Heaven knows I’ve found plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Wesley Clark. But I have to say I found him one of the most credible of the Democratic candidates in the debate yesterday. The reason is that I agreed with him, to a large extent. Compared to hysterics like Kucinich or programmed bores like Kerry, he came across as sensible, fresh, and his views were sane. There was blather – “I’m pro-health,” as if the Republicans are pro-disease – but I guess it’s no more absurd than Republicans claiming to be “pro-family.” He wouldn’t drag the troops home, unlike some of the others. He moved from not-terrible to positive in my book with this answer to the question of what he’d do that would be unpopular:
We’re going to focus it on deficit reduction. We’re going to put this economy back on a sound footing so we can not only pay our bills but meet the other needs that we have in education, health care, the environment and Social Security.
Yep, I know it’s vague. But mentioning deficit reduction at all as a priority was encouraging, especially after this administration’s complete insouciance about it. I think he’s full of it on Iraq, trying to have it every which way in retrospect, when he was far more sensible at the time. And I worry about his reflexive deference to allies. So I was actually reassured by Drudge’s quotes yesterday, where Clark comes across as a gung-ho hawk, an admirer of Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld. I agree with him that “President George Bush had the courage and the vision… and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.” I couldn’t second highly enough his view that he was very glad after 9/11 that “we’ve got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice… people I know very well – our president George W. Bush. We need them there.” I’m delighted he has such a high regard for Ronald Reagan. If he’s genuine – and you have to remember he’s a Rhodes Scholar and they tend to say anything to suck up to whomever they’re talking to, in this case, Republicans – he’s preferable to any of the other Dems, except Lieberman and Edwards and Dean (who came off as nastier and vainer than ever).
A WINNING GAME-PLAN?: If I were advising Clark, I’d tell him not to attack Bush’s conduct in the war on terror, or impugn his motives or sully his reputation. What I’d do is say: “Thanks, Mr President, for your wonderful leadership. But the task you set out upon is best accomplished by others who do not carry with them the baggage you do on the international scene.” Then he’d lay out a plan to bring Iraq to democracy, nation-build in Afghanistan, and get tough on Saudi Arabia. At the same time, he’d get rid of the taxcutsfortherich, and appeal to the cultural center. If his early flakiness doesn’t turn out to be a real character flaw (a big “if”), and if the Democratic base can contain its self-defeating hatred of Bush (an even bigger “if”), and if he isn’t coopted by the Clintons and McAuliffe, then Clark definitely has a credible shot. The country wants to shift tactics in foreign policy but doesn’t want to repudiate the achievements of this administration. And people are worried about debt and jobs. The question is: how does Clark run against Bush in the primaries and co-opt parts of his record in the fall? Well, we’ll soon find out. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying I’d prefer Clark to Bush under those circumstances. I’m just saying it’s an interesting scenario. And healthy for the country.
The Dish 