The End of Wes Clark's V.P. Campaign
It may ultimately be a good thing for Barack Obama that Wesley Clark stepped into such a mess when he discussed John McCain’s military service this week.
The background of the Clark flap is by now familiar: On CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, the retired general said that “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” a comment that has been portrayed by the right – and by much of the media – as an effort to disparage McCain’s service.
While Obama quickly rebuked Clark, much of the left has rushed to the Clark’s defense, noting that he was merely responding to a question that was almost identically phrased and that he was only drawing a reasonable distinction between McCain’s military service and the experience needed to set U.S. foreign policy.
Clark’s defenders have a point, but in the bigger picture the details of the argument aren’t what’s important. The real significance of this week’s controversy – however unfair and unjust it is – is that it pretty much ensures that Clark won’t be on the Democratic ticket this fall, something that seemed a very real possibility beforehand. And Clark, almost certainly, would not have lived up to his potential as a running-mate.
That is the story of Clark’s political career, which began sometime in the early part of this decade, when he began toying with a 2004 presidential campaign. On paper, then as now, he seemed the perfect face for a Democratic Party whose leaders have all too often been caricatured by the right as national security weaklings, eager to appease aggressors and frightened of using force. What better antidote to this poisonous perception than an actual military general, a man who oversaw a successful war and Kosovo and who spent three years as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander?
Clark dawdled before finally plunging into the ’04 Democratic race, but his entry was still greeted enthusiastically by the party’s grassroots and by some key fund-raisers. He was instantly competitive in polling. The potential clearly existed for him to supplant Howard Dean, who was then the front-runner, by campaigning effectively as an anti-war Democrat who seemed likely to win over independent and Republican voters in the fall.
He failed miserably. His late start and Dean’s head start, along with his decision to write off the Iowa caucuses, can all be pegged as contributing factors in Clark’s ’04 demise. But the real explanation is simpler, though hard to define precisely: He did not make the right personal impression on voters.
Others have commented on his personality problem. When Clark jumped in the race in ’03, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen asked if he might be “too weird for prime-time.”
“Something about Clark makes people bristle,” wrote Cohen, who concluded that the general lacked in “warmth and affability” what he had in terms of intellect.
Other theories have been offered. Peggy Noonan, obviously not one to extend too many courtesies to Democrats but still an astute observer of personality, called Clark “a first-class strange-o,” arguing that his ambition and arrogance were too easily visible.
Whatever it was that turned voters off, Clark fell well short of expectations in 2004, eking out a win in the Oklahoma primary (he is from neighboring Arkansas) but winning nowhere else before dropping out.
My own theory is that Clark, unlike other military figures who have transitioned into politics (like Colin Powell), simply did not – and does not – carry himself in public in a way that is consistent with what most voters expect when they hear the title “General.” He is not physically imposing or intimidating, does not naturally assert control during interviews and in debates, and doesn’t seem to command any extra degree of respect of deference from his opponents or from questioners. Clark’s mere presence does not convey authority.
The problem is that this undercuts the value of his military background. The whole idea of running a retired general for office is to offer a reassuring figure to the masses. Powell, for instance, shed his military uniform in 1993, but was no less commanding a presence when he began venturing into politics in 1995 and 1996. The same is true of Jim Webb, who was never a general but who exudes the seriousness, purpose, and focus voters associate with military men.
Without his uniform, by contrast, Clark seems like just another politician struggling to stick to his talking points. When Democrats realized his average-ness in ’04, they jumped off the bandwagon, recognizing that his military credentials wouldn’t be worth nearly as much as they hoped in the fall.
But Clark, of course, still hungered for national office after the ’04 debacle, and worked hard to maintain his visibility in the aftermath of the election. Almost certainly, he would have run this year had Hillary Clinton, whom he supported, not done so. And not surprisingly, his lingering presence on the public stage has – once again – led some Democrats to fantasize about the value he might add to an Obama-led ticket. Seduced once again by his military title, they envisioned Clark as a powerful counterbalance to the G.O.P. attacks on Obama’s perceived national security inexperience.
In reality, there’s little reason to believe that the result would be a more positive one than ‘04 if Obama picked Clark. Just consider the reaction to his comments about McCain this week: His own military record hasn’t insulated Clark at all from efforts to portray him as just another anti-military MoveOn leftist. And why? Because it’s only too easy, upon watching Clark play a politician, to forget that he even has a military record.
For Obama, there is clear value in selecting a running mate who will offer reassurance to the public on national security. But Clark is, and always has been, the wrong person for that role. This week’s events, unfair though they may be, will simply exclude from the selection process a man who probably shouldn’t have been included in the first place.
Wes Clark inspired many grassroots Democrats to get involved back in 2004, and I came across many of those folks working inside the campaigns of Obama, Clinton and Edwards this past year. That fact that Wes was never a slick politician was what drew us to him in the first place, and while the truth he speaks may be unartful there are still a few of us left who don't mind hearing some honesty every now and then. Any administration looking to solve the issues facing us in Iraq today would be well served to employ him.
I think the problem with Wes Clark is that he is not a politician. He answers a straight question with a straight answer. Is being a fighter pilot and being shot down enough to be President? That's what he was asked and he truthfully answered "no."
He probably should have been ready with a more artful response. What the media keeps overlooking is this was not swiftboating, etc - General Clark said he honored Sen. McCain and Sen. McCain was one of his heros. He made the simple statement that Sen. McCain's military background alone did not qualify him to be President.
Yes, you are right about the Vice Presidency. Obama should look elsewhere. But wierd? General Clark is probably one of the least wierd men in political life. He's a down to earth guy that says what he thinks. When I watch him interact with his wife, Gert, I can't help thinking of Ward and June Cleaver. Well, yeah, maybe these days that is a little wierd.
I have met Wes Clark a few times and am friends with a number of his former subordinates and I speak from personal experience when I say his problem is he is a pompous jerk. He is SURE he is smarter than you are and when you meet him he has a way of looking you up and down and if you aren't fawning over him he dismisses you like a crumb on his tie. Have you ever seen a story about any of his former soldiers saying they would support him? Ever seen stories about his "guys" and their loyalty? You won't. Now he has turned on all of us with his support to the idiots at Votevets.org and their stupid anti-surge campaign. Clark is a jerk. Thats the problem. No deeper than that.
Oh PLEASE...
This flap over McCain's military service was initiated by the media, fanned by the media, overblown by the media, condemned by the media and (in this particular article)laughingly used to predict the "End" of a "V.P. campaign" that exists only in the minds of the media.
In fact, read the article again. 90% of what this writer talks about he just made up. No verifiable facts. No researchable references. Just two quotes that Clark is kind of wierd from two (ta dah) members of the media. The irony of those quotes is that they're from two of the wierdest journalists you'll ever watch on a talk show! Richard Cohen and Peggy Noonan are "out there".
Another contribution to the crap we're fed every day!
Oh PLEASE...
This flap over McCain's military service was initiated by the media, fanned by the media, overblown by the media, condemned by the media and (in this particular article)laughingly used to predict the "End" of a "V.P. campaign" that exists only in the minds of the media.
In fact, read the article again. 90% of what this writer talks about he just made up. No verifiable facts. No researchable references. Just two quotes that Clark is kind of wierd from two (ta dah) members of the media. The irony of those quotes is that they're from two of the wierdest journalists you'll ever watch on a talk show! Richard Cohen and Peggy Noonan are "out there".
Another contribution to the crap we're fed every day!
Mr.Clarke, please lend those balls of yours to Obama.
The Obama campaign would do well to not fold every time the McCain folks attack someone's remarks taken out of context.
Clark answered a specific question correctly, and made all due double back flips to acknowledge McCain's service and heroism. It IS the judgment of a presidential contender that should drive our choice of the right candidate.
Clark always impresses me with his cogent, direct, authoritative answers to questions.
This media overuse of the word "slam" does the electorate a huge disservice and undercuts the instances in which those in the public eye dare give an honest answer to a question.
Clark was stating the obvious, being in a prisoner of war camp does not in itself constitute a qualification to be president of the United States.
I would like to have McCain's military record released in its entirety, I've read it never has been. Would like to know if this is unusual, if there's reason to be curious why it has not.
I have met Wes Clark more times than I can count, and not ONCE have I ever seen so much as a hint of him being pompous, arrogant or dismissive. He's a warm, open and genuine person. The only "weirdness" about him is how completely honest he is... we're not used to that when it comes to politicians, so maybe it comes off as "wacko." Perhaps the people who dislike him so much saw the not-so-nice side (and we ALL have one) because they did something wrong.
Is he "physically imposing or intimidating"? Nope. But is that really the measure of a man? Heaven help us if it is.
Clark was probably instructed by the Obama campaign to say what he said. He makes a valid point but that's not the way Obama wants to be viewed in his opining McCain's service. The public would frown on Obama's dissent, but soemone like Clark, and Webb for that matter, has every right to cross-examine McCain's service.
This article says that Clark has always been wrong guy for national security but only offers the political venture of 2004 as reason why. Perhaps Wesley Clark could poise himself to be the VP, up his rhetoric, and work as an attack dog to neutralize the patriotic, war-hero factor.
Clark is not only strange, he's also rather creepy. He says he honors McCain's military service and yet goes out of his way to diminish it. When given an opportunity to clarify or phrase it more "artfully" (whatever that means), he merely restates his mistake. It's like talking to synthetic human being, who doesn't quite get your bemusement.
Generals have always had a hard time on the political scene. Especially ones that have run afoul of the chain of command like Wesley Clark and Douglas McArthur.
We expect our generals to somehow rise above petty political squabbles as Dwight Eisenhower or Colin Powell tried to do.
If the democrats want to make a message about McCain not having enough experience, a general is clearly not the person to do it. It looks petty and uprepared. People on this blog may look at this as the truth, but I can tell you, most American look at flying a fighter jet, and being and surviving as a prisoner of war as pretty amazing accomplishments. They do not relate to management ability in the least, but it still sounds like a general criticising another person for their amazing service.
As someone who served briefly in the military I am in awe of almost all of our fighting men and women. I am constantly amazed by their sacrifices to this country. That fact is that even the slightest denigration, even if logical is a slap, unless of course that politician is going overboard with their service.
But McCain just hasn't. He has run a few commercials promoting service, but it is incredible to me how little he has talked about it. First of all he has two sons in the military and one in active service and he refuses to bring that up. (An insane decision. If Obama had a second cousin in the military we would have heard it.) McCain also does not extoll his abilities as a fighter pilot (He was not a very good one).
The minute you start bringing these issues up, the greater chance of it backfiring. The worst thing that can happen is if someone says a slip of the tongue related to McCain's children in the military (Remember the John Kerry "Cheney's Lesbian daughter" strategy.) If that happens McCain will be blazing, and you don't want to see that happen.
General Clark floated a trial baloon for Obama and it turned out to be filled with lead rather than Helium. The fact that he made the statement shows why he will never be a VP or President. Any honor he had left, and it was getting in short supply, is completely gone. He is now an ex-general compltely without honor or dignity. Getting shot down in an airplane is not a qualification for President, but bearing up under the experience, bearing up under the terrible wounds he received, bearing up under the bad treatment and torture inflicted upon him, and above all refusing to be released ahead of his fellow soldiers while undergoing incredible suffering absolutely shows the that John McCain has the character to be President of the U.S. Obama and Clark with this disgusting attack have shown that they do not.
.
THE WAY FOR McCAIN TO BEAT OBAMA IS TO MAKE “OIL & ENERGY” THE TOP CAMPAIGN ISSUE.
Obama is locked into the ‘Al Gore Wishful Thinking’ solution to our energy crisis.
The overwhelming majority of voters SUPPORT DRILLING FOR OIL ON USA LANDS and WATERS.
The price of oil and gasoline will lead to a Depression in our economy. McCain must drive home this message.
McCain must emphasize that the ‘Obama-Gore’ solution to our energy crisis is a FAILED SOLUTION.
We need short-term relief --- as well as a long-range plan --- to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I live in Botswana in southern Africa and we had some military chaps from the U.S. on some joint operations withour local military down here and at the time (2004),I asked them about General Clark. To a man they said that they did not like him. This surprised me as I had taken a liking to him while following the primary election of 2004.
They called him a pompous "ass" (that was the exact term they used). They also told me of the way he was forcefully removed by his post during President Clinton's time,by his FELLOW officers which points to a man who garners alot of ill will. I personally have always liked the man in his political career, but the intensity of the dislike he had generated in what were by all standards very affable American officers gives one pause for thought
Clark, has one basic problem, it is himself. He comes off as a pompous, arrogant asshole who has no regard for others. His best friend for sure is any mirror he could admire himself while looking into it. I say let Obama pick him as VP and watch the arrogant ass (Clark) drag the ticket into oblivion.
What is up with the grammatically strained pseudo-denials? A comment was "inartfull", or "ineloquent"? Whatever happened to "that was a stupid thing to say".
Clark is a moron, always has been. The reason he dropped out of the 04 race is that he was tracking at about 2%. His ridiculous implication in his remarks is that he is more qualified to be president than McCain.
His soldiers hated him, and the country soundly rejected him. Dems love him though.
I agree. "Much Ado About Nothing"..... William Shakespeare
He answers a straight question with a straight answer. Is being a fighter pilot and being shot down enough to be President? That's what he was asked and he truthfully answered "no."
Wes Clark is a true man and a true hero. Take a lesson all propagandists and pundits. Enough is enough we are not buying into what you say anymore. We are fighting back and we are mad and we are not going to take it anymore.
No Wes probably won't be a VP candidate, and it's a shame.
Not only did he say nothing wrong, he was 100% right and upon watching the interview and not just a sound bite Wes was actually very artful. Great interview actually.
The people of the U.S. don't really deserve Wes as a VP or President. For President they deserve a coward like Obama(whom threw Clark under the bus for no reason, we'll remember this)
or a senile old man that doesn't know sunni from shiite)
Peggy noonan? now that's 100% wierdo.
We Love You Wes! You're a class act a hero a patriot, brilliant and truly a good man.
~Marcus
All I can say is I am shocked at how people believe people who have never met him...and Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for Reagan etc. Soldiers who do not like him I guarantee have never met him. He was not fired rather Holbrook wanted to put his buddy in. Read the facts. A lot of anger at someone who made sure not one American life was lost when he was in command. A lot of stupidity here....god save us all. This country will not survive its own ignorance at this rate.
All I can say is I am shocked at how people believe people who have never met him...and Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for Reagan etc. Soldiers who do not like him I guarantee have never met him. He was not fired rather Holbrook wanted to put his buddy in. Read the facts. A lot of anger at someone who made sure not one American life was lost when he was in command. A lot of stupidity here....god save us all. This country will not survive its own ignorance at this rate.
Uhm quick question to all the Clark defenders.
If McCain's military service is not a qualification to be President ...
Then wouldn't Clark's military service not be a qualification to be VICE President whose only job ( other than breaking ties inthe Senate )is to be one step away from BEING president?
And considering McCain has all those years a a Senator and Clark has ... uhm ... err ... nothing?
In other words. Clark's VP campaign is OVER because by his own logic, the only qualification he has is not worthy of considering him to BE the Vice president.
"an actual military general, a man who oversaw a successful war and Kosovo and who spent three years as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander"
GIVE me a FREAKIN' BREAK! Barney Fife could have successfully "oversaw" the air war in Kosovo. The USAF had air supremacy/superiority from DAY ONE! It is an unfortunate fact that "General" Wes Clark was hand-picked by a very anti-military Clinton administration for promotions early in his presidency because Clark was and remains to this day a nut-less, yes-man, do-nothing lacky. Clinton finally saw the error he had made and agreed with the top military generals in the Pentagon AND the NATO/European commanders to have this idiot moron removed from that post earlier than normal - a move akin to BEING FIRED!
As for McCain's military record, he should have been courts-martialed on multiple counts both before and after being repatriated from North Vietnam: dereliction of duty (poor flying skills/crashing several planes, causing the USS Forrestal disaster that killed 123 sailors, giving away flight plans/patterns (further causing more deaths and loss of aircraft), making propaganda videos/radio broadcasts while consorting with the enemy, and a list of other items that were "conduct unbecoming an officer"). The reasons he was not publicly castrated was because he was son/grand-son of USN admirals, he WAS an injured POW, and other officers had committed the same offenses as McShame while in NVA captivity.
As a former officer, I would NEVER, EVER hire or work for 99% of any of the RETIRED officer ranks, much less VOTE for any of them in any political contest. One exception: General (ret) Colin Powel is THE ONLY retired general officer I would trust in a political office. It is a shame that Mr. Powell couldn't see through Bush & Cheney's curtain of deception which used him for their lying, disgusting agendas. At least he was smart enough to abandon them when they needed him most. I should hope he has learned his lesson and chooses not to side with any future political candidates or "figures", (much less either of the major parties).
The unfortunate truth of the CAREER military officer corps is this: never - EVER - completely trust any CAREER officer over the rank of Captain (and even then, be very, very careful...)
Obama wasnt going to pick Clark anyway,a four star Gen. as brilliant as Wes Clark would overshadow him,and Clark is way to left leaning for the new right wing born again Obama.
He's shopping around for a Repubican....
The previous poster was correct,America doesnt deserve Wes Clark,he is way to smart,honest and untied to corporate money.
Wesley Clark appears far more politician than military man. I am sure he was a highly political general in the Army.
It's not just his command of the interview that bothers people. It's the fact that he is so partisan. Most generals shade to one direction or the other, but they maintain a degree of independence that is based on their experience in the nonpartisan military.
Clark all-too-easily gave that up to appeal to leftist Democrats who hate anything related to military involvement, unless it's to protect leftist causes. Clark was happy to advocate for US military involvement to advance perceived social injustices, and we can be sure he would do that again. However, he advocates we sit back and let the U.N. protect us from terrorists and their rogue nation supporters.
It's true that Clark has a personality problem that will prevent him from ever being elected: his ambition is too naked. Colin Powell has ego and ambition, but it's obvious that his love for the country is the driving force in his political thinking. No so with Clark. He would support anyone, say anything, to advance himself. He will never get my vote. I am glad he has imploded himself over McCain's service record.
Of course no American Soldiers died while bombing a backwards country from 40k feet. Heck some schmuck off the street could have pulled that off.
All American general officers are political creatures by their very nature. It's the overtly ambitious one's like Clark and Alexander Haig that disgust and rankle their colleagues and rightly so.
I heard many times (at officer level) by those who worked with him during the Kosovo vacation in the 90s, that he is a real piece of work.
But hey, he got Madonna's vote in 2004. Nice feather in his hat, huh?
Let's just pray Obama doesn't stick him at State or Defense when he gets elected (Actually, Obama wants Gates to stay on...phew, thank goodness.)
I volunteered for John Edwards in 2004, and always felt that Clark's purpose in the race was to run interference for the Clinton's, splitting the moderate vote with Edwards in places like Oklahoma, Virginia and Tennessee so that Kerry would have a clear path to the nomination.
Well, wouldn't you know? Clark was front and center taking care of the Clintons during the primary campaign.
I cringed whenever he was mentioned as a possible running mate for Obama, knowing that he was as unauthentic as some who bought his deal in 2004 though him the real thing.
Well, now we know.
Clark has obviously done Obama's dirty work for him. Obama is a smart politician. He tries to pretend he is above the fray, but realistically, he's right in there mixing it up and always coming out smelling like a rose and lily white. Americans needs to look elsewhere for the qualities of a head of state. Obama has none that are worth anything.
Bob's comments hit the nail on the head: Wes Clark comes off as a political opportunist who will say or do anything to curry political favor with the left.