Is Wes Clark prepared to be a Presidential candidate?

[sfecap]

As the first few days of his "official" campaign for the Presidency unfold, one thing appears to stand out. Wes Clark isn't ready for prime time.

In interviews with the national press he gets fairly bad reviews for not having ready and complete answers for questions he must have known he'd be asked. His "war position" seems to change daily, and he cannot seem to stay on point.

It's interesting to me that for a man who has had months to prepare, he seems woefully unprepared. Entering the race at this point, he should have been hitting the ground running - he should have his positions down, his talking points honed and complete, and he should have his message neatly summarized for the press. I'm disappointed.

And please, enough of the "he's a Rhodes Scholar, graduated first in his class", mantra. Being a graduate of West Point and Oxford isn't a free pass. He still must go out on the campaign trail every day and look like someone who is eminently prepared for the Presidency.

To me, it is looking like Wes is the "emergency" candidate, annointed by the DLC, who is desparate to find someone who they can claim to be "strong" on national defense. The fact is the Democrats are not, nor have they ever been "soft" on national defense. That is Limbaugh/Hannity/rightwing bullshit, that has been allowed to go unchallenged by the Democrats for years. (When people tell me all about how Clinton "gutted" the military, I suggest they research military spending under Clinton. The cuts made during the Clinton administration were mandated by none other than the Bush I administration! Gee! Imagine that!)

Wes Clark is a good man, no doubt about it. I think he'll make an excellent and electable VP candidate. I am not so sure about his ability to mount a national Presidential campaign. If he is to be a player, it will take much more than 4 stars and some degrees. He MUST get on point, on message, and be able to handle the national press.

He has got to get his act together now. He has no time for on the trail learning.

And people, please don't start a flame war here...this is just a genuine observation of what it's going to take to get the job done. Clark is an enourmously intelligent and talented man. But campaigning is more than a pedigree, it's being savvy, quick on one's feet, and above all, being able to get the candidates message defined, and in front of the voters.

He's got to pull it all together, and fast.

[Pepperbelly]

1. I guess we will ...

shortly find out. We shall see. He is an extremely quick study and has thought long and hard about the principles behind the social compact and I think that perhaps a very good grounding in the overarching principles he supports will stand him well.

We will see.

[WillyBrandt]

2. Three things

I know you're not a pro-Clark person, but three points:

(1) Dems are NOT soft on National Defense. But one of the nice benefits of the Clark campaign, especially at this moment in history, is that he can seize the security mantle for our party, just as Clinton seized the fiscal responsibility mantle.

(2) Clark is having growing pains. So did all the other candidates, but Clark is starting late and is under a spotlight. He needs to get his act together. Quick.

(3) The right-wing media, and ALL the other Dems, as well as left-wing lunatics like the Counterpunch crew, have knives out for him. Dean can win; Dean can lose. Clark can CRUSH Bush, as well as the other Dems if his campaign goes well: expect every flaw, every misstep, to be magnified a thousand fold. Watch the the Fox crew and committed Dem partisans speak the same language against Clark.

[diplomats]

3. I agree

he is undergoing a baptism of fire, of sorts. I think the debate on Thursday is very important.

[knight_of_the_star]

21. There is a plus to that though

If he survives the line of fire then he will be nearly impossible for Bush to beat if he gets the nod. Considering how much Bush needs media debates to be rigged and press conferences loaded with softball questions, if Clark can handle what is being thrown at him right now then he will be able to take Bush, chew him up, and spit him back out with little effort.

[sfecap]

4. Excellent points!

And...yes, I am not supporting Clark for the nomination, but please understand I am NOT anti - Clark. I just am waiting like everyone else to see what the man has.

I believe he is better suited for a VP slot. But WTFDIK? :shrug:

[joeybee12]

6. The issue is NOT wheteher Clark is ready but whether the media says he is!

Seriously, they cannot handle more than one idea at a time.

Example--2000--Gore is a liar, Bush is dimwitted.

anything that disproved either they simply ignored in order to have their "handle" on both in check.

Clark has not had a good two days--I think even suporters can understand that. It is growing pains, but if it keeps up, the media will soon declare him as "not ready for prime time" and EVERYTHING they report on him will be colored that way.

It's the disgusting way the media works, but it's a reality. Clark needs to come across as presidential and electable very soon or else the media will never see him that way.

[rocktivity]

7. I think Clark would make a SUPERB VP

and I deeply hope that the winning candidate gives him the job--especially if it's Dean.

I don't hate Clark at all. But I don't like the idea of him walking into such a high-level spot with no real political experience any more than I like the idea of a movie star doing it. Four to eight years of seasoning as a VP would put him in perfect shape for the next election. And if he needs something to do other than attend funerals, he could spearhead the investigations into all the nasty things the Repubs have done!


rocknation

[Cha]

28. Well, there you go!!

[jonnyblitz]

20. "left wing lunatics" there you Clark guys go again!!

tsk tsk..

[WillyBrandt]

29. Left-wing lunatics

Yes--CounterPunch is nothing but a newsletter by left-wing lunatics. I consider myself part of the left, but they are our version of the right wing nuts.

They do not us no favors by association.

[kentuck]

5. A prescient, prophetic article by General Clark from October of 2002

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

<snip>
President Bush was right to carry the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. And he is right to stay with the diplomatic process, as we seek to sway international opinion to our side. Even if the U.N. is ultimately unable to give us the strong resolution that we seek, the support of friends and allies will be important--as it was in Kosovo--in gaining worldwide credibility for our aims and legitimacy for our actions. Moreover, while we have the time, we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. What if Saddam uses his biological arsenal on his own people in southern Iraq? Are we prepared to deal with the ensuing catastrophe alone, or would we not be wiser to help ready international humanitarian and emergency organizations to come in with us? After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?

The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether weshould act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions anddisarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.

[DemExpat]

8. Gosh...that sounds so good to me.....

Kinda like something Clinton would have said....

:kick:

DemEx

[Pepperbelly]

9. Wesley's crystal ball was working overtime that day.

Virtually every word has proved accurate beyond measure.

[sfecap]

15. Yep.

n/t

[DrBB]

23. And another from February 2003

"We are at a turning point in America's history. We are about to embark on an operation that is going to put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain."
 
It is a huge change for the American people and what this country stands for, he said.
 
The Bush administration, he said, has not respected its allies and that is why it finds itself without the support of many Nato allies and even in those countries prepared to support the US, public opinion is against the war. Iraq, could have been contained without war, he said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37738538

[sangha]

10. Mostly spin

In interviews with the national press he gets fairly bad reviews for not having ready and complete answers for questions he must have known he'd be asked. His "war position" seems to change daily, and he cannot seem to stay on point.

It's interesting to me that for a man who has had months to prepare, he seems woefully unprepared. Entering the race at this point, he should have been hitting the ground running - he should have his positions down, his talking points honed and complete, and he should have his message neatly summarized for the press. I'm disappointed.

It would seem that the evidence that Clark is not ready is:

1) The (biased) media gives him fairly bad reviews
2) incomplete answers
3) His "war position" seems to change daily (which is opinion)

Meanwhile, after being in the race for only a few short days, Clark has a significant # of supporters, and has jumped into the group of "front-runners", something that took another candidate months to do.

Note: Clark is not my favorite candidate. I'm not even sure if I like him. However, I am disgusted at the reaction to his candidacy here on DU. Regardless of your personal intentions, you are joining in an organized campaign to smear Clark. And once again, I'd like to reiterate that I have no reason to think thatyou are intentionally smearing Clark. It's just that others are, and by attacking Clark (and criticizing Clark for not being ready is certainly not flattery) at this time, you are giving them aid.

[sfecap]

13. I'm not attacking, nor am I smearing Clark.

Nor do I intend to.

These are simply observations of him so far.

The fact is, he may pull it together and do a fantastic job of campaigning. The point is, we here (and his supporters) have to move away from the resume and start focusing on the ability of the candidate to campaign. That's where he makes it or he doesn't. His credentials are not in dispute.

Everyone here has a right (and, I think an obligation) to question and analyze all of the candidates positions, strategy, appearances, and viability. It can be done without resorting to half baked innuendo, half truths, and falsehoods. Those who resort to those tactics should be simply ignored. However, legitimate observations, opinions, and analysis should be welcomed.

[sangha]

26. I understand that

I didn't mean to imply by "attack" that you are "bashing" or "smearing". I believe that you feel that this is a legitimate question, and you are reasonable for feeling that way, though I don't see it as you do.

However, there is some context to be considered. Clarks only been in the race for a few days, and in that short time he has gotten a lot of support. Though he may have a stumble or two, IMO the proof is in the pudding, and getting so much support in so short a time is not exactly evidence of a stumbling campaigner.

Furthermore, it seems to me that there is well-organized campaign to smear Clark. Though I have little doubt that you are NOT a part of this campaign, the fact remains that you are using one of their arguments. Though your intentions are good, the argument that "Everyone here has a right (and, I think an obligation) to question" could also justify asking "Did Clinton have sex with that woman, and if so, isn't that a betrayal of trust deserving of impeachment?"

It ignores our real obligations (ie to act in the interests of our nation) and helps those who wish to harm us drive a wedge into one of the many minor chinks in a Democrats armor at a time when Dems are under assault. Time will tell if Clark is a good campaigner. Why help the opposition create a perception of weakness in a Dem?

[joeybee12]

24. This is not smearing!

And quite frankly, pointing out the criticsms of Clark right now should serve as a wake-up call to him.

The media was all over the fact that he decided to run.

Now since there was sucha rush to cover, him, EVERYTHING he does is being looked at closely.

These are critical days for him--he needs to win the media over now.

Rememnber 2000--Bush an idiot, Gore a liar.

the media decided on those themes and stuck with them--regardless of any proof to the contarry. Clark is in danger of being labeled inconsistent, and once the media labels him that, THEY WILL NEVER CHANGE.

[sangha]

27. I didn't say it was a smear.

And while we should definitely watch what Clark does, it seems premature to conclude he is a bad campaigner after just a few days into his campaign on the basis of a few minor stumbles at a time when the majority of Americans are not paying much attention to the candidates.

[DemExpat]

11. Was Dubya prepared?

.....'He still must go out on the campaign trail every day and look like someone who is eminently prepared for the Presidency'......

I'd take Wes 'as is'...right now, over Bush.

A President does not stand alone either.....the team behind him will matter too.

DemEx

[sfecap]

14. He didn't have to be prepared.

He was the "chosen" candidate.

* is a perfect example of annointment by the political machine.

[CWebster]

12. Sounds reasonable to me

It is unbelievable that he is as naive as Schwartzenegger. Role-playing.

[Donna Zen]

16. Closing all the doors and windows

will not make one any wiser.

Last night on Washington Week a reporter who seemed to have been on the plane completely disagreed with this spin. She said for a candidate of two days to show the comfort level Clark apparently did answer questions for 90 minutes from four reporters was a clear sign that he handles the press very well. She attributes his easy with his experience of being questioned by international reporters during NATO briefings. So let's take a hard look at what those 48 hours actually held:

A rally in Little Rock

A rally in Florida with positive coverage for the rally and a dust up over IWR. Along with Josh Marshall, I had no problem with the statement because I do understand the difference between very different things: diplomatic leverage and war.

A glitch in scheduling that resulted when someone in a brand-new office spoke too soon and revealed a scheduling conflict with the debates. Note: it was corrected within 24 hours.

A speech in Iowa that had them on their feet. Another press conference that while it contained the clarification of a complex position, went very well.

Two days

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. i understand your issues. i have others

i'm not familiar with the military culture. i know one colonel abd a couple of sargents and have never served. i'm worried how the military mindset will translate into working with congress. i'd feel better if he had held any elected office before running for prez.

i'm worried about the way he announced...holding back, even holding back on his party affiliation for months on end. i understand the gimmick/publicity value of suspense but he overdid that by a month, imho so i wonder what he really was waiting for. i wish i knew what bit of info pushed him into the decision. his approach, to me, showed a lack of commitiement. no one who is truely commited to serving takes that long.

then there is the blank spot where his record is. and his unease in taking positions. it's a good thing we have plenty of time to see just what the general is made of before we get to vote.

[jonnyblitz]

19. those are legitimate concerns several of us have.

and we should be able to inquire about all of this without being called extremists by some of his supporters.

[Pepperbelly]

22. if you ...

read the post-announcement press interactions with Wesley, you will see something that is far superior to experience in elective office. Generally (no pun intended), his answers to policy questions are direct, articulate, well-reasoned and straight-forward. There are few weasel words although he does sometimes err on the side of not criticizing his opponents which is what got him into the flap over the IWR. He was trying too hard to empathize with the Democrats who voted for the war rather than taking shots at them and that is what caused confusion.

I find his answers refreshing.

[gulliver]

25. "trying too hard to empathize ...

with the Democrats who voted for the war rather than taking shots at them"

That makes good sense to me. Clark really is a uniter. He's the real deal, IMO.

[gulliver]

18. Clinton in 1992. Dean on his last MTP.

Clark is ready. Getting some negative press right off the bat is good for him. He's in for a hell of a fight with Bush. Same with Dean. (Not a fight with Clark. I'm saying Dean has a hell of a fight with Bush too, should Dean get the nom.)

Clinton took serious sh*t in 1992. Dean got creamed by Russert on MTP. Made them stronger...

[uptohere]

30. I guess he can't just waltz in and be the savior he was billed as

I mean everyone said he was just too perfect, why did he need to do anything ? He was already the second coming of CLinton or something.

Anyone who fell for this was just too gullable.

The blind rush to embrace a "general" to get us past the "soft on defence" stuff was just too good to be true.

Never mind that most generals are actually against war, despise the loss of their men and women. They do what they are commanded to do and do it to the best of their ability. They are not consumed with blood lust, they never reach the rank of general with that.

Just come to your senses and realize that we need a charasmatic southern centrist to unseat Bush and get behind Edwards. What other kind of democrat gets elected ?

[Pepperbelly]

34. except that ...

Edwards is sucking hind tit, as we say down south.

Wesley's entrance has catapulted him to the top of the pile and four days after his announcement, he polls better against Bonehead than the rest of the candidates. No wonder about the bashing. He is far too strong a candidate to be brought down by legitimate means. His opponents on the right and left have had to descend into the muck of smear and innuendo to try to make hay and that is getting no traction whatsoever.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Rhodes Scholars are not stupid!

And while Clark is indeed a political novice when compared with the other 9 candidates, he is also a quick study. The problems Clark had when he waffled on the Iraq war are easily dealt with an experienced staff. The problem is that his staff used to work for Gore in the 2000 campaign, and we know what a bunch of boobs they turned out to be.

My advice to Clark is to be himself, and don't try to spin his own message. Having mixed feelings about the invasion of Iraq is not necessarily a showstopper, but trying to spin support for the war as being against the war is political leprosy.

[uptohere]

32. being himself has gotten him into hot water badly enough

but you are right to say that good handlers can fix this moving forward. This is assuming that he will accept what they tell him to do. This is iffy given his micromanaging executive style.

He is smart but sometimes thats a bad thing. Nobody knows everything and if they think they do...

I guess we'll see how it goes.

[Pepperbelly]

35. I personally hope he farts off handlers ...

in favor of straight talk. If what he says sometimes pisses some people off, then good. That is how it is when one doesn't weasel-ass around like a pol talking platitudes and evading ever giving a straight answer.

"General, would you support a ban on partial birth abortion?"

"I support a woman's right to choose. Period. Abortions should be available, safe and rare."

"That sounds like Bill Clinton's position."

"I support a woman's right to choose."

Did you see any evasion in that exchange. That is virtually verbatem from an interview he did on CNN after the announcement.

on edit: the use of handlers has led us to this sorry pass in our discourse, one where candidates spend all their time hedging their bets and trying to avoid actually saying something. Screw handlers.

[uptohere]

39. Handlers worked fine for Clinton

there is a benefit to having people to prepare you.

[Donna Zen]

33. Good take and sound advice

I'm not sure how much of Clark's foreign policy you are familiar with, but the position he took did not confuse Josh Marshall and I found it in line with Clark's ideas.

"Nations use diplomacy as a means to advance their interests." Clark believes that war is a failure of diplomacy and therefore diplomacy must engage the highest levels of government with "greater emphasis." The military element in all of this is passive leverage, the hidden stick, that should not be mentioned. "Once the threat surfaces, however, nations or alliances are committed. ...Inevitably, sacrificing credibility carries long-term consequences far greater than the immediate issue, whatever it is. And both sides in the dispute are affected---those who have received the threat as well as those who have issued it." (There have certainly been some damning Clark quotes thrown around these threads, but without a massive understanding of international policy, they are just that damning. Now think back to when he tells Russert: bush has drawn his sword...war is inevitable...It is that the leverage had gone public and bush was raving about Saddam and nukes...It was obvious the entire regime game was in motion and out of control.)


In October, Bush had already put the stick on the table...he was moving troops into place. The IWR was an attempt to work with the UN to use leverage to move the position of Saddam. And it did work, the inspectors were in. Clark says we should have used the window to increase inspectors and most of all, to flood Iraq with NGO's. Instead, bushco wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. The regime insisted on war, which is where he loses Clark who would not have voted for war. Leverage, yes. War, no. We had essentially won the debate and could have been at this very moment, in some alternate bush-free universe, seeing the fruits of the labors of the international community of NGO's coupled with the prospect of continuing and indefinate inspections to eventually defang Saddam and strengthen the Iraqi people.

Oooops...back in this world...we wouldn't have seized the oil. Sorry. My bad. So we went from "no diplomacy" to "all stick" with only the briefest flurry produced at the UN with the res. Without the res. we would have just gone all stick, although I believe the res was always a trap set for Dems. It is easy for us to sit back and say "vote no" (my position) but in real world politics things have different elements. The Iraq war stretches far beyond this moment and into the peace of the future. Clark understands this better than anyone, and knows that this country is now no longer trusted. It is important that we get that back.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Saddam was no threat to the US

and the UN inspectors were pulled out of Iraq at the request of the Clinton Administration.

Double-dealing and double-talking Clinton foreign policy in Iraq and Kosovo set the stage for Bush's doctrine of preemptive wars.

[neuvocat]

37. Never underestimate anyone

who is able to form a plan and execute it in short order while coming under fire. Clark most likely has those organizational skills necessary to pull it off.

And also remember what fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton said of Clark: that he would make a good President.

[rasputin1952]

38. At the risk of being flamed...

Come on....it is early yet, and it takes a little while to get used the media bothering him about joining the fray, and actually being blindsided by the like s of Hannity and Scarborough.

With that said: Just what have the other candidates done that is "spectacular"?I'm sorry, but all I see are a bunch of disgruntled individuals that are having a difficult time fighting bush. It is easy to yell slogans, but it takes time and effort to come up with a strategy, especially one that will have to fight the bush $ and machine.

Over the next few weeks, things will become more viable. In the mean time, how about a little less bashing and a little more patience?