Souring on Clark...

[VaLabor]

I have to admit that the more I learn about Clark, the less I like him. I've been supporting Dean - but I'm not 100% happy with him. I worry how he'll do in a general election.

But Clark's flip-flop - which can't be explained away by claiming it was taken out of context - on whether he would vote for the Iraq war resolution or not is just plain disappointing. This sort of behavior - trying to have it both ways, trying not to upset one person or another - is the kind of behavior that causes us to lose elections.

And then there's this - which is best put by Kos over at http://www.dailykos.com :

I'm more concerned about this:

Clark portrayed himself as a different kind of Democrat, one without strong partisan impulses.

Given that the GOP is run by ideologues with "strong partisan impulses", I firmly believe we need the same on our side. Democrats have tried and tried to compromise as the GOP continues to move the "center" to the right. We need a counterbalance.

Of course Clark's rhetoric could be just that -- rhetoric. Kind of like Bush's "uniter not a divider" bullshit. But damn, this is the primary. Save the "bipartisan" stuff for the general. I want red meat, and thus far, Clark has been surprisingly tame.

[disgruntella]

1. Well, it is just day two

(or three depending on your time zone)

I am interested in Clark, but I truly don't think I'll be able to "commit" one way or another until seeing him in the context of a debate a few times. There are a lot of unknowns at this point. It will be difficult for him to catch up, but at this point I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

An unsolicited opinion (what? on DU? ;)) but something to consider.

[VaLabor]

2. on second thought

Josh Marshall has an interesting perspective on the flip-flop (and it WAS a flip-flop) but anyway:



The idea seems to be that there are really only two positions on the war, the Dean position and the Bush position.

Either you were against the war from the beginning, against even threatening force under any and all circumstances, soup-to-nuts, or you were for it, more or less under the same range of conceivable circumstances. If you have a position that falls between these two monochromatic options, you're indecisive, a waffler or a trimmer.

I could see this coming when someone sent me this fact sheet from the media watchdog group FAIR, which argues that Clark has somehow been mislabeled as "anti-war" or that he's falsely labeled himself thus. The fact sheet then goes on to catalog various of Clark's statements over the last year and argue that he's stated contradictory opinions at different times. One of these contradictory statements, according to FAIR, was one praising the audacity of the original war-plan notwithstanding his disagreement with launching the war in the first place.

This last criticism goes to the heart of the matter -- the difference between thinking that this war was ill-conceived and poorly planned (which I think is Clark's position) and being 'anti-war' in the sense of some broader political ethic (which seems to be how FAIR is defining the phrase.) Expecting a retired four-star general to fall into this latter category seems a bit much to expect.

The truth is that Clark's position on the war is at least as consistent as any other candidate in this race. He is one of the few candidates who strikes me as having given any serious thought to the question -- outside the context of the politics. And he is the only one who's written extensively on the national security challenges which face the country, Iraq, and the strategic and diplomatic shortcomings of the president's policy. (In other words, not just "me too!" or "no way!") And -- imagine that -- his arguments are the same now as they were a year ago.

Republicans and a number of Democrats who support a certain candidate have teamed up -- made common cause, really -- to argue that it's not possible to have voted to authorize the president to use force and then to criticize the circumstances and manner in which he chose to do so. The supposed flip-flop isn't one at all. What he's saying is that he probably would have voted to give the president the power to use force but never would have voted for the war he actually ended up waging. (We'll discuss in a later post why there's nothing necessarily contradictory about this.)

To my mind, Clark came off quite well in the articles in today's Times and the Post. Word I got from various groups he spoke with at University of Iowa today gave similar reports. And I suspect he'll continue to do well so long as he doesn't let himself get drawn into this foolishness.

more: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[disgruntella]

3. hey - thanks for finding that

My bookmark list is getting wayyyy too long ;)

The way this is explaind sounds similar to Kerry's position regarding the Iraq War (Kerry was my frontrunner until Clark entered; now they're neck and neck with Dean 3rd).

Anyway, good luck with your candidate search!

[JI7]

5. josh did one on kerry also

josh defended kerry's position also. that it's not so black and white and does make sense. he does a good job of actually trying to look more into things rather than just seeing it just black and white. i recommend you read him regularly.

[disgruntella]

7. yeah, if i can ever extract myself from DU

;) Thanks

[Mairead]

9. "Against it from the very beginning" is KUCINICH's position, not Dean's

Please get your facts straight. Judging by what he was saying as late as mid-February, Dean would have voted for the invasion resolution in October.

[cyr330]

4. I'm wavering

I don't usually feel this unsure about a candidate: I generally like someone or I don't. . . . However, I think Clark is a strong candidate who could really make Bush* shit in his diapers, and I would REALLY love to see that. However, I do not appreciate the fact that Clark says he would have probably voted for the Iraq Resolution; he can't have it both ways. Also, he said he voted for Reagan twice and Bush (Poppy) in 1988. He was an adult then, so what does that say about his judgment? I'm not joking about that; it really disturbed me to read that he had voted for two of the most incompetent assholes in history (barring the present imbecile who's squatting in the WH). Any thoughts on this?

[disgruntella]

6. Well, there's an article in one of the posts above this

that talks about the "probably would have voted" issue. It's kind of late at night so I don't trust myself to say anything much more intelligent about that ;)

As for the votes for Reagan and Bush, that is not a "deal-breaking" issue for me. I'm not sold on Clark, but I'd rather wait and see what he plans to do as president, as well as learn more about his past, than just his voting record.

Well, that's it for me. Have a good night.

[union_maid]

8. I never did hold the vote on the resolution against anyone

The reasons I'm not supporting Kerry (but would be quite happy to vote for him in the general election) haven't got anything to do with that vote. I think his politics are just fine. I just think he won't do well enough in the general election and that's my whole, entire, total reason for choosing someone else to support at this juncture. I was more disturbed by Edwards' and Gephardt's enthusiasm for the war itself. Kerry seemed much more vocal, much earlier in objecting to the way in which it was being promoted, sold and carried out, but even so I think all these candidates are good men who would do nothing but improve things for our nation and the world. My whole and entire reason for their not being my first choice is because I don't believe they'd fare all that well in the general election. If any of them should become the nominee I'll be voting for them happily and without reservation. And no, I don't think that Clark's statememt was a flip-flop. I think it was ungraceful and a tiny misstep in a big campaign, but I understood what he meant. If you're a total pacifist, then any of these candidates will be unacceptable to you. I'd like to be a pacifist but I just don't find that realistic in the world we live in. Even if you blame this country 100% for our international problems, it doesn't mean that it's a simple matter to fix it all up and in this world, where there are plenty of WMD, just not in Iraq, and 9/11 really did happen, national security will be an issue in this election. I believe that Clark and most of the candidates would make national security a priority rather than an excuse to persue an agressive agenda. I just believe that Clark would probably be better at convincing the general public of his ability to do so. I've listened to his views on what our country and the world should be and find them not only consistant with the principles of the Democratic party, but also insightful as to where we've gone wrong.