The Real Wesley Clark

Washington Post ^ | 09/18/03 | Richard Cohen

[bedolido]

All around Washington last week -- and before and after on the phone -- I've been busy asking people about Wesley Clark. I talked with people who worked with him, some of them very closely, asking over and over again a variation of the same question: Is Wesley Clark too weird for prime time?

Let me first tell you why I asked the question: It's because Clark in effect got fired from the Pentagon. Not to put too fine a point on it, then-Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, joined by many of Clark's colleagues, came to just plain dislike him.

Some of this had to do with policy -- the Kosovo campaign -- and some with their suspicion that Clark went over their heads to the White House. But some of it was deeply personal. Clark is sometimes compared to Eisenhower, another general who went into politics. But Ike was beloved. That's a word that never comes up when Clark is discussed.

Something about Clark makes people bristle. He is undoubtedly brilliant -- a Rhodes scholar and first in his class at West Point. He is a fine athlete and a Vietnam combat veteran who was decorated for bravery. He won the respect, even the awe, of his colleagues, but too much of the time he did not win their friendship.

[Wright is right!]

"Nixon in 1968, who was not an incumbent, was more likeable than Hubert Humphrey, AKA The Happy Warrior?"

To enough pipple in order to elect him. Our view of Noxin today is a lot different than it was back then. Common Tator had a specific analysis of that race and perhaps he'll wander by and enlighten us.

Michael

[Paulus Invictus]

I watched this guy on TV the other day and I was struck by his cold, dead eyes. This guy is a psycho with clintinoid tendencies.

[Peach]

The Republican party has never defended itself appropriately. I don't want us to get into the gutter with the Rats, but a little truth telling and ruthless honesty is not out of line.

Keep posting those pictures on every Clark site you can find. I've come across a few DU'ers on those sites and perhaps you can sway a few.

[sauropod]

I was kinda hoping for an article with a little more red meat in it.

[sauropod]

Thank you.

[q_an_a]

the hit pieces start.

[judywillow]

You should post some informative links...

Those images are all hyperlinked. Moreover those kinds of stories aren't hard to find on the internet. Kosovo is the elephant in the livingroom problem which made the Iraq operation impossible to sell in the UN. Most of the world's people simply couldn't believe that the same nation which did Kosovo four years earlier could conceivably do anything altruistic now. Try doing google searches on one or more of 'kosovo', 'wesley clark', 'war crimes', 'nato war crimes', 'milica rakic', sanja milenkovic' etc. etc. etc.

[piasa]

Let's face it, Hillary! doesn't want a dem to win in '04 unless it is her.

On the surface this sounds true. On the other hand, she and the DNC and the rest of the far left desperately need to stock the Supreme Court with activist red judges.

[Mr. Bird]

Clark's candidacy won't survive outside the Beltway. He's a non-person in the eyes of the electorate. There's a reason generals don't gravitate to the power of the presidency: as a group, they are fairly obscure officials in the public mind.

Kosovo was no WWII, and Clark is no Ike, Mac, Patton, or Bradley. The American public have no clue who he is. They are willing to accept this in a candidate who has proven himself in the political ring before (a gov, rep, senator, whatever), but to think even a bare majority would rally to the cause of a general with no prior elective office is absurd.

The DC crowd doesn't see this, because they saw him at the parties, talked about him at work, covered his actions in the news. To them, he's General Wesley Clark, former NATO Commander. That and fifty cents will get him a cup of coffee in Everytown, USA.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Well, if all that the theory means is that the person who gets elected was, by definition, more likeable, then the theory doesn't tell us anything at all.

I was around in '68, and I think most objective observers would have concluded that Humphrey was the more likeable candidate.

Nixon was the sourpuss who had famously stated after losing the '64 CA governor's race that the press wouldn't have him to kick around anymore, because that was his last race. He was a glum figure.

Humphrey's loss was probably due to the riots at the Chicago convention, the notion that he hadn't stood up to LBJ on Vietnam, and perhaps the view that Nixon was tougher or better on foreign policy.

But I think it's impossible to argue that Nixon was more likeable. Humphrey was well liked and admired by people across party lines.

[pepsionice]

Go find all of the junior officers under Ike, and all the junior officers under Wes...and there you find a huge difference. Ike led his staff, and impressed those around him. Wes would get into turf battles on a daily basis with anyone. He was generally reguarded as a average commander by most people who worked around him, and on numerous occassions...actually said one thing, and 10 minutes later said an exact opposite thing. There is no comparison between Ike and Wes...Ike was suited to lead America...Wes is suited to run Enron.

[Wright is right!]

"But I think it's impossible to argue that Nixon was more likeable. Humphrey was well liked and admired by people across party lines."

It's Common Tator's rule, so I'll let him defend it.

Michael

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the feedback.

Apparently Weasel Carter is another Jimmy Carter control freak, who trusts no one under him, at his levels or above him.

[Grampa Dave]

How many elections has the really stupid third parties won?

When you clowns win some elections, you may earn the right to call our party stupid.

Until then your party is the terminally stupid loser one. You guys need Carville to write some new hate mantras for you. That one became irrelevant years ago.

You clowns are like the bum on the street trying to tell a successful businessman how to run his business.

[Califelephant]

Here's what I find wierd: a U.S. general who's a Democrat. I know there are probably plenty more like him, but I still think it's wierd. The Dems are the anti-defense party. The Dems are the party that's permanently hung up on Vietman. The Dems are the party for turning the military into a social experiment. The Dems are the "nanny" party and the Pubs are the "kick a** and take names" party. It's not a good fit, and it makes me wonder what it is about him. that identifies with them.

[expatpat]

IMO, the Clintons want to block Dean because he will kick McAwful out of the DNC leadership, and Hildebeast needs him there for her. Hence Clark, who I think the Clintons own.

[Verginius Rufus]

In 1968 not only was Hubert Humphrey a more likable person than Richard Nixon, but arguably even George Wallace was. In 1912 William Howard Taft came in third although personally a very lovable guy, and Teddy Roosevelt was more likable than Woodrow Wilson, who won.

[finnman69]

[libstripper]

One other angle that's not necessarily incompatible with yours: The Clintons desperately want to bump off Dean, but can't figure how to get him to Fort Marcy Park. After all, his potential success is a desperate threat to them, as shown by the fact that he's already said he would probably can McAuliff (sp?). If McAwful goes, they lose control of the DNC and it's anybody's bet who will be the 2008 nominee.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Fair enough. I'll look forward to his response.