There has been a lot of "gotcha" campaigning going on. And people have been upset by it. But there is a reverse dichotomy that is resulting from the backlash - when people raise legitimate concerns about a candidate on policy differences they are attacked for spreading smears.
I got into a debate over Clark's support for the School of Americas with Rob, a well known Clark supporter on this site. Rob attacked the issue as a smear, but Clark's expressed support for the SOA and it's "reforms" is an issue many of us worry about. The SOA Watch has an excellent breakdown on their website of the alleged "reforms".
This is what Clark said about it:
"There's been a lot of rotten people who've gone to a lot of rotten schools in the history of the world," Clark said. "And a lot of them went to this school. But a lot of them have gone to Harvard Business School and a lot of other places."
This idea that only a few bad apples come out of the SOA is widely disputed. SOA Watch itself asserts that SOA graduates are responsible for
most human rights abuses in Latin America. There is no question here that Clark is comparing the SOA to the Harvard Business School. There is no comparison.
Whatever the case, this issue could hardly be called a smear. Labeling Clark a Republican for voting for Nixon is a different story. The point is that just because we are mad about the gotcha stuff doesn't mean there aren't important policy issues that should be discussed. And this one issue doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Bush either.
At some point folks should recognize that there are negative things to say about the various Democrats. I Support Dean even though I know that his record on a variety of issues that matter (environment, trade, etc..) were mixed as Governor of Vermont. I'm not stupid, I base my support on a collection of issues.
In Clark's case, he did not run the SOA but he was head of Southern Command (SOA falls under this perview), did speak at commencement at the school, and did testify before Congress in support of the SOA. Those historical positions are one thing, but the quote cited above is recent.
I'm not looking to a repeat of the discussions that have been had on this issue. Really, I really want to know why it is a smear to bring up legitimate policy issues relevant to the various candidates. At issue here is the response I've gotten - which isn't to discuss the issue's substance but instead to smear SOA Watch, an important public interest group. Also, the response was to wax on with platitudes about the "far left" and "far right". Where is the substantive policy discussion?
This issue grabbed my attention because it is an issue I have followed closely. I had a former housemate spend six months in federal prison for peacefully protesting the SOA and my wife and sister have both traveled to Georgia to protest the SOA (as have many, many friends). Every year my good friend Joe and his wife travel to Georgia for the SOA protests with the St. Benedictine Sisters in Erie. So it is an issue that has significance for me and many of those that I know well.