Clark sez:
"After the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party and some of the presidential candidates seemed to be wobbling all over the map on being strong for America," General Clark said. "So I voted for people who would take care of the country."
Some thoughts in addition to
last night's late-night diary entry on this topic.
First, Clark's military credentials were supposed to help the Democrats on national security issues. Instead, Clark's comments here reinforce mindless stereotypes about our party. The remarks reinforce the ridiculous notion that Democrats like Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis did or would have put the nation at risk.
Clark should have said that his votes for Reagan and Bush, Sr. were unwise in retrospect. Instead, he described them as "people who would take care of the country" better than our nominees.
Clark would be uniquely positioned to defend our party's legacy.
First of all, his national security platform has a hell of a lot more in common with Jimmy Carter's than it does with George W. Bush's. He could point this out in the same way Clinton does, by saying that he is part of the "bipartisan consensus" on security party that prevailed during the Cold War, and from which Bush's policy of pre-emption is a dangerous departure.
Second, Clark favors cutting the military budget. What could be more natural than saying, "Since I cast those votes, I realized that the Reagan/Bush military policy was basically 'more is better.' That's not necessarily true. Jimmy Carter realized that, and now I realize that, too."
Instead, we're left with questions. Does he still think that President Michael Dukakis would have left the nation less secure than President George H.W. Bush did? If not, why not?
A couple more thoughts on the remarks themselves.
It's one thing to say that Democrats have a perception problem on defense issues -- that we are perceived as weaklings, and we have to appear stronger. I think that's a fair point.
It's quite another to say that the problem goes beyond mere perception, and that the Democratic party, historically, actually WAS unable to "take care of the country" as well as the Republicans. To me, that's an insult that approaches a blood libel.
If Clark doesn't do that here, he sure walks right up to the line.
He didn't say, "I voted for people who I thought at the time would take care of the country." He said, "I voted for people who would take care of the country."
He didn't say our nominees "seemed to be wobbling all over the map on being strong for America, a view I no longer hold." He said our nominees "seemed to be wobbling all over the map on being strong for America," and so he voted for the other guys.
It would also have been possible for Clark to defend his votes against our nominees by citing specific disagreements on defense policy with them. He could argue that Pentagon spending was misallocated, or that our nominees didn't support specific programs which he thought were essential, without questioning our commitment to defending the country.
Instead, he went with the broad-brush criticism.