It's not an insult, Nathan, it's the political process. I know *I* was a Republican once, and I know what it's like to drink that Kool-Aid.

I like Clark; and I think it's quite frankly stupid to point at someone, say "They were Republicans once," and therefore disqualify them from participating in our party.

I know I dance a jig every time a RINO comes over to the Democrats; I see a potential President in Clark that could fuel that crossover in a way that is very much needed.

Fair point, K.G.C., but I'm with Nathan. Leopards can genuinely change their spots. Reagan was an FDR Democrat, Hugo Black was in the Klan, and the first generation of neocons started out as socialists.

But with Clark, we really don't know what we're getting. By the time the Republicans nominated Reagan for Governor, he had been the right-wing's mouthpiece for several years and given the keynote at the '64 Republican Convention. By the time they ran him for President, no one could doubt his conservative bona fides.

Clark is asking us to let him start out as President, before he's done anything to show us where he really stands (in fact, he hasn't really even said where he stands on a lot of issues that are critical to progressives). I don't think it's unreasonable to ask him to walk the walk for a few years before we entrust the Democratic Party to him.

Sigh. I think this is why Clark's candidacy is depressing me a little. He's an attractive candidate to me for the same reason he is to anybody else. But if he is able to pop his head up in the race at this late point, given stuff like this in his background, and ride into the presidency, it will be surer proof than ever that style trumps substance even when substance could have won. If that's the case, it's a truth I hate to accept.

Based on what is presented in the Wesley Clark data dump (below), I would never vote for him.

Read below Micharl Moore's letter

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271764.shtml

I agree with Nathan, except I should also point out that many of the politicians (currently running for President, some of them) were just as actively "enabling" Bush, too.

--Kynn

I couldn't disagree more. This is an RNC talking point, and that should tell us all we need to know about how important it is.

I agree that we don't know enough about Clark yet. But politics is politics, and it's all about winning. If Clark has the right basic policies and temperament -- and we should spend some time finding this out -- then who cares if he just jumped in? We need a candidate that America will vote for, not one who's "proven" his loyalty to the Democratic party. "Fairness" just doesn't matter here.

I've got no problem with attacking Clark's policies or his ability to lead, but let's not do the RNC's work for them.

I'm confused. Joe Lieberman is part of the RNC or something, Kevin?

I've just spent some time doing research. At the same time that Wesley Clark was out raising money for Bush, Joe Lieberman was fighting against the Bush tax cut.

Is there any video footage of Wesley Clark praising the Bush administration while raising money for them on May 11, 2001? If so, and Clark is the nominee, wouldn't that make a GREAT ad for Bush's re-election?

--Kynn

Oh, I should read Calpundit first, not second. :) There IS a video tape!

--Kynn

Exactly which Democratic candidates are you talking about that "loyally fought the Bush agenda for the last few years?" Kucinich? Because I can't think of anyone else in this current crop who meets that definition. Graham, maybe, but only because he thinks we invaded the wrong country. Kerry and Edwards held firm on judicial appointments, but not much else.

I'm excited about the Clark candidacy, but I have no problem with skepticism about him. Hell, even I'm not ready to vote for the man yet, though I certainly have high hopes. What I can't understand is why progressives shouldn't even consider him just because he "hasn't earned the trust of progressives by fighting for the progressive agenda in the past." Granted, in an ideal world I wouldn't want a candidate cutting his teeth by running for President, but we're living in strange times. Right now there is practically nobody who could run against Bush (including some current Republicans) whom I wouldn't vastly prefer and consider supporting. In my mind, this is a must-win election. The drums of war are already sounding for Iran, and there will be several Supreme Court vacancies during the next presidential term.

Clark's positions so far look good on abortion, affirmative action, PATRIOT Act, mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, the need for international alliances, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts. He's less than ideal on free trade and balancing the budget. His positions on labor and the environment remain to be seen. That's a helluva good start, and I'm not going to let some vague statements in support of Dubya four months into his administration and some twenty-year-old Republican votes rule out supporting the man.

KGC above has a good point. For whatever reasons Clark declared Democrat, and that should be the end of the issue. There are a lot of good Republicans who will be voting against Bush next year. Are we going to reject their votes because they are GOP?

But my problem with Clark, which also apply to Kerry, Edwards and Graham in particular, is that the fire went out once he announced his candidacy. He isn't pushing any issues, merely trying to stay in the contest.

Clark is one of nine worthwhile contenders (Even Sharpton. Lieberman can go home for all I care) who should all be campaigning against Shrubya and not each other. They should all be laying out what they would do to correct specific problems caused by Arbusto Estupido and let us decide who we support. Only Dean has done this to any large degree.

"It's Beat Dubya, Stupid!"

I'm definitely not sure I would support Clark, but I think you're unfair here. I wonder what Clark was doing...

Jeez, here was some of what he was doing:

"From 1997 through May of 2000, General Clark was NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Commander in Chief of the United States European Command. In this position, General Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO's first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo."

Was he fighting for Domestic Progressive organizations? No. He was however working on defending the United States, improving our relationships with our NATO allies, improving foreign policy, and protecting the lives of tens of thousands of people and the rights of 1.5 million people to live in their homes.

Maybe people have a point when they say Democrats don't focus enough on international politics and are instead too focused on domestic issues. Why don't you respect Clark's work as a work for progressive causes? Is improving our foreign policy, working for international cooperation, and ending crimes against humanity not progressive in your mind? Can't you understand that sometimes a person has to be nonpartisan on certain issues in order to further others? If I support Clark, it won't be for his electability. It will be for the fact that he has worked for a RELATIVELY progressive and REALISTIC international agenda. HE also has the right stances on many Domestic issues, from what I know so far. We have to wait and see, but he's an environmentalist, in favor of LGBT rights, supports affirmative action, and pro-choice. I am very interested to see what his stance on labor issues is. I think it is quite fair to say we shouldn't jump on board until we've seen more. At the same time, I think your post reveals one of the great weaknesses of the American Left. You undervalue the importance of a good foreign policy. You completely fail to address it as a potential reason to embrace Clark. I think he's very smart and would push for a foreign policy that would actually protect, not endanger Americans. That should count for something. One reason I can't support Kucinich and company is that he has a pretty unrealistic foriegn policy.

Clark would certainly NOT role back domestic policies as much as Bush. He sounds like he would appoint people who would move them forward, but we'll have to wait and see. At the same time, he might be truly great at foreign policy. I wish I could say the other Democrats had convinced me they would be great at all these issues but they haven't.

Just in case there is confusion from the first post. I think Democrats are often weak and bad on foreign policy, but I think Republicans are atrocious. Truly fools of foreign policy. I think Clark may be good for the Democrats and give them a strong foreign policy. I think his Domestic policy might be worse than some Democrats but would be much better than Republicans. At the same time, I think many of the Democrats would have bad foreign policy (worse than Clark's), but it would be much better than Republicans.

let's not do the RNC's work for them

... from the guy who posted this.

Eeeeeeexcellent.

MDtoMN,

I may not mind him as Secy of Defense. But no further -- I don't think I would want him as Secy of State either. I don't think he has the vision to be the President.

My comeback to the anybody but Dubya -- would be the following -- Why would anybody --ANYBODY vote for Dubya after his performance!

So therefore I might as well as get what I think would be the best for the country, and not worry about electability.

i do think it's a good idea per se to prevent crimes against humanity, providing you are not committing them at the same time. what has gen. clark ever accomplish, aside from rising through the ranks and becoming a nato commander whose term was prematurely terminated? are democrats so lacking in character and principle and so bereft of an agenda that they must hide behind the appeal of authoritarian mystique? remember when gen. colin powell was supposed to be the great white hope? well, i guess soldiers, including generals, are trained to obey. but obey whom?

It's ironic that many voters who claim that all politicians are opportunistic knaves are opportonistic themselves in claiming they want to support an "electable" candidate.

I believe the Democratic party belongs to it's partisans (i.e. primary voters). The spiritual (if not legal ownership) of the party belongs to its partisans. If the party's primary electorate is genuinely convinced by centrist arguements let them nominate a centrist. If the party's primary electorate is convinced by leftist arguements, let them nominate a leftist. If the party's primary electorate decides personality and leadership qualities are more important than issues, let them nominate a strong leader who does not necessarily fit their view on the issues. Just don't make your decision based on electability. Let the Republicans nominate their candidate along the same lines. In our democracy, parties nominate and the American people decide.

General election voters decide who's electable (a good example of this is the election of Ronald Reagan). That's the way it should be.

Clark's career is not just one of a generic military man. His work in NATO involved diplomacy and the development and coordination of a true coallition of governments to work to end one crime against humanity that also threatened to destabilize the region. It was not just typical jumping through hoops. His writing about foreign policy and strategies are good, and certainly worlds better than those put forth by most of the Democratic candidates (Graham also deserves some credit here). I don't think it's accurate to paint Clark as just another general. He's a general whose opinions about foreign policy reflect a good combination of liberalism and realism. I appreciate that.

Also, this has very little to do with electability to me. Personally I think Clark may do a better job than many of the other candidates, shocking as that may sound.

Also, about electability, didn't Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt all support the Iraq war with an eye to electability? Didn't Kucinich switch his position from pro-life to pro-choice? Do you think these other guys and their supporters aren't making choices based on electability?

Let's take another tack here. If we were to cut out all candidates of any party who made a major switch in their positions within, say, the last five years, who would be left? Certainly, Bush is out first. I don't think he remained on message on a single campaign issue. Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, already spoken for. Kucinich qualifies. There are current allegations about Dean, which might pull him into this condition. I don't know enough about Mosely-Braun or Al Sharpton, but it wouldn't be much of a stretch to find something. Toss in Clark, and who's left?

We are going to have to decide WHAT constitutes a legitimate change of position and what is opportunistic. Anyone want to start?

I'm not trying to get into a big argument here, but I just think that the vast majority of voters don't care about "loyalty" to a party. Fixating on that could be a real mistake.

As for Clark, one speech to a Republican group is hardly a killer. If it turns out he was spending lots of time and many speeches doing this, that would be quite another thing.

And remember, sometimes it's the reformed sinner who brings the most zeal to his task....

Kevin-- who said anything about the "vast majority of voters." Non-partisans are free to like Clark-- I'm speaking for myself.

And no, I don't like the zeolatry of reformed sinners; they tend to either lack the stamina for the long haul or lack the nuance of long term pragmatists.

As I said- I like politicians, precisely because they lack the fervour of converts-- and instead are domesticated by loyalty and dependence on the grassroots.

Actually, IMHO the worst "issue switching" bastard IS...Dennis Kucinich, who was a viciously rabid right-to-lifer... until he decided to run for President. Although, that's not my problem with him-- my problem with him is that he's totally, utterly unelectable (and he was a lousy mayor of Cleveland).

Lookit: if John McCain woke up tomorrow and said he had a great epiphany, and realized he wanted to be a Democrat, I would welcome and embrace him. If enough primary voters would then believe that he is an appropriate standard bearer to lead the party's ticket (to victory), I would accept him-- a lifelong Republican joining the party.

Well, I feel the same way about Clark. I don't care about his ideological purity. The process is going to force him to come clean on his positions and agenda anyway. If Clark satisfies primary voters that he is worthy of support and gets the nomination, God bless. If he is a GOP fundraiser in sheep's clothing, I trust our party members enough to vet his ass out of the process.

Let me get this straight: are we to oppose Clark BECAUSE his apparent centrist/slight right leaning might make him MORE electable?

I find that troubling.

Nathan,

I second your point about the importance of loyalty, commitment and paying your dues. I also think your suspicion of non-politicans and/or recent converts is right-on. The problem is, a lot of these politicans competing against Clark haven't exactly been champions of loyalty themselves.

I mean, what about all the Democrats who supported NAFTA, which, among other things, represented a massive betrayal of traditional Democratic constiuients (environmentalists, unions, blue-collars, small farms) in favor of neoliberal ideology and multinational entreprises? Lieberman, Kerry, Dean, and Graham all supported NAFTA. Or what about those Democrats who rely on huge margins from African-Americans to get elected, only to support reactionary measures like mandatory minimums, three strikes, etc.? If we're going to attack ex-Republicans for lack of loyalty, let's at least try to hold current Democrats accountable as well.

Peter- The issue is not a candidate meeting every litmus test of every Democratic Party group. While I personally am strongly anti-NAFTA and anti-mandatory minimums, that is an issue that has been contested WITHIN the Democratic Party for years. But at least the free trader Dems didn't go and try to elect Republicans to make it easier to win on that issue. A party is a collection of issues, some contested, some consensus, and its leader should at least have been supporting the overall party.

And I am all for holding cnadidates accountable for their votes-- on the war, on NAFTA et al.- and it's quite reasonable to vote against Lieberman, Kerry and such for their past positions on trade. Just as it is even more resonable to vote against Clark for his past support for Republicans overall.

It seems the disparagement of Clark on this forum is based on a false premise, that Clark praised the presidency of GW Bush. I read an article that includes the entire transcript, not the parsed one from the RNC, and Clark was talking about the presidency of the elder Bush. This quote is also taken out of context, and if read entirely is not an unequivocal endorsement of Republican policies. It was in reference to a specific instance. I have to agree with an earlier poster, why help the RNC in their misinformation campaign? Sounds like the old lie that Gore stated he invented the internet, which was shown to be a willful distortion of what he said. Are we falling for their tired tactics again with Clark?

I agree with Nathan. My primary concern is not Gen. Clark's having recently been a Republican, but his not having been a politician. As Nathan says, with the other candidates we have decades of votes and political actions to evaluate... In addition, there is an important aspect of the Presidency that is just doing the job; negotiating with factions in the Legislature, choosing a Cabinet and working with them, running the White House. There is no reason to believe General Clark would be bad at all that, but there isn't any reason to believe he would be good at it. He's a pig in a poke, as Nathan says.

There are, it seems to me, three ways of looking at primary candidates. You can look at who has the best chance to win the general election; at the candidate’s policy positions; and at patterns of behaviour, and character, and experience. I'm not yet convinced that Gen. Clark has the necessary experience to govern well, with all the will in the world, and the landslide victory I hope he, or whoever the Democrat's nominee will have.

Thank you,
-Vardibidian.

One advantage I can see, and hope, is that Clark may go out of his way to prove he's a real Democrat. Because his leadership qualities are beyoned question, he may have more "wiggle room" to take a left-of-center approach on domestic issues. I'm still waiting to hear his views of trade, taxes and entitlements. And I'm concerned that he's surrounded himself by so many Clinton-Gore veterans. But I'm withholding judgment for now.

Nathan's position makes no sense to me. This is ultimately a game, and Clark so far appears to be the most likely to win. (anyone who dismisses electability is a Dean supporter yearning to eliminate this argument from consideration, I've found)

Clark supports government activism, rejects imperialistic fantasies, and is not a free market fundamentalist (and its implications for healthcare, labor, etc). What more could you ask for? In broad strokes, this is what's important.

He never should have been a Republican, he's a natural Democrat. And we're lucky to have him.

And to all those complaining about his lack of policy specificity, do you really think he'll continue that? Come on. He'll roll out all the positions you want soon.

All of these candidates would be very similar in office, thanks to a likely Repub congress. So don't get too hung up on specifics.

I'd agree with Nathan's analysis if Clark truly was out there "helping Bush raise money" and praising him-- but that's not the case if you look beyond the RNC kool-aid which the other candidates are now parroting. The instance everyone is talking about was a fundraiser for the Pulaski County, Arkansas Republican Party-- not exactly helping Bush out. And of course, as others have mentioned, the content of the speech included praise for Bush 41 (not Dubya) for his handling of the first Gulf War in a multilateralist fashion, and of Reagan's general help to the military and ending Communism. He also says a kind word or two (literally, that's it) about the present Bush foreign policy team, but considering the pre-9/11 Rumsfeld's primary objective was military reform and accountability (a goal Clark has spoken about in his campaign so far, and which was originated in the national debate by a progressive Democrat, Gary Hart), its not like you can fully fault him for being optimistic that they might turn out decent. Most of the speech, which OpinionJournal.com posted a few days back in hopes of embarassing Clark (I have it linked to in a post on my blog, if you clik the link), is actually an extolling of multilateralism-- in praising Bush 41 he specifically is talking about how many people (mostly Republicans) wanted the US to retreat from international institutions and just build up a defensive military after hte Cold War, but Bush stood up to them.

As far as supporting Democrats-- Clark voted for Gore in 2000, has said on record that the Supreme Court was wrong to get involved in the recount situation, and campaigned exclusively for a good number of Democrats (including to my knowledge at least three Senate candidates: Mark Pryor, Jeanne Shaheen, and Max Cleland) in 2002. The guy is for real.

So if this was a guy who truly was a Republican booster in the past and just recently converted (as Dean's "last 25 days" remark on "Face the Nation" attempted to imply), I would agree that he deserves none of our support for President. But all you have is his votes for Nixon and Reagan way back when, and a local Republican Party picnic at which he said some nice things about his hosts' political heroes and substantively mostly talked about international multilateralism.

I think Nathan said it very well. I (mostly) welcome General Clark to the presidential race. He's smart, articulate, telegenic and is saying most of the right things. And his candidacy is getting attention which brings the race itself that much more attention.

What I am not prepared for is Clark as the candidate. He *doesn't* have a history or a real live paper trail. A Democratic President (or Republican, for that matter) is the highest representative of the Party. The standard-bearer, almost the embodiment of the party. I am not prepared to entrust that role to someone who as recently as two months ago would not declare his party affiliation.

We've had two years to see that someone can campaign as one thing only to be another thing entirely. At least with Bush we had the example of Texas if one took the time to actually look. But with Clark we really have nowhere to look. I absolutely do not mean to imply that I believe him to untrustworthy or to equate him with Bush. I just mean that there has been too much damage in too short a time. This is not a game to me. I believe with my whole heart that too much is at stake. This election is too important to entrust it to such an unknown quantity. I have disliked candidates before, but never before have I had such fear for my country. Who knew I was such a patriot?

Labor of Love says "All of these candidates would be very similar in office, thanks to a likely Repub congress"

I agree this much. According to their words all of these candidates would be similar in office. But I don't trust just words right now. I want history.

Look, there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. All have feet of clay in some regard, because all people have feet of clay. And I will support the Democratic candidate. I have been saying that I will support the Democratic candidate even if by some bizarre mischance it was Joe Lieberman. But I would (gulp) much prefer Senator Lieberman to General Clark.

Nathan, I generally love your commentaries so I'm disappointed to see you let the RNC spin you. Show me one bit of evidence that Clark was a G.W. Bush supporter. Doing a book tour where he signs a few books for republicans is not evidence -- it's a book tour. A courtesy appearance by the local retired general for a county Republican lunch where he probably had long-standing personal friends (he's from that area) is not evidence. And you should know that military officers are *required* to remain politically neutral during their careers. It's a basic requirement to do his job, and it's unfair to question him for it.

Furthermore, Clark is not a Johnny-come-lately businessman who has made a zillion dollars and is now looking for a presidential bid to cap it off. He's been in public service his whole life and sacrificed substantial income to do it (not to mention taking several bullets). It's snotty to say that he was somehow absent from fighting for your rights -- the way most people see it the U.S. Army does fight for our rights.

If Clark is a secretly Republican-leaning opportunist, fine, I'll vote against him. But the people who are pushing that line now are the top Republicans. I wonder why?

P.S. check out Josh Marshall's interview with Clark on talkingpointsmemo.com and look at what he says on domestic policy. A whole lot of good things if you ask me.

P.P.S I used some of your minimum wage material in my labor economics class...thanks!

Marcus- Hey I've said I'd even let Clark be the Vice President nominee; it's not like I'm casting him to the lower depths of hell for apostacy.

But someone who has no track record deserves a lot of distrust when seeking the most powerful job on earth-- and the position of party leader, which is what the Presidency amounts to.

Going to a Republican fundraising event of any kind is not what a Dem leader should do; voting for Reagan does not give me confidence. Praising Bush and seeking to work for him is not a good sign for me. If he wanted to be a nonpartisan civil servant, that's up to him, but call me partisan, but when Bush is ripping apart labor rights and bombing people, I'm not looking for someone who can "serve their nation, right or wrong." I'm looking for the leader of the opposition.

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat and turned out to be the biggest Republican hero and most popular (with the Republican faithful, not me) president of our time.

As far as I can tell Wes Clark was never a Republican. He voted Republican several times but remained independent of party affiliation, as he believed he should as military leader.

Wes Clark may have praised Bush 41 and spoke at a fundraiser, but that's nothing compared to some of the cowardly capitulation to GWB by many so-called "real" Democrats.

He's not a politcian? Great! Then he hasn't learned to lie yet.

Of course Clark merits some careful scrutiny as does every candidate. I'm still making up my mind about him.

But I have found him stimulating at times. For example, this quote from Josh Marshall's interview with Clark http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm
(the whole interview is an interesting read).

'So when people say that competition is-this is sort of sloganeering, "Hey, you know, schools
need this competition." No. I've challenged people: Tell me why it is that competition would
improve a school. Most of them can't explain it. It's just like, "Well, competition improves
everything so therefore it must improve schools."'

That's one of the most refreshing challenges to rightwing orthodoxy I've heard from ANY democratic candidate since maybe Jesse Jackson. Clark said this???? This is not the sort of recycled DNC orthodoxy troweled like bad makeup onto Clark by some handler. (or maybe a very good handler). There's some actual thought here.

So I haven't given up on Clark yet. I still don't feel I have a fix on him. And there are some positives beside the fact that he's perceived to be electable.