|
|
|
January 26, 2004
An anti-war general beats an anti-war lieutenant!
I know this will sound stupid, but at the risk of that (and at the risk of being repetitive) I am going to say it anyway: Wesley Clark is a better candidate than John Kerry. The theme -- of an anti-war warrior -- makes Clark and Kerry roughly the equivalent of each other. But let's look at which man carries more baggage. Kerry, an antiwar leftist of the Vietnam school, is a Vietnam veteran with an exemplary combat record. But that seems to be his only song. Vietnam is old already, and by the time the election runs around, the Iraq-is-another-Vietnam harangue will be pretty tired, and pretty hollow. (It may be already.) Clark has committed some of stupidest gaffes in the race, and as I stated before he may already be finished. What this proves is he is not a slick politician, and that he needs better handlers. But his anti-war message is much more up-to-date than Kerry's. He should not have belittled Kerry's war record as he did, but that should not obscure a simple fact: the masses of voters would have far more respect for a four star general than a lieutenant on military matters. And if this election is going to be about the war in Iraq (itself a possibly mistaken strategy), then I think that the common sense of the voters would consider more carefully -- and take more seriously in the heart -- an antiwar message from a general than from a lieutenant. This may sound unfair, but I am afraid it is reality. The flaws of either man may be argued to death, and it may well be that neither can beat Bush. But I think Clark would have a better chance. Once the dust settles, if the theme is along the lines of "I'm a military man and I'm against the war!" Clark's rank will count for more with the voters. I think it boils down to simple math. Attacks on Clark for alleged "war crimes", while they may help Kerry now, only illustrate the shortsightedness of the Kerry strategy. I hate to sound overly Machiavellian (or overly Roman) and I don't wish to be seen as a Clark supporter, because I am not. But the stuff I pointed out before (Kerry's vintage anti-war activism) is, in 2004, a losing strategy. Clark is of course the hand-picked candidate of Bill Clinton or his wife, which is seen as a liability. Should it be? Is it thinking the unthinkable to ask whether Bill and Hill might be a little better at thinking ahead? I previously said, My money is still on Clark, because the anti-war general theme still seems like the best triangulation strategy. I know I've already lost my "money." (The election, however, is not mine to lose!)
posted by Eric on 01.26.04 at 11:16 PM
Comments
Not at all unthinkable that Bill and Hill might be thinking ahead. Whatever else you want to say about him, Bill Clinton did manage to get himself re-elected even in the face of the attacks on him. I don't recall any President since Nixon who was so vehemently hated. He reformed welfare, balanced the budget, and even signed the DOMA, and yet he is still the Anti-Christ in the eyes of the Ann Coulters. Same as with Bush by the "barking moonbat" Left (who equate him with Hitler), even though he has spent more on liberal programs (Medicare, education, environment, etc.) than any of his predecessors, and this with a Republican Congress. If he really wanted to be a demon, he'd have made massive cuts, as Reagan did in the first few months of his first term. But he's likable, as were Clinton and Reagan, and that's what seems to count in the eyes of the majority of voters. About Clark and Kerry: Which reminds me of -- General. James. Mattoon. Scott! Steven Malcolm Anderson · January 27, 2004 02:55 PM Clark is a freak. I'm serious. Take a look at the Peggy Noonan column in today's Opinion Journal, which refers in turn to a Camile Paglia article from last year. She had the guy pegged. I remember the article. "Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look..." Alan Sullivan · January 27, 2004 06:56 PM Thanks Beth, thanks Steven, and thanks Alan! The voters obviously don't think in terms of triangulation strategies, and obviously they don't like Clark. But Peggy Noonan's heartfelt advice to the Democrats aside, were I Karl Rove I'd still be heaving a sigh of relief tonight! (I am still trying to figure out what to do with the "money" I had on Clark.) Eric Scheie · January 27, 2004 08:39 PM It's far too early to tell, but I think that Kerry will be more of a contender than Clark, because Clark's military failings are much higher-profile, much easier to dig up. Kerry has enemies among veterans (not to mention most of his fellow politicians), but Clark is truly loathed by many of his former colleagues. Clark has flip-flopped on the Iraq issue even more than Kerry has. On and on. New Hampshire was Clark's primary to lose. That he fumbled so badly in a primary tailor-made for him says a lot about how he'd do in November. James Barber · January 28, 2004 08:54 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Good, logical points. But...consider that there may be a visceral negative reaction to an anti-war general (and more so than to an anti-war lietenant). If the head of an IT department said he was anti-technology, it could raise more questions and concerns (initially, at least) than if a one of his staff expressed the same.