Fighting for the soul of Wesley Clark
Paul Greenberg (archive)
January 9, 2004 | Print | Send
The struggle for the political soul of Wesley Clark goes on.
On one side are those of us who would like to see the general rise above petty politics and campaign as a unifying figure who can bring the country together on a higher level than the usual, deadening, partisan razzmatazz.
We're cheered when General Clark delivers a thoughtful speech about the need for pre-school education or why we must not fail in Iraq, whatever differences Americans may have had over whether our troops should be there.
But on the other side of this tug-of-war is a campaign staff filled to overflowing with knee-jerk libs who are trying to make The Candidate over in their own image. When they're in the ascendancy, Wes Clark becomes indistinguishable from much of the rest of the Democratic pack, each trying to outhowl the other before the party faithful, each appealing to the same familiar cast of hungry special interests - from the teachers' unions to the plaintiffs' bar.
This year, the political operatives around him are out to present a new model of Bill Clinton - a Hummer in camo colors instead of a tricky little pickup outfitted with Astroturf.
You could see, hear and taste their handiwork when the general threw some raw meat to the True Believers at Florida's Democratic convention. He roused the howling masses by claiming the last presidential election was stolen in Florida - no matter what those post-election polls actually showed.
Typical was USA TODAY's conclusion in April of 2001: "George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standards advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals."
But the general proved his point, if it was that he could demagogue as well as anybody else in the Democratic race. Well, almost anybody else. Al Sharpton's still in the campaign. But Wes Clark is no slouch at this low game. For example:
"We've got a president today who's so deeply divisive, so carelessly indifferent, so incredibly lacking in judgment, wisdom and leadership, that this ship is about to capsize."
Really? Do you think the general really believes all that in his calmer moments - that the United States of America is about to go under? Is this the realistic four-star general who's going to rise above partisanship and unite the country? Or just another rabble-rouser?
Maybe the general was engaging in what Wendell Willkie tried to shrug off as just "campaign rhetoric" when pressed to defend some of his more outrageous charges against the indomitable FDR in 1940. Every politician does it, right?
But Wesley Clark's great appeal was that he wasn't supposed to be every politician. He was supposed to be a different kind of candidate. But it's not always easy to see any difference.
All too regularly, the general's campaign degenerates into a series of sound bites. Here he is again on the subject of the nefarious George W. Bush:
"This is a president who is all bully and no pulpit when it comes to our nation's security, all mouth and no money when it comes to supporting our children, and all photo and no opportunity when it comes to fixing the mess here at home."
Snappy patter, but not exactly presidential material. This is the kind of thing presidents usually leave to their James Carvilles and Ann Coulters, or to their vice presidential candidate - the way Gerald Ford left the ax jobs to Bob Dole, and Bill Clinton used Al Gore.
Which reminds me: Who's Wes Clark's idea of one of the greatest American presidents? Yep, Bill Clinton. Nothing polarizing and divisive about that president.
Wesley Clark is conducting a kind of split-level campaign, trying to position himself as the moderate Democratic alternative to Howard Dean but, when addressing the party faithful, sounding just like him.
This week the general was tacking back toward the center with his tax plan, which accepts the Bush tax cuts - even though it includes a populist dig at The Rich and The Corporations. At least he's headed in the right direction. Literally.
General Clark needs to decide who he is - a statesman above the fray, which was the essence of his original promise as a presidential candidate, or just one more of the scrappers mixing it up in the swirl of partisan fuss 'n' feathers known as the Democratic primaries.
If he tries to play both of those conflicting roles, people will notice. And in this more serious decade, they might even care.
©2003 Tribune Media Services |
