I'll repost here two things I wrote on another thread, a very good thread actually, called "The Primary Divide" that many might have missed. First the link to the whole thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=50124&mesg_id=50124I am backed up on work really badly at the moment and unable to take time writing something new, but these posts I think are related to the general topic you raised. The first one deals a fair amount with Clark's relationship to Clinton, which is what got me to thinking about reposting them here now.
Ok, here is the text from my posts on "The Primary Divide " thread, which I hope do apply here as well.
Here's the first:
"I have had the same anger you expressed about how our Party reacted to Bush moving into the White House. Leaving Clark aside for just a moment, I have much the same feelings about those in our Party who sat in Congress, who were nationally recognized leaders in our Party, and who failed to put up a better fight. I am not saying that none of them put up any fight, I know that would not be a fair statement, but not enough of one. Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia has never been my favorite Democrat, but he was incredible in his opposition to Bush's plans for Iraq. His was a lonely voice. Most of our elected Democrats were too busy nuancing all of their statements so as to appear reasonable to the majority of the American Public who so were infatuated with Bush at the time.
To be honest, I think too much attention is paid to the actual votes of our Congressional Democratic candidates regarding the conditions for invading Iraq. Just slightly too much, because their stances were telling and it does matter. Still I doubt any of them, with the possible exception of Lieberman, would have acted like Bush did with the power given him, and I suspect even Joe would have been on better behavior than Bush. Dean took a better stand than most of those men (Kucinich was great), but it wasn't light years better. The thing is, I think that Iraq vote symbolizes a lot more than who did or didn't foresee the consequences of giving Bush a blank check on that specific war, as critical an issue as it obviously was then and still is. It symbolizes the entire failure of our Congressional leadership, and the leading voices in it, to provide an effective check on Bush's entire radical right agenda; and an abdication that enabled Bush's seizure of near absolute power to redirect the future of America via a sharp right turn, far beyond any feeble non-mandate Bush could fabricate having received from the tortured 2000 Election returns.
That, in my opinion, is what prevents Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman, from staking any valid claim for leadership of our Party in the 2004 Election. I give Edwards a partial, but only partial, bye on this one because he was "only" a freshman Senator. So that is what initially drew me to support Howard Dean for President, and why I could still be happy with him as our Party's nominee.
You were astute to above acknowledge that some view Clark as of the Establishment, while some see him as a legitimate outsider, though you go on to group him with those you consider representative of the Establishment. It would be impossible for me in one post to summarize and address all of the arguments that have been made on that single question to date. I see Clark as a true outsider, in some ways the furthest "out" of any of our candidates. I am now absolutely committed to doing everything I can to help get this man elected President of the United States, and that is one of the two reasons why. So many assume, usually wrongly, that the progressives who are backing Clark in this election are doing so for completely pragmatic reasons having to do with how "acceptable" Clark will be to the American Public during the Fall campaign, compared to other possible candidates including Howard Dean. That is the second reason, and a good reason to back Clark if you see things that way.
That is not my first reason, though it is what made me look at Clark in the first place. Much is made of the connection between Clark and Clinton, too much is made of that connection, because it isn't as close as many assume it to be. The two met infrequently before Clark became NATO Commander. People assume the opposite because, you know, they both come from Little Rock and went to Oxford. Not a stupid assumption, but it is foolish to accept assumptions as fact without looking into them. Clark was one of the few men in the top echelons of the American Military with an intellect independent and flexible enough to break with the then prevalent Cold War strategic planning mind set. That is why Clinton backed Clark's advancement, not out of any prior loyalties and alliances. Now Clark has Clinton people on his staff, he has Gore people and Graham people too. Early in his young political career Clark has leaned on some of the top economic advisers and officials in Clinton's Administration to give shape to some of his initial domestic initiatives and proposals.
That was a shrewd move, because Clark certainly couldn't turn to the people who were already closely associated with the campaigns of his opponents. Precisely because Clark is an outsider candidate, he didn't have a core group of long time political aids who worked with him for years drafting legislation in Congress. You might remember that barely two weeks into Clark's campaign he was already being attacked for not having enough specifics in his domestic platform. Clark didn't have the luxury of renting a cabin in the mountains to camp out in for 3 months while he took a crash course in EPA regulations etc. He had to start campaigning and raising money. So yes Clark initially leaned on some Clinton people. Yeah he called Bill and asked for some recommendations. Bill owed Clark big time for that NATO Kosovo thing, and he returned the favor. That doesn't make Clark an Establishment candidate. Clinton may in fact want Clark to win. Gore may in fact want Dean to win.
There really was a grassroots movement to Draft Clark to run, and I was part of that in the latter stages. Had you tuned in back then you would have seen much that you would recognize that would have made you smile. I doubt you have read many, if any, of the letters that we wrote to Clark urging him to run. It wasn't some back room smoky deal makers who pulled Clark into this race, it was a cross section of Americans who saw qualities in Clark that made us trust and respect him as a potential leader. Knowing what I know now about Clark, after having read many hundreds of those letters we all sent to him, it is inconceivable to me that he could have done anything other than step forward and answer our call for him to serve as a candidate for President. Many of those letters were heart wrenching, and incredibly thoughtful, and always compelling. We told him it was his duty to run, despite a lifetime of prior service, he was needed one more time. And Clark answered our call, and we are loyal to that man, and he has done nothing to shake that loyalty in the slightest. He has been all that we have asked of him. He is giving it everything he has. He is running a clean campaign that we can be proud of. He is telling the truth to the American people, and he is revealing the lies of the Bush Administration."
Here's the second, an amplification on Clark as outsider. This was written to respond to a one sentance reply to my above comments that someone posted ("Pentagon career is as "establishment" as one can get. n/t"):
"You know who isn't "establishment"? Probably you're not, me either. My sister isn't "establishment", nor is my car mechanic, or the Realtor who handled the purchase of my house. None of us have a ghost of a chance to be elected President. Everyone who does have some chance to get elected has held some powerful jobs, and knows some powerful people.
Dean is considered an outsider candidate this year. Dean wasn't only Governor of Vermont, he was also the head of the National Governors Association, which is a nexus for political networking. Clinton took that route. Dean didn't get where he did in his career only by raising money on the internet. He had to court some hefty special interests for major donations toward prior political campaigns, the same as virtually all politicians holding state wide or Congressional positions.
Maybe Kucinich isn't firmly in the "Establishment", maybe. He does not have a real chance of winning the nomination this year though.
When I say Wesley Clark is an "outsider" candidate, I'm not claiming he is among the "disenfranchised" in our country. I'm not saying that Clark doesn't understand power, and I'm certainly not saying he is or was "powerless" in our society. I am saying several other things though. One, he wasn't directly party to the failed politics of the last four years, that resulted in Bush gaining the White House and consolidating power. We can talk about Clark's comments at the Republican fundraiser sometime if you want, but it is tangential here, and it certainly had no bearing on Bush's rise to power, or the failure of Democratic politicians to counter Bush more effectively in recent election cycles or in Congress. Clark was outside of all of that.
But I think Clark is an outsider in a more fundamental way. Though some refuse to believe it I know, Clark was not selected by Party leaders to run for President, a grass roots movement, the "Draft Clark" movement, launched his candidacy. Had Clark been the Establishment's candidate, it would have been arranged for him to have already received a slew of important endorsements. Clark is still lagging several candidates in that regard. Clark may or may not yet become the "Establishment's choice", but that is a different story.
Clark certainly had power in the Army, but for almost his entire career, he still lived on a right down the middle class income. The institution he served a lifetime in is thought of as the most racially integrated in American Society. Clark may have had a hand in lobbying Congress for Military funding, but he never was beholden to corporate America for the life blood of money needed to mount campaigns for office every two or four years. Clark walked through the halls of power, but he also spent time in the trenches, and on the front lines. Clark literally risked his life under fire, attempting to save civilians. In the mid 90's in Bosnia, with three stars on his shoulders, he grabbed a rope and went over a cliff trying to save some French diplomats who plunged down a mountain in a war zone accident.
The other thing is, Clark has always been somewhat of a maverick, a free thinker in a realm that typically did not reward free thinkers, and he made some enemies along the way there taking stands for what he believed in. Clark was one of a very few Senior Officers in the U.S, Military who believed the United States should intervene in Rwanda to prevent the genocide that was occuring there, despite the lack of American "strategic interests" in the area.
I am surprised to find myself backing a retired General for President of the United States, I'll admit that. I was one of those folks Norman Mailer wrote about decades ago who surrounded the Pentagon during an anti war protest in 1967. Back then I probably would have said exactly what you just did."
I apologize to the original poster of this thread topic that I haven't specifically commented on what you actually wrote. I did read all of it, and you obviously are giving thought to important questions. Hopefully I can write something later.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
