Michael Kinsley: General Amnesty (about Wes Clark)

As a Dean supporter, I can't help but agree with Kinsley's assessment.

"...Then there is retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not. They think that Clark has the best chance of defeating George Bush and that nothing else matters. Their assessment is based on what seems to me a simple-minded view that you can place all the candidates on a political spectrum, then pick the one who's as far toward the other side as your side can bear, and call it pragmatism.

How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean --in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism.

snip

Democrats mocked Republicans in 2000 when they defended their support of an ignoramus for president by saying that he would surround himself with good advisers. Unlike the incumbent, Wesley Clark is not unable or radically disinclined to master the details of policy. Anyway, a fully stocked larder of policies and positions on issues is a vapid measure of a political candidate. But anyone who wakes up to politics like Rip Van Winkle, and -- without troubling to develop any but the most abstract political sentiments -- immediately decides that the country needs him as president, clearly thinks highly of himself for reasons that may not be universally apparent.

It is apparent to some, though. Perhaps unfairly, I have this mental image of Wesley Clark spending the past three years in the big shot bubble. He goes from corporate speech to fancy international conference to dinner in honor of some VIP, possibly him. And everywhere he goes, fine, smart people are telling him, "General, we need a fine, smart guy like you to straighten out this mess the politicians have gotten the country into." He comes to believe it, and comes to believe that many other people believe it. He even forgets how many other people may never even have heard of him.


more at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17919-2003Oct12.html

"The rules entitle the swooner to project his or her views onto the candidate, despite any lack of evidence or even evidence of the opposite. But the rules also insist that the candidate will never win."


I like Kinsley, and agree with him on Clark and Powell.

it's condescending to refer to Clark supporters as "SWOONERS".

...a vapid measure of a political candidate."

Huh?

Silly me, I thought giving people the opportunity to assess your qualifications for the job was a GOOD idea.

I like Kinsley too but he gets a bit carried away at times.

I can come up with more policy positions before breakfast than most people can in a month; so why aren't I president?

It sounds like Kinsley is describing his own stint as co-host of Crossfire.

How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean --in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism.

Since when is competition "snubbing?" I think Dean is a fine candidate but I still like Wes Clark better than I like Dean. This whole line of argument...whether coming from Mike Kinsley or my local Dean for President organization...ignores one small detail: Dean does get people fired up...DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

That's all well and good (and necessary) for the primary season, but being angry as a platform is a sure way to end up in the loss column in 2004.

Before someone flames me, I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE DEAN WOULD RUN AN ANGRY CAMPAIGN if he won. But I certainly see and hear more evidence that he would versus what campaign Clark might run in the general election.

No candidate, not my guy, not Dean, and not anyone else has come up with what WE as a party need from a candidate as of yet: A thematic, national alternative to George Bush's policies instead of piecemeal policies that are disconnected.

The first candidate that comes up with this will be the winner of both the Primaries and the General Election.

That's all well and good (and necessary) for the primary season, but being angry as a platform is a sure way to end up in the loss column in 2004.


Just shows how ill-informed you are about this candidate.

Too, it's high past time for outrage. That's more what Dean expresses, IMO, than anger. But to the extent it is anger -- isn't about freakin' TIME the Dems got downright good and mad at the unparalleled destruction going on at the hands of the Bush administration?

Dean does get people fired up...DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

And Independents. And Republicans. And Greens. And people who've NEVER been involved in politics before, and many who haven't even voted before.

Eloriel

So many people have this knee-jerk assumption that the ONLY reason people support Clark is that they think he can win against Bush. And that is garbage. People who support Clark are genuinely thrilled with Clark -- his resume, his ideas, his experience.

Anyone who runs for the office of the Presidency has to have a pretty big, solid ego, and I'm sure Clark is no exception.

Josh Marshall's interview of Clark last week is proof the general has PLENTY interesting to say.

I usually agree with Kinsley, but he's off base on this.

times recently I have come to a conclusion. He is either suffering from a catatonic episode or he hired El Flushbo's old housekeeper. This dude is zoned out like Bob Marley right after harvest time.:wtf:

I have wondered if he was on psychotropic medication due to his affect. I don't mean that as a joke, I mean he seems like something is wrong. I was even Googleing recently to see if he had a mental-illness that required medication.

But I was wondering about his affect. I respect him even more now that I know he has MS and is still productive. When I asked about the mental-illness it was not meant as a sly attack. I have Axis 1 bi-polar disorder coupled with a 165+ IQ. So I know that having a mental illness does not mean one is "stupid."

Edit: Never mind. Huckleberry nailed it.

Eloriel

who needs to check the polls before he ASSUMES that Dean energizes and Clark doesn't. Please. Commonsense would tell anyone that the person who is polling the highest, consistently obviously energizes the most people. This fool has not presented one fact to back up his premise.

Dr. Strangelove.

I like that picture.

Clark sweeps the polls in all demographics. Mike is an ignorant ass, making shit up on the fly.

Kinsley tkaes very superficial swipes at Clark and his supporters using words that drip of bias.

"swooning" sorry Michael, we are not all 12 year olds at a Justin Timberlake concert.
"simple-minded view" - how more bias can you get
"Perhaps unfairly" first true thing he's written here

This is not an honest assessment of Clark or his policies. It's a leftwing hit piece that marginalizes Clark and his supporters.

MzPip
:dem:

McBride was touted by the FL Dem Party hierarchy as the candidate who had a better chance than Janet Reno of defeating Jeb Bush. Reno was seen as having too much baggage, and according to these Party stewards, she would have been blown out by Bush and thus set the Democratic Party backwards 100 years.

However, Reno had enthusiastic supporters, McBride did not. Reno had more enthusiasm for the campaign than McBride. It was evident in her campaign tours and in being prepared for the only debate the Dem candidates had.

McBride, a lawyer by trade, seemed like he was pushed into becoming the Dem gubernatorial candidate; however, he had a good campaign manager who helped him defeat Reno, narrowly though that win was. Interestingly McBride fired that campaign manager after his initial victory in favor of a neophyte who had connections to the teachers' union. Unfortunately for the Dem Party stewards, McBride never seemed to be prepared for his debates against Jeb Bush. His last one before the election was his worse performance. And on top of that, Bush used McBride's campaign manager's inexperience and connection to the teacher's union against McBride effectively.

The results of the Dem Party stewards favoritism of inexperienced politician McBride against Jeb Bush -- Bush blew out McBride. Whether Reno would have done better or worse, no one will ever know, but I'm certain that Janet would have taken Jeb to task in the debates. She had passion and concern for Florida that McBride never showed.

If Clark ends up being the Dem Party nominee because national Dem Party barons get in a position to nominate him through super-delegates, I predict the same ending for Clark and the national Dems that I saw happen in Florida with McBride and Jeb Bush.

McBride was targeted in the general election.

There's a lesson here for all Democrats running in '04.

and made it easier for Jeb to take him out.

The real problem is that the Repukes are united at keeping out Dems and Dems are divided amongst ourselves because the Party is divided between corporatists Dems, moderates, and progressives. And frankly the Party leadership sucks and when the leadership annoints or fawns over a particular candidate it increases animosity from the other factions.

but my impression is that he is extremely intelligent and could rip Bush's head off in a debate (if Clark is not overcoached in "sound-bite speak").

I imagine that Clark will be quick to learn the issues and formulate policies, but this won't make up for lack of political smarts. One instance of a miscue is his statement that he is the "frontrunner" since the nomination depends on picking up delegates rather than popular vote leads among the general electorate.

All the Dems have a big problem with the huge money gap between them and Bush. I wish the weaker candidates would quickly drop out, so we could really get down to having one good candidate.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002411.html

Here's some of it, but please read the whole thing (boldface added by me):

First, he mocks Clark for not having fully thought-out positions on every possible topic after having been in the race for three weeks. Then, without even seeming to notice that he's done it, he makes a hard U-turn and admits that that's a dumb way to evaluate a candidate. "Anyway, a fully stocked larder of policies and positions on issues is a vapid measure of a political candidate," he says.

That's right: reams of white papers on every conceivable topic are just fluff. What matters is that a candidate has the right instincts, the same broad views on policy that you do, and that he shows good judgment. So Kinsley's basic complaint that Clark is a blank slate doesn't hold water, and he obviously realizes this himself.

But there's a far more basic mistake he makes in his column: talking only about domestic policy. What he inexplicably misses is the fact that national security and foreign policy are more important to a lot of people — and likely to be more important in next year's election — than domestic policy.

And in this area, Clark has policy ideas to spare. He's already written a whole book about the Kosovo war, complete with loads of policy recommendations, and he's got a new one coming out shortly. And this is what has so far attracted me to him.

Clark seems to understand — and have genuine experience with — the central foreign policy truth that the Bush administration lacks: a global war requires lots of strong allies. This was true in World War II, it was true in the Cold War, and it's going to be equally true in the War on Terrorism. The United States could not have won either of those previous wars on its own, and it can't do it this time either.

Clark has more experience with foreign policy than any other Dem and the entire Bush Administration put together. I believe he is uniquely qualified to straighten our course in Iraq (which won't be easy and won't be quick, no matter what Dennis Kucinich thinks) and get us out in a way that won't make a bad situation worse.

People will forget foreign policy when they don't have jobs to pay the bills.

If all Clark can do is foreign policy than he shouldn't run for President because President has to manage both the domestic and foreign policy areas. Of course if Clark's answer to domestic policy is to draft everyone into the Armed forces than he can eliminate the domestic problems and move them all over to the foreign policy one. Sounds like a Bush-lite policy, though.

That Dean's experience would make him a grand Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. But I won't.

I am rooting for both Dean and Clark. I think Clark is stronger on foreign policy. I think Dean is stronger on domestic policy. They are both strong, smart men who would be good Presidents.

"Of course if Clark's answer to domestic policy is to draft everyone into the Armed forces than he can eliminate the domestic problems and move them all over to the foreign policy one. Sounds like a Bush-lite policy, though."

Of course, that is not Clark's answer to domestic policy. His answer is very close to Dean's answer, which is to eliminate the Bush tax cuts (Dean wants to eliminate all of them; Clark wants to eliminate the cuts for people making $200,000 or more), and use that money for domestic spending, jobs, health care, social security, deficit reduction, etc. etc. And I fully endorse that idea.

who won re-election 5 times and served in a civilian Executive Office. Clark has NO EXPERIENCE campaigning in a civilian sphere and just as they shredded Max Cleland of Georgia, Rove will shred Clark the neophyte politician. Dean knows how to fight the Right in the civilian political realm. Clark does not.

Once again, I like Dean a lot and will be very pleased if he's the nominee. However, speaking as an old lady who's seen a lot of elections, and someone from the redneck Midwest to boot, I can tell you that Dean will be a much, much harder product to sell to Southerners and Midwesterners than Clark. So even though Dean is a more experienced salesman (and has a much sharper campaign staff), I don't think Dean would be more electable in the general election.

And let's not let Carl Rove choose our candidate for us, OK? He's good, but he can be beat.

Give me one link where Clark says he can eliminate domestic problems by drafting everyone into the Armed Services.

If this is your idea of a rebuttal to Clark's bid for presidency you must be completely clueless. Do you realy think remarks like this will change the minds of Clark supporters? Get a grip. We've read his positions and he is far mor articulate than anyone else out there, not that you will bother to read any of it since it's so much easier regurgitating Dean talking points.

MzPip
:dem:

You don't get it! The man was a general! There are actual photographs of Clark in a military uniform! And since all military officers are EEEE-vul, then Clark must be too.

So it doesn't matter what he says or what he intends. Since he's "military" we know he's up to no good! (wink, nudge)

because I think he could help solve our current Iraq situation without leaving a dangerous vacuum there. His experience as a NATO commander and the negotiating skills he used could benefit us in the current situation. He could help ensure stability which would help us since the current administration has lost credibility with many other countries because of the neocon plan of toppling middle eastern countries. This ability is not something to be dismissed. He also believes we need to talk to North Korea. He can provide a way for the US to work internationally again and restore transparent government.

I do not support him blindly, nor am I star struck. Don't pretend to know me or other Clark supporters. And we won't pretend to know you (Kinsley included).