A Left Turn FOR CLARK

I probably wrote this piece about a year ago actually, but nothing has changed.

I find that many of the most committed Clark supporters started out being interested in Wes Clark for very pragmatic political reasons but ended up loyal for life to him for deeply idealistic reasons. As a group you will find many recovering cynics among us, pragmatic cynics who realized that we could not afford to stand back any longer while a hard right Republican junta stole America away from us. We were looking for someone with the right stuff to beat Bush, someone we thought average Americans would respond to. I would never have considered supporting a General if it weren't for that reason, and that is how I started out viewing Clark, as a General who seemed sensible and intelligent enough that people could feel secure voting Bush out of office during a time of war.

So I understand it when people don't "get" Clark right away. I didn't either. Because I viewed electoral politics as a cynical endeavor I wasn't looking for a candidate to fall in love with, just someone who could win who I thought I could at least tolerate. The last time I actually felt idealistic about Presidential politics was when Bobby Kennedy ran for President. That was a long time ago.

"So tired
Tired of waiting
Tired of waiting for you

So tired
Tired of waiting
Tired of waiting for you

I was a lonely soul
I had nobody till I met you
But you keep me waiting
All of the time
What can I do?

It's your life
And you can do what you want
Do what you like
But please don't keep me waiting
Please don't keep me waiting"

I just couldn't resist. It's a pretty good fit isn't it? At least for those of us who were supporting Wes Clark for President in 2004 and simply never stopped. I'm kidding about the lyrics of course (mostly). I'll wait as long as I have to for Clark to announce his intentions for 2008. Running for President is a bigger decision than any I've ever made. Clark's earned whatever time it takes him to line up his ducks, get his house in order, dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and every other stupid metaphor that might apply here regarding deciding to run for President.

But: "What can I do?"

This of course: A Left Turn FOR CLARK. I figure there's nothing quite like letting someone know they're wanted. So while those of us who already support Wes Clark for President in 2008 are waiting for him to make his decision, I'll keep writing this blog. Sometimes I'll use it to post essays of sorts, and cross post them to kos and such, but sometimes I'll just write off the cuff, pretty much like I am now.

I don't usually post Kinks lyrics on kos you know. You can consider this an "A Left Turn FOR CLARK" exclusive.

I wasn't always like this. I still remember what life was like before this overcame me. I remember when I used to wear political buttons that NEVER had anyone's name on them - unless of course I hated them. Even now, after three years of living this way, it's not easy for me to describe how the change happened, or exactly what came over me, that turned me from being a more or less normal political activist into, well, into being a Clarkie.

There I said it. Yes I'm a Clarkie. I admit it. I, Tom Rinaldo, do advocate for General Wesley Clark. The thing is, I won't surprise anybody by admitting this. Everyone around me already knows it. If you've read any of my writings over the last few years, then most certainly you know it too. Because that's the thing about being a candidate advocate; it's not something one can really hide. Even if you think you are being quiet about it, even if you are careful how much you say, or what you reveal about your motivations for saying it, no one who encounters you is fooled by false attempts at subtlety. People know a candidate advocate when they see one. There is no point in hiding from the truth, ugly as it may appear to some.

Though, I am waiting for behind the scenes powers that be to complete setting up my email system so that I can actually use the email box that I paid for, for the time being I set up a new seperate email account at: aleftturnforclark@lycos.com. So you can now use the email link at the right of the main page to reach me at that mail box.

Other than that, I still have to comb through a lot of things that I've written about Wes Clark in the past and decide what from that makes sense to repost here now. Once I am through with that step I will initiate a category filing system which will help you find archived posts based on their content themes.

Postings may slow down some during the holidays, but I should manage to make at least one fresh post here on most days. Keep an eye out!

You sir, more than anyone else in America, have convinced me of how deadly dangerous to our world the drama now unraveling inside and around Iraq really is. At every step of the way, from 2002 on, when Administration zealots and their apologists spun rosy scenarios for Iraq’s future, you talked to us about what could and likely would go wrong if America rushed to war there. They did, but you were right. At each subsequent marker, with every false trumpeting of progress in Iraq, you always saw the threats remaining, and you sir were correct.

So I don’t doubt you now, General Clark, when you warn us of how terribly much more can still go deadly wrong inside and around Iraq, if every effort is not made now to bring some stability to the region as America seeks its exit from Iraq.

General, you are not telling us what we want to hear. I know you know that, and I know you believe that it is more important to tell us what you know to be true, than tell us what you know we wish were so. You certainly are not following the advice of polling groups sir. Some think that disqualifies you from seeking the Presidency, but I know you don’t look at it that way. Nor do I General Clark.

I'm trying something new with this post. A good part of the day I spent in intense back and forth blogging discussion with an online progressive friend about the best next step for the U.S. regarding Iraq and the surrounding region. We come from very different places about Iraq, and often those differences are difficult to explore in a civil manner on an online forum.

But we both think we pulled it off this time. So here, complete and unedited, is the full exchange that we had a couple of hours ago on Democratic Underground, regarding the dangerous mess that is Iraq. It's long. Be prepared.

With eyes fixated on the horror of Iraq, it is hard for our minds to grasp the greater pending horror of Iran, but our government is still stuck on a collision course for disaster with that ancient nation. America attacking Iraq may have opened Pandora’s Box, but ahead in Tehran lays Pandora’s Trunk. Like a highly potent but lethal perfume, just a rumor of the scent of WMD brought our military flocking to Baghdad’s door. For neocon militarists, the allure of possible Mideast nukes budding beckons them rentlessly on. The buildup to the next war has been going on for years; the war plans have long been drawn, and Special Opps teams almost certainly have penetrated Iran.

Bush’s White House stance toward Iran is a bullying posture, and we have seen its swagger before: "There can be no direct talks with Iran while they insist on continuing down a belligerent counter productive path." It sounds so familiar now that it almost sounds sane, just like the minimally challenged early build up to war with Iraq seemed reasonable enough to many back in 2002. It forces me to wonder; why have so many activists forgotten that the best time to stop a war is before it begins?

Our attention is fixed on the current movement of troops, into or out of Iraq as the case may be. Stop them from entering. Force them to leave. Understandably so, since it’s the war we have now that we now need to end. And so we focus on changing troop levels. And so, of course does George W. Bush. We all are, more or less, talking about the number of troops, and the war inside Iraq, that they should or shouldn’t now be fighting.

I believe the days of those seeking victory in Iraq are numbered by the days remaining in Bush’s term. But they are likewise numbered for those who want the U.S. totally out of Iraq, because some U.S. troops will stay in Iraq as long as Bush stays in the White House. For now the two struggles will continue; the war inside Iraq and our fight to end it. But the war we will face tomorrow is the one we can stop today. We can still keep the lid on Pandora’s Trunk.

I came across an interesting survey that points to one advantage Wes Clark will have against other Democratic candidates should he run for the Presidency.

This is taken from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government's Center for Public Leadership Report:

"National Leadership Index 2006"
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/nli/

"A year ago, in the first national study of confidence in leadership, two-thirds of people across the United States said that there is a leadership crisis in our country, and nearly three-quarters said that unless our leaders improve, the U.S. would decline as a nation. A year later, this second study finds, confidence in American leaders has deteriorated even further: now some 70% believe there is a leadership crisis in the United States today. The pages that follow chronicle an unhappy moment in our national life. Just look at the National Leadership Index for 2006, a ranking of the public’s confidence in the leadership of the 11 major sectors of society. Americans say they have more than a moderate amount of confidence in only two of the 11 sectors: the military and medicine. All other sectors of leadership fail to win even a moderate amount of confidence."

The Military is top ranked for "Overall Confidence in Leadership" in this survey. Local Government comes in at number six, the highest rating for government at any level. State Government ranks seventh, Congress ranks ninth, and the Executive Branch ranks tenth out of the eleven categories presented.

And who occupies the basement? The Press.

I have met a few progressives who, though they may acknowledge that Wes Clark has progressive views, still have trouble accepting his life time of service in the military. During the 2004 Primaries one supporter of Howard Dean put it to me this bluntly: Doctors heal people, soldiers kill them. Well it is also true some Doctors have killed people, but more important, soldiers have saved lives also, while fighting for things that most of us still believe in. The American Army liberated the Jews from Nazi death camps after all. And I still remember the honor I felt, in the early 1980’s, when I met and spoke with an American citizen who, in the 1930’s, had fought Franco’s fascism during the Spanish Civil War, by volunteering in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

What frightens me are the civilian leaders in our nation who cling to power by brandishing a rhetorical sword, who deploy our armed forces like toy soldiers in a sand lot, with little or no gut understanding of what an act of war really looks like, and what the human repercussions of that act will likely be. This country has chosen leaders like that before. We know them too well.

By that I mean startling in a profound sense, not just outraegous. I was listening to a radio interview with Wes Clark back in Novemeber of 2003, when these words almost jumped out of the speaker and kicked me:

"I think we're at a time in American history that's probably analogous to, maybe, Rome before the first emperors, when the Republic started to fall... I think if you look at the pattern of events, if you look at the disputed election of 2000, can you imagine? In America, people are trying to recount ballots and a partisan mob is pounding on the glass and threatening the counters? Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a political party which does its best to keep any representatives from another party — who've even been affiliated with another party — from getting a business job in the nation's capital? Can you imagine a political party that wants to redistrict so that its opponents can be driven out entirely?...it's a different time in America and the Republic is - this election is about a lot more than jobs. I'm not sure everybody in America sees it right now. But I see it, I feel it."

That's when I knew for sure, if I ever had any doubts before, that Wes Clark got it. He was seeing the same world I was.

The interview was broadcast on New Hampshire public radio on November 5, 2003. It was part of a series of extensive personal interviews they did with all the candidates prior to the New Hampshire Primary that year, with Laura Knoy as interviewer. Fortunately it is still archived by NPR.

Here is New Hampshire's NPR's blurb describing it:

"The retired General who grew up in Arkansas, attended West Point, and later served as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, is on the program. We'll delve into his background and find out what motivates him, who inspires him and why he wants to be the next President of the United States. Laura's guest is General Wesley Clark."

There is a lot more worth listening to in this interview, including Wes Clark talking about the Military Industrial Complex. If you want a good sense of who Wes Clark is, what he believes, and why, then this interview is a great place to start. Here is the link:

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

That was the day Wes Clark finished a close third in the Tennessee Democratic Presidential Primary, good but not good enough. So Clark withdrew from the race and begain backing John Kerry for President from that point on, and became instead John Kerry's top surragate, except of course for Kerry's eventual running mate, John Edwards. At the time none of us who supported Wes Clark had any way of knowing that he would continue to remain so deeply involved in Democratic politics after ending his first Presidential campaign. And all of us expected that the Democratic nominee in 2008 would be a Democratic incumbent seeking reelection.

On the morning of February 10th, 2004 I already had a pretty good sense of what was likely to happen that night, when I made the following as a post to what was then Wes Clark's 2004 campaign web site. It's interesting to look back on it now. Admittedly I wrote this while Wes Clark still had a slim chance of winning the Democratic nomination, so yes it was a Clark promotion, and no disrespect was meant to other Democratic Candidates, but more than a Clark promo it was a summary of the work Clark had already done for Democrats against Bush. I already expected John Kerry would get the nomination.

I still believe that John Kerry would be President today had he followed Clark's lead and confronted George Bush harder and earlier on the Iraq war. Kerry started getting there toward the middle of his campaign, but too much precious time had already been wasted. Kerry should have gone forcefully on the attack at the Democratic Convention and never looked back.

So here is one both for and from the archives. I think it is important to remember how pivotal a role Wes Clark played for Democrats in 2004, as we consider who to nominate for President in 2008:

Dated 2/10/04
Only Clark Can Shred Bush

Tensions between America and Iran have been high for a very long time, and war may still be in our mutual futures. I hope and pray not. Though I first wrote this in April, this is my message for the holidays:

Some times the obvious must be stated, and this seems to be one of those times. It may almost be too simple to easily grasp; War doesn't prevent War, Peace does. There may be times when War can not be prevented, but War is most effectively prevented by waging Peace. War inflames hatred, and hatred fuels War. Peace promotes understanding, and understanding furthers Peace. This is a good time to review these basics, because we are steadily moving toward war with Iran, ostensibly to contain nuclear proliferation.

The recent performances by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in national opinion polls measuring the support potential Democratic Party Candidates for President currently have, is enough to set off warning bells in both of their camps. That’s because their early poll results are grim. Consider the facts; Clinton and Obama are far and away the current front runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination. This is very bad news indeed for the supporters of these candidates, as history clearly indicates. Let’s stroll back in time to review a few previous hotly contested Democratic Presidential nomination contests.

On November 13, 2002, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, 32% of Democrats thought Al Gore should be the 2008 Democratic nominee, followed by 22 percent for Hillary Clinton, 11 percent for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and 8 percent each for Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, and Missouri U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, with 4 percent supporting North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Of course those standings changed as the election drew closer. By the time a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was taken in January 2003, Gore, Clinton and Daschle were all off the 2004 list. The new front runners were Lieberman at 25% and Gephardt at 17%, followed by Kerry at 14%, Edwards at 7%, Graham at 6%, and Dean at 3%.

We all know how it turned out; Gore, Clinton and Daschle all chose not to run while Howard Dean topped the polls in early January 2004, and Lieberman and Gephardt both followed up on their early front runner status with an early crash and burn in the primaries.

For 2000 sitting VP Al Gore was always the Democratic favorite and was not denied, but 1992 was a different story. That time the race was wide open, and we remember who won it, but the Gallop poll from December of 2001 didn’t exactly show Bill Clinton as a front runner. Topping the polls then for Democrats was Mario Cuomo at 32%, followed by Jerry Brown at 15%. Doug Wilder came next at 9%, Bob Kerry was at 8%, then Tom Harkin at 7%, with Bill Clinton coming in 6th at 6%.

A) Pull out as soon as is humanly possible without overly endangering our troops during a withdrawal, meaning essentially withdraw almost immediately.

B) Commit to doing whatever it will take to "win" the war (whatever it is that "winning the war" means to you).

C) Commit to no permanent American occupation of Iraq, work on how to get out as soon as possible while attempting to achieve minimal and not totally unrealistic goals, and establish benchmarks to measure whether those goals are being achieved. Depart quickly if those goals prove unrealistic to achieve given the resources we are willing to make available, since there is no reason to drag it out any further if that becomes the case.

The first position is essentially the "Out Now" option: We failed. Nothing we are doing inside Iraq can be of any good. Everyone will be better off the sooner we leave (or at least America will be). So why wait another month?

The second position is essentially the old Bush "Stay the Course" line with an unrepentant and grandiose concept of what "winning" entails (though Bush is trying to come up with some new window dressing to repackage this position). While there is a certain logic to this position (if one accepts that it's goals are desirable) it is totally unrealistic. There is no way the American public would ever accept the sacrifices (nor should we) that would be needed to subdue lawlessness and civil war inside Iraq through the use of U.S. military power.

The third position acknowledges that there are real limits to what we could possible achieve regarding Iraq at this point, while also acknowledging that there are compelling reasons for attempting to minimally achieve what is still possible. It acknowledges that the clock is running on our ability to remain inside Iraq, and that we can't stay there indefinitely. It does not blindly say that we must stay until those goals are achieved, it instead says that since there is still some real mission inside Iraq that justifies an attempt to complete it, an immediate withdrawal now is being rejected as the first option.

All fixed timeline for withdrawal positions reject the logic of option A, if not they would simply embrace option A. They also reject the logic of option B, if not they wouldn't set a timer on when we would leave, victory or no victory. The bottom line is that they say; we can't just leave now, but we will leave later according to this schedule.