Posted on 09/23/2003 6:09:02 AM PDT by joesnuffy
William Safire: Why have the Clintons anointed Wesley Clark? William Safire NYT Tuesday, September 23, 2003
WASHINGTON The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing, would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain control of the Democratic National Committee.
That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an intimate dinner party at the Clinton estate in Chappaqua, New York, that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party - Hillary and Wes Clark."
Meanwhile, the four-star general that Clinton fired for being a publicity hog during the Kosovo liberation has been surrounded by the Clinton-Gore mafia. Lead agent is Mark Fabiani, the impeachment spinmeister; he brought in the rest of the Restoration coterie. When reporters start poking into any defense contracts Clark arranged for clients after his retirement, he will have the lip-zipping services of the Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey.
As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar. He's new, handsome, intellectual, a genuine Silver Star Vietnam hero and taught economics at West Point.
I admired NATO commander Clark's military aggressiveness when the Serbs were slaughtering civilians in Kosovo. He wanted to use Apache helicopter gunships and send in NATO troops, as John McCain urged, but Clinton sided with Pentagon brass fearful of U.S. casualties, and the lengthy air campaign was conducted from 15,000 feet up; thousands of Kosovars died. (Four years later, UN-administered Kosovo is still not sovereign, and Clinton was there last week saying, "I think we belong here until our job is finished.")
As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House"; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy.
Worse, as his Clinton handlers cringed, he blew his antiwar appeal by telling reporters "I probably would have voted for" the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Next day, the chastised candidate flip-flopped, claiming "I never would have voted for war."
Clark's strange explanation: "I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." He put himself in the hot-pretzel position - softly twisted.
Let's assume the Clinton handlers teach him the rudiments of verbal discipline and the Clinton fund-raising machine makes him a viable candidate. To what end? What's in it for the Clintons?
Control. First, control of the Democratic Party machinery, threatened by the sudden emergence of Dean and his antiestablishment troops. Second, control of the Democratic ideological position, making sure it remains on the respectable left of center.
What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President George W. Bush becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.
Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.
G'wan, you say, the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to Bush, thereby ensuring the Clinton Restoration in 2008. But plainly they are not. Their candidate is Clark. Either they are for him because (altruistic version) they think Clark would best lead the party and country for the next eight years, leaving them applauding on the sidelines, or (Machiavellian version) they think his muddy-the-waters candidacy is their ticket back to the White House in 2004 or 2008.
Which is more like the Clintons?
E-mail: safire@nytimes.com
True!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.