Clark continues to have an impact on the Hill

September 22, 2005

Four months ago, Roll Call had a report noting that Dem congressional leaders, including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, have come to see Wesley Clark as a “go-to guy” on foreign policy matters. As part of this role, Clark has become a frequent visitor to the Hill, speaking to Dem caucuses on the Hill about Iraq and Afghanistan.

If anything, Clark’s position as the Dems’ foremost advisor on foreign policy has only grown since then. In a presentation to the Out of Iraq Caucus this week, Clark apparently had an impact.

After hearing a presentation from retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Tuesday night, a bloc of House Democrats who have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq admitted Clark’s comments are prompting them to take a new look at the issue.

Clark met privately with the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to give them his perspective on the ongoing conflict and offer advice on how Democrats should frame their arguments for bringing troops home. His call: Avoid specific timelines for withdrawal and focus instead on calling for and developing strategies for success that rely not on the military, but on diplomacy.

Not having been there for the presentation, I obviously don’t know exactly what Clark said, so it’s hard to comment on the specifics. (I, for example, tend to like the idea of a timed withdrawal.) Still, it’s good to see Clark win over some of the House’s most liberal Dems.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, said Clark had “such an impact” because he is “well-respected and knows so much about the military and how it operates and what is going on.” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a leading voice among Dems urging a troop withdrawal, said Clark “made a lot of sense,” and confirmed what many have long believed — that this war “did not need to be fought.”

These kinds of briefings are important for congressional Dems — I don’t know anyone who doesn’t wish party leaders had a better, clearer message when it comes to the war — but there’s also that little thing called the 2008 presidential campaign coming up. I wonder how many of these 50 or so liberal Dems might be inclined to back Clark in a couple of years?

I wonder how many of these 50 or so liberal Dems might be inclined to back Clark in a couple of years?

I may be alone in saying it, but I hope 100% of them back Clark. In fact, I’d love nothing more than to see only token competition to Clark in the primaries. Lets raise all the money we can and back 1 solid candidate. Let the GOP have the nasty primary fight while Clark barnstorms the nation and attends pancake breakfast after pancake breakfast in Ohio and Indiana and Virgnia (Warner as VP, anyone?). We win those states, we win back the Presidency.

  • I agree that Clark is the best prospect for the Dems in 2008. This adminstration has worked very hard to strain historical relationships and humilate our allies. After years of diplomatic failures in the Middle East, Europe and with the UN, is there any wonder why we can’t now forge a diplomatic solution to Iraq that would allow for the exit of US troops? Go Clark!

  • You’re not alone in hoping that Democrats back Clark in his future endeavors. His new post (on his blog at ) ties global warming into the national security debate.

    These issues don’t exist in a vacuum — they do not stand alone. Clark has been in the forefront of pointing out the interdependence of issues that Democrats value while according to Roll Call this morning: ” Senate Democrats have identified five issue areas on which they will campaign next year, but are still sorting out who will spearhead each issue and what the overarching message theme will be.”

    Oh, dear…. Senate Dems still trying to sort out who will say what…. !

    When will the Democratic party be able to articulate as clear a vision as Clark does? When will they ‘get it?”

  • I also hope that we Dems can get together behind Wes in ’08. I really think his background as SCNATO makes him our best hope to regain the WH in 2008. There is no way the Rethugs can paint him as weak on national security. AFAIK, he’s the only candidate from 2004 to describe the attacks of 9/11 as what they were…not some sort of America’s finest hour, but the failure of the Bush administration to heed the warnings of our intelligence organizations. Plus his economic policies make sense. I’d just like to see him come out for some sort of national health insurance system.

  • ET – thanks for putting up the link. Think I will start paying more attention to the General. The Dems need a cadidate who can put all the issues together.

  • i think Clark is sending the wrong message on the war, and i hope he’ll stay the hell out of the dem contest in 2008. he still has zero experience as an elected official. without that experience, he has no business running for the top elected office in the nation.

  • Who gives a damn that he has no experience as an elected official? Look at all the elected (and s-elected) officials we have who are screwing things up from one end to the other. The guy ran armies, for god’s sake, it’s not like he doesn’t have any administrative experience. With the sleazy campaign finance system what it is in this country, never having been elected is a positive for the man.

    And can you imagine what a breath of fresh air it would be to once again have an intelligent president? Damn, Bush is so embarrassing! He’s like the global retard, you don’t even want to stand next to him because of stupidity by association.

    My dream ticket: Clark and Edwards. Edwards would bring a lot to the table, and could be a truly promising candidate rising from the VP spot when Clark is done. Maybe Edwards/Obama in 2016?

    Not exactly OT: I don’t know if any of you read Digby’s post yesterday on race and politics, but it’s a sobering read that bears considering.

  • I love the idea of Wesley Clark for President; I supported him in the primaries. My concern is he is neither experienced nor tall enough. Yes, I know the tall comment is shallow, and experience, well a turd has more experience than Bush. Still this is the TV age with the most vicious politics I have ever seen (look how they destroyed Dean). That is my concern for getting enough voters behind him. I would vote for him, however I also want a win.

    My feeling is a ticket of Gore/Clark or Edwards/Clark or Clark/Edwards would have the best chance. Gore might be tricky with some, but he has been through hell, and if you have heard his speeches since 2001, a much better, much more passionate man. The man he should have been, but for lack of experience and listening to Shrum and all those other “how to loose an election” consultants. Now, I am certain he would be the man he has now become, with the wisdom gained from what was stolen from him, and the subsequent results to this country.

  • “he still has zero experience as an elected official. without that experience, he has no business running for the top elected office in the nation.”

    Comment by scalene

    You’re welcome to that perspective scalene but I don’t look at our present batch of elected officials as role models for anyone running for gov’t office. During the Robert’s hearings, I was chagrined to hear the grandstanding and pointless questions offered by the majority of senators. I don’t feel any great awe or respect for either house of congress or either party. We are a country adrift and awash in corruption and financial dishonesty. It wasn’t freshman congresspersons who got us here. It was people that have been around for a long time.

    We desperately need fresh voices that are not entrenched in the system. Paul Hackett, Wes Clark and Barak Obama are people worth listening to who don’t have a lot of political baggage or a closet full of political I.O.U.’s.

    Wes Clark is a warrior-scholar. We live in a world seemingly obsessed with war and projection of power. We need someone who can see that dynamic rationally. I’m sick of politicians. I think there should be a Citizen’s Commission to grill elected officials like they grill nominees. They all get to operate in bubbles. Why are they so greedy? Why do they f**k up so much? Why do they protect each other to the nth degree when they are caught lying, cheating, stealing and just being stupid?

    Wes Clark can have my vote but in 2005 it’s irrelevant. 11/06 is a year away. A lot needs to happen in that time to pave the way for Wes Clark or whoever the non-republican candidate is. We need an intelligent American citizen, (whose ass isn’t owned by the corporate beast), as president. That’s it. It would be shocking.

  • I too voted for Gen. Clark in the primaries. I believe even now that he was the only candidate who was unbeatable by Karl Rove.

    As we know, Karl target his patented Slim ‘N Spin campaigns at his opponents’ strengths, not their weaknesses. He would have had had a harder time “Swiftboating” Gen. Clark than he did John Kerry.

    Plus, having spent his career in the military rather than politics, Clark would have dealt with the attacks on his character more agressively.

  • I’m not a Clark fan but I agree he’s got a much better understanding of foreign policy than anyone in the ’08 race.

    And I’m glad that the Out of Iraq people are listening to him. We do need to get the hell out of Iraq ASAP– but we can’t leave a disaster behind.

    I think what Clark is saying is completely consistent with what the Peace Movement is saying now and has been saying since before the war started: diplomacy not war, talking not shooting, problem solving not killing. The fact that he’s a decorated general saying this just makes it more obviously the right thing to do– from practical as well as a moral standpoint.

    But I think he’s a lousy candidate for president. He’s too geeky, too nerdy, too wonky. I’ve read his papers, and they go on and on and on, like the military and foreign policy think-tank briefing papers that they are. Outstanding think-tank stuff of the kind that the left despeareately needs to start producing reams of right now, but too bureaucratic an outlook for actually winning elections.

    In this he’s too similar to… well, every losing Democratic candidate since Adlai Stevenson– and including Senator Kerry from last year.

    What we need to win elections is a guy who understands marketing, positioning, and image as thoroughly and instinctively as Bill Clinton or Bonzo did– or Shrub does. Alas, the closest we have to that in the current ’08 crop is Edwards… but I can’t imagine him actually getting nominated.

    I want– no, I crave– General Clark as Secretary of State. Oh how the world would be so different with that man crafting our foreign policy. But for that to happen, we need a stellar presidential candidate. So far, no dice.

  • There is a reason that Clark didn’t do well in the primaries. The guy just isn’t ready for primetime. Does anyone remember the first day flub up on Iraq? We need a candidate who has withstood the pressure cooker of modern electotal politics and has something to show for it. Let him win something first, like governor of Arkansas, and then take a look at him for president. Until then the he just won’t have the experience to play at that level.

  • If you want foreign policy, you want Al Gore. If you want FEMA, you want Al Gore. Gore/Obama 08

  • CLARK = VICTORY!!

    I supported the general last year, and hope to do so again in 2008. What people have been leaving out from this discussion is the following:

    1) Clark comes from a battleground state (Arkansas) that borders another battleground state (Missouri). Clark’s candidacy gives the Dems a chance in these states.

    2) Clark is from the South, and that might even help with Florida too.

    3) Clark is a four-star general, he cannot possibly be painted as weak on defense. Being in the military is actually an advantage over being a politician. Once the Dems chose Kerry, I knew that Karl Rove had TWO DECADES in Congress with which to distort and slime. Politicians often have to pass bills that contain objectionable parts, just in order to compromise, but this leaves them vulnerable to attack in 30-second commercials. IT’S MUCH, MUCH HARDER TO SLIME THE RECORD OF A GENERAL. I’m not saying the Republicans couldn’t make some headway here; but it would be less.

    4) Clark is about as liberal as the rest of the major candidates, and may even be a tad to the left of Edwards and Hillary. The fact that he was a Republican decades ago is irrelevant.

    5) Clark is extremely intelligent. Either first or second in his class at West Point I believe. A Rhodes Scholar. He would handle himself well during the debates, quickly recalling important facts.

    6) Clark is a hero. As NATO commander, he basically ended the genocide the Serbs were engaging in without the single loss of an American soldier’s life. (Indeed, very minimal loss of life overall). In addition, some voters might be impressed by the medals he won in Vietnam.

  • Arf! I gave money to the General last round although I didn’t think he had a chance. He may have one now. With the right spin monkeys he could be a terrific package. I also think Gore will re-appear soon as a viable alternative and could be lashed up with Clark one way or another. My gut is that Edwards is still a lightweight and would be laughted out of the room by the “Guardians Of Privelege” echo machine.

    Whatever the loyal opposition (ha ha) comes up with I hope to hell it does not include Hillary or Kerry. She is polarizing and insincere and so obviously a mendacious equivicator(sp?) and he is just a gutless puke, as became so apparent a year ago. Dean is a cartoon character now. The rest of the field is there to be eviscerated, just like last time.

    I am so close to un-registering as a voter that I disgust myself, but Clark or Gore could change that.

  • When is someone going to admit that we’ve lost? I’m not sure really what we were fighting for, but it’s time to cut and run. Admit defeat, apologize for the lives ruined and move on.

  • I gave Clark a lot of money last time. I can see that he is too remote in temperament to resonate with the average voter. But a re-vitalized Gore running with Clark as VP, especially if Gore doesn’t treat him like a token, could be a really exciting combination. That’s my dream ticket. Hilary would probably make a great member of the cabinet.

  • I think Clark would be an excellent choice, especially considering he is NOT a politician. His NATO leadership was decisive yet conciliatory. His disdain for the Pentagon’s lack of openness and excess would be a definite benefit to the taxpayer and for invoking necessary honor where there seems some serious lack of direction.
    Clark, as a V.P. or Secretary of State . . . I doubt we could lose there either.
    He also fits the strong “southerner” perceptions necessary to pulling in that segment. I sense Clark holds integrity beyond anything we have seen in a long time and if he were to surround himself with people like Robert Reich as Secretary of the Treasury, Elliott Spitzer as Attorney General and Robert Kennedy, jr. as Secretary of the Interior, Hillary as V.P.,then we could have an Administration that could at least get a handle on reversing this massive train wreck we are currently experiencing . . . even though it may take 3 or 4 following administrations, including second terms.

  • I think Al Gore should be our president. I think Barack Obama is useless as a teat as a senator. He votes to confirm Condi, and bad-mouths people who fear Roberts, He’s a suck-up , and a black Zell Miller. I’m waiting for him to show me something that tells me he’s a democrat..

  • While no one was watching moderate republicans took over the democratic party. We no longer have a two party system. What we have is A republican party that can’t lose because it competes against itself.
    We have a few REAL dems but not enough to make a difference in the party itself, let alone in congress. With the exceptions of Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, Conyers and a few others, we have no loyal opposition. Hell, we have no opposition at all, only mouthpieces to make it look good.
    How else can the passage of the bankrupcy bill be explained? Or the Roberts soon to be coronation? or Gonzales? or a host of other disgraces?
    If we really want to take this country back and have it reclaim it’s place in history as the greatest example of democracy then we need to get all the dead wood out of office and throw it on the bonfire. Democrat or Republican, from the White House to City Hall, if they aren’t doing what we want then they need to go. Then we need to send a message to future office holders. We need to prosocute, convict and jail all those who have betrayed the public trust, the Chaney’s, Bush’s (all of them),DeLays and all their cohorts.
    You want America back? Then you need to do the work to get it.

  • Dosent all of this discussion presuppose that we have fait and free elections? I don’t think you can make that assumption.

  • I know a Democrat who didn’t vote for the Iraqi war, didn’t vote for the bankrupty bill, didn’t vote for the Patriot Act, didn’t vote for Bush’s tax-cuts, and doesn’t own corporations in Iraq and doesn’t have any American blood on his hands. If he were president his appointments would be professionals in their fields and would know what they were doing. Our treasury would have a surplus, and we would still have New Orleans. Our 1,900-plus dead soldiers would still be alive, Casey Sheehan would be alive. Our air and water would be pure. Our environment would have a chance, and we wouldn’t have crazy Pentecostal snake handlers trying to cram their religious gibberish into school classrooms. We would have someone in the White House who has respect for science and has intelligence instead of ideology. This person has already beaten George Bush, whipping him by a half-million votes. His name is AlGore, and he should be our president. We elected him.

  • I was(in ’04) & always will be…a huge Wes Clark fan….I think he’d be one of our greatest Presidents EVER!!….however, I don’t think the primary voters would have enough confidence in him as a candidate(he’s not an experienced “spinmeister”)….so, my alternate choice would be a Gore/Clark ticket….what a powerful team that would be!!

    • Comments are closed.