seen in just a short snippet from a review of Dana Priest's The Mission (I encourage you to read about her book to understand its context). Since General Clark's men were doing these things one can only assume that General Clark was playing a role in this nation-building process:
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/apr/07/opinion/20030407opi3.html
In Kosovo, a lieutenant chose the phone company's board of directors while another young officer, a recent law school graduate, wrote procedures for, then conducted, the country's first postwar criminal hearing.
Finally, I realize it is hard to overcome first impressions of people. I was leary of General Clark at first. Before he ran I was supporting John Kerry and a friend of mine in NH mentioned Clark. I was skeptical but began to do research on him and eventually came to know the details I have related here. I urge you to not take my word but to at least take a close look at General Clark and see for yourself if he is what I say he is or not.