|
Go ahead, make the case for your candidate, whoever that might be.
Here is why I am backing Wesley Clark for President. First because America can not afford a less than brilliant leader, it is a very complex and dangerous world right now and the stakes could not be higher. We need the absolute best talent this country can offer for President. Wes Clark has mastered every endeavor he has tackled. Time and time again, Clark rises to the occasion. Read about his personal history if you have any doubts on this. We can pretend we are voting for policy positions and/or a platform, but the only thing we will truly decide on is the person we will place in office. For me it is more important to pick the best person for the job, than the most finely reasoned or original policy initiative. Sometimes the most critical position is the one that will need to be taken on an issue that hasn’t yet fully surfaced. 9/11 and the proper response to dealing with it was not a campaign issue in the 2000 election. Neither was job loss. Pick the best leader and fight for the best program, that’s honestly how I see it. Here is why I feel Wes Clark is the best leader now for America.
We need someone who understands that it is always the soldiers who win a war, not a privileged elite. The welfare of our nation is dependent on the welfare of our average citizens. Clark truly understands that. The military functions with that understanding more so than any other major institution in America. Be all that you can be is an Army slogan, but it is not just a cliché. Leave no one behind is actually practiced on the fields of battle at high risk and at great cost. Compare that to typical corporate values. And it's personal for Clark, not just a sound bite. He was awarded medals for his courage in Viet Nam, and he risked his life again, under combat conditions, in Yugoslavia trying to save the lives of fellow Americans who died in a crash on a mountain road. We need a President who asks what he can do for his country, not what his country can do for him. With his obvious abilities and capacity for accomplishment, Clark could have devoted his life to self enrichment; instead he devoted it to defending his nation.
The institution Wesley Clark served in, the U.S. Army, prides itself on discipline, following through and following orders. These are the values and priorities that conservatively oriented people understand and respect. Yet Clark is the rare exception, the one who takes what is best from inside a box and then transcends the box. I have never heard anyone more passionate in the defense of the First Amendment than Wesley Clark. He doesn't semi dismissively call dissent our right as Americans, he calls it our obligation, essential to maintaining the democratic life of our nation. And because of his service to the nation in the military, many people are open to listening to him say it who would never listen otherwise. Other candidates, like Kerry, might be able to partially neutralize the "patriotism" advantage that Republicans tend to have when they routinely monopolize the flag, but Clark goes much further. He redefines patriotism in a fundamental way so that suddenly it's those who stifle and distort open and honest debate who are putting our country at risk, not those who seek honest debate on important questions.
Electing Clark is about much more than defeating George Bush, (not that more is needed). It is about restoring the basic contract between citizens and their government to the ideals we were taught in school. Government exists to serve the people, not enrich the powerful. Citizens have the right to the information they need to inform their decisions, not government having the power to suppress information that makes their governing more difficult. It is precisely Clark's outsider status to the political process, I feel, that has preserved his idealism regarding it. We know he can negotiate complex issues, we saw that in the Balkans, but Clark has never comprised his core civic values. As a result I think he would govern as one of the least corruptible Presidents in American history. Wesley Clark has served his country honorably and kept his personal commitments. He truly believes in the concept of personal accountability. I saw him speak on this, it isn't a sound bite, that's who he is.
Then, after the above, you can move onto the fact that Wesley Clark is already a known player on the international stage, who respects international institutions and the importance of having allies. Very little if any on the job training will be needed. After 3 years in office Bush is nowhere near as adept at mastering the essential international skills that Clark has already mastered. Domestically I think it is ultimately an advantage to the American people that Clark entered this race without a truck load of finely detailed domestic policy initiatives. I have learned enough about him to feel confident in his overall social priorities. Clark is freest to seek the best ideas available to confront the problems facing the nation, and use the ones that fit best. He isn't locked into unwieldy positions by virtue of prior stands and unholy political alliances made. Having said that I feel fine about almost all of the positions Clark has taken. He is a progressive Democrat who fought for affirmative action. He strongly believes the tax burden should fall lightest on those least able to bear it. He is firmly pro choice. He calls the U.S. Constitution and the environment the two most important legacies we can leave behind for the generations that will succeed us. You can find out more about his policy positions at his official campaign web site, clark04.com so I won’t use more space here.
You will notice that I will now only barely touch on the supposed pragmatic reason why Wes Clark should be nominated, his electability. Wes Clark can neutralize Bush’s super patriotic fog machine, he can appeal to independents and Republicans of integrity, and he can be competitive in Southern states, forcing Bush to allocate campaign resources, depriving his of a free ride. Bush will be put on the defensive by Clark, forced to fight for votes from even white male southerners and Veterans. That’s all I will say about voting for Clark for pragmatic reasons, because I don’t believe Clark is the pragmatic choice, I think he’s the right choice.
I know some progressives within the Democratic Party are simply uncomfortable about voting for a General for President. To which I simply say, get over it. It likely would have been among my proudest moments as an American had our Armed Forces intervened in Rwanda to stop the genocide that resulted in the death of millions. General Clark strongly advocated for U.S. military involvement in Rwanda at the time but failed to win the support of the Pentagon for what was an inherently humanitarian mission. Kosovo was a just war, and Clark advocated that it be fought in a manner that would lessen the danger to civilians even if it put U.S. forces at somewhat greater risk. Again he was over ruled on that matter. In a world where we must have a military, I would welcome Clark as its Commander in Chief.
In short I trust Wes Clark to always realize that real war is hell, to be avoided whenever rationally possible, and that his working definition of the special interest group he is beholden to is simply the American public. I trust in his ability to understand complex situations, and his willingness to work hard to get things right. I trust in his sense of what America is, and what it should be. I think Wesley Clark has the right character, and the right experience, to lead our country now. Others have said this about him and I think it is absolutely true: Wes Clark, All Patriot, No Act.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
