A Left Turn FOR CLARK

There’s a phrase that seems much in vogue with political commentators currently; “suck up all the oxygen”, and its almost always preceded by these two names; Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The metaphor sort of implies that Clinton and Obama are “heavy breathers”, but the actually term used to describe them is usually “heavyweights.” The operative theory is that these two supposed political Goliaths will now so dominate the Democratic political terrain between now and the 2008 nominating convention that the resources needed to sustain political life for any other potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates will be perilously lacking. Perhaps John Edwards can also eke out some sort of meager existence, this theory goes, but everyone else will be sucking wind.

My first reaction to this new political truism is to say that the people peddling it are spending too much time looking at themselves in the mirror. They seem so personally taken with the myth of the two Goliaths that they barely find time or space to talk about anyone else, hence it ends up they are reporting on themselves. While I actually believe some of that is going on, I know there is more to it than just that. If nothing else a Presidential candidacy does needs a lot of money and media attention in order to survive, and right now it seems most of that is being directed toward the big two, or at most big three possible Democratic candidates now dominating the news landscape.

So as readers of my blog already know, I did a little research on the history of frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President, and blogged about it in “Looks Like Big Trouble Ahead for Clinton and Obama.” If you haven’t already read it, perhaps you should. Suffice it to say here that the Davids of the Democratic Party have regularly been besting our Goliaths over the last 50 or so years. Those facts are easy to research, but it does little to dampen the conviction of the “oxygen in the room” crowd that this time everything is different, and this time the shape of the final race is all but predestined, because Goliaths have cornered all the oxygen.

Part One utilized more clever metaphors than I can possibly keep juggling without collision, which is one reason why dividing this blog into two segments seemed like a good idea. So it’s back to basics now with no further talk of Proms, though I will have more to say about that Oxygen.

There are a few key factors regarding the 2008 race that conventional wisdom has forgotten, if it ever adequately grasped it to begin with. For example there are personal characteristics that define a genuine netroots candidate, and while those qualities can be mimicked they can not faithfully be manufactured. Stands taken on issues are of course important, but it’s not just what a candidate takes stands on, it is also how a candidate stands for their beliefs, that wins or loses netroots support. If the beltway has a current defining political cliché; “Oxygen in the Room”, then the netroots has one also; “Truth to Power.” Howard Dean wears the mantle of a Truth to Power Democrat, so too does Jim Webb. And so also does Wesley Clark, unlike the other second tier Presidential candidates.

Looking at the 2008 Presidential race, for now Barack Obama and John Edwards are both attracting netroots support, while Hillary Clinton is seriously lagging. All three though clearly have other sources of support, which I briefly acknowledged earlier. If nothing else they all benefit from a conventional wisdom tailwind that pushes them each forward. I realize I might be sounding harsh about the “wisdom” of CW, so let me explain further. I do not challenge the reasons why conventional wisdom picks out the above three Democrats as strong contenders to win the Presidential nomination. No argument there from me, all of them currently are. I am mostly attacking the air tightness (literally and figuratively) of the insufficient Oxygen in the Room theory, which is sometimes used to claim that it will be almost impossible for Wes Clark’s presidential aspirations to survive inside that environment.

Smack dab in the Beltway's Morning newspaper, The Washington Post, General Wesley Clark takes it right at the Bush Administration today, in an OpEd I'm sure they don't want to read, but they still know that everyone else will. General Clark nails it with his title; "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" in a classic example of devastating framing. If enhanced diplomacy is the "smart surge", what is a temporary steroid injection of 20,000 or 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq? That's just plain dumb.

I would urge all to read the full OpEd in the Washington Post, but it took Clark just three sentences to cut through Bush's military surge spin to the bottom line of predictable results:

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict."

He might as well have been singing John Lennon’s old anthem. Last night, while sitting in the rabid FOX’s den, Wes Clark said this to Bill O’Reilly:

"What's wrong with this scenario? You talk with Iran, you hold them at bay. One way or another, somehow, western influence seeps into Iran and the people of Iran decide that there's a better way of living, than being under the Ayatollahs. Isn't that a better approach than saying we're going to have to go to war with Iran, definitely?"

Clark didn’t promise that we could all live happily ever after if we tried that approach. No, all he was saying was give peace a chance. Peace with Iran, it seems, has become a controversial proposition. Our war with Iraq, it seems, now makes war with Iran almost inevitable. Here is a headline from today’s New York Times:

“To Counter Iran’s Role in Iraq, Bush Moves Beyond Diplomacy” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/middleeast/11diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

When it comes to diplomacy it appears Bush moves faster than the eye can see. The story starts as follows:

I’m going to start off this blog with an unrealistic conclusion, and here it is: The ideal political candidate will disarm an audience with candor, delivered in a calculated and polished manner. If I’m right about that than it stands to reason that ambitious politicians should strive for polished candor, and I suspect many do, but I believe the evolving nature of politics today requires that one trait, either polish or candor, become dominant over the other. Which is why I called my conclusion unrealistic.

When I think of the personal qualities an aspiring politician needs to project, candor and polish don’t top my list. Rather some combination of strength, compassion, determination, warmth, and clarity, comes more quickly to my mind. But I hold that candor and polish are the two most powerful personal tools a candidate now can wield to get his or her political message delivered, and, failing that delivery, little else matters. In short, candor can’t easily be scripted, so its unpredictability naturally solicits interest, while polish is the product of a message effectively refined. And what makes combining them increasingly problematic now? I think it’s the evolving nature of media, which includes 24 hour cable news coverage, but mostly it’s the internet.

Don’t get me wrong, candor and polish are not completely mutually exclusive. They can coexist to an extent, but that extent is shrinking fast. It used to be that a candidate could hone a thematic message for mass audience consumption, while varying the details considerably for targeted delivery to much smaller focused groups, and rarely the twain would meet. With the internet in particular, for all practical purposes there no longer are any obscure political venues, and “off the record” comments remain on the political radar, capable of breaking out in public at virtually any time.

Conventional media is owned by those who sell conventional wisdom, so it is no surprise to see them use it promote their conventional spin. Until Wes Clark actually joins the presidential race and shows through his actions that there's more than ample time from that moment until the first 2008 contest for him to build a strong and winning campaign, conventional wisdom will push a flawed rear view mirror conclusion that since Clark entered the 2004 race too late, he must be entering the 2008 race too late also. That's their conventional meme and I think they'll be sticking to it, until facts on the ground start to prove them wrong, which they will.

Even if Clark waited until mid March to announce, that would still be six months earlier than last time, and this time he HAS position papers, this time he HAS an existing organization, this time he HAS paid his dues as a Democrat, this time he HAS experience on the campaign trail. This tine he WILL have time to campaign in Iowa and Nevada AND New Hampshire, etc. etc.

It is conventional for early conventional wisdom about a Presidential race that is shaping up to be wrong, and it is conventional for conventional wisdom never to admit that. I expect we will face a pattern of dismissal until Clark actually enters the race. Count on it, factor that in, and don't get discouraged by it. Clark and his supporters will show the conventional pundits exactly what an effective surge really looks like, after Clark announces.

So in a few hours the nation will get to feel uninspired once again by the man they sort of (depending on how you look at it) elected President, as he gives yet another State of Confusion State of the Union Address. I know I'm being too generous to even say that. Regardless, it's hard to write about anything unrelated to the State of the Union with that looming shortly, so I'll do this instead.

I'll go ask you to go read something else that someone else already wrote, and I promise you it is really really good. And important. More important than anything I can put together in the next few minutes, and I wanted to post something here now. That's because I've been neglecting this blog of late, and that's because I've been caught up in message board dueling at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. But one should never neglect a blog too long or people will forget to visit it. That's what I've been told anyway.

So anyway, here is what I now suggest, using this my blog to suggest it. Please follow the link that I am providing, to read an amazing account of an amazing lecture that Wes Clark just delivered at the UCLA Law School. It's called:

"Legitimacy, Legality and 1000 Feet of Leverage-- Wes at UCLA"

The blog title comes from this line said by Clark while discussing current tensions with Iran (as recorded in that blog):

WES CLARK:

“We need to keep the threat of Iran in perspective. And in dealing with them we have to realize that we are the most powerful country in the world. We have incredible economic strength. We hold the key to the G-8, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund...the key to advanced technology, energy development—We have that. So when I hear rumors that the President is unable to talk to Iran right now because we don’t have “leverage”...

--- If you have 1000 feet of leverage – do you need another half inch?”

We have 1000 feet of leverage over Iran. We’re completely dominant over the country. Can't the most powerful nation in the world deign to speak to an aspiring regional power?"

Here is the link. Click it. Do it now:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10663

No I'm not talking about the approaching Academy Awards Ceremony, and the golden Oscar I have to assume that Gore is favored to win for "An Inconvenient Truth" for best documentary. I'm talking about the gentle glow of praise and respect Al Gore is now enveloped in emanating from grassroots Democratic activists, and in particular the netroots. Most of us like Al Gore, we genuinely do. For one thing, we all know that he was robbed. Al Gore should be sitting in the White House now, not the Son of a Bush who currently resides there.

But it's more than that. Al Gore is at the top of his non-political political game right now. He is far along on a high profile mission to stop Global Warming and save the planet. How can you not love that? Al Gore is providing important leadership on a critical issue. For now Global Warming is Al Gore's signature issue and none of us are second guessing him on it. We all applaud Al Gore for what he is doing.

For several reasons, Wes Clark has the greatest untapped upside potential of any Democrat in the race for the 2008 presidential nomination. It starts with General Clark being the only current dark horse candidate with significant Netroots support, but that isn't the only reason; most Americans have yet to witness Clark's dramatic improvement on the stump since the last time he ran. Still though, it is quite telling that Wesley Clark continues to have that type of Netroots support even though he is not yet in the race, and despite the mainstream media dismissing Clark for over a year while having touted, to varying degrees, virtually any other Democrat who has shown an interest in running in 2008.

Most recently, when Richardson entered, the AP ran stories listing the other current Democratic candidates, while mentioning that Gore and Kerry were still on the sidelines, without any corresponding mention of Wes Clark. The netroots may not be typical voters but they are still subjected to media buzz about who is and who is not viable, and of course that has an effect, otherwise Kucinich would have much more grassroots support than he now does. And the netroots remain a potent force. Just ask Jim Webb if you doubt that.

But Wes Clark has another well to draw on that is uniquely his own. Clark's lifetime of service in the military does set him apart from any other candidate. One can argue either that it is a positive or negative distinction. Clearly, in my mind at least, it would be an asset to Clark in the General Election, and I don't think that fact will be lost on Democratic Primary voters either.

Because of his many years spent in the uniform of our country, Wes Clark has a special appeal to Democrats in Red leaning parts of the nation. They actually want him in their districts campaigning. They don't worry that his views will be seen as "too Liberal" for their constituents, because the messenger transcends the message. Clark is credible to many moderates and conservatives because he served so long with distinction. With Wes Clark at the top, none of them will worry about needing to run distant from the Democratic National ticket. As a result they will rally toward Wes Clark once his campaign is seen as viable.

Wes Clark is constrained right now by a perceived "Viability Threshold" that he has not yet crossed, almost a type of circular logic that says he is not viable because he isn't seen as viable. Money, coverage, it mostly all comes back to that. But if Wes Clark begins dazzling crowds attending Town Hall Meetings in the retail politics states, Clark can shatter that crass ceiling which till now has held him back.