Republicans and Democrats have different memories of the 2000 Presidential debates. The former remember Governor George W. Bush sticking to his guns against three different Al Gores--one pompous, one heavily sedated and one maniacal--and showing skeptical Americans that he was quick on his feet and knowledgeable about foreign policy.
Democrats, on the other hand, are still angry with the media for their pre-debate coverage. They believe that people like Bill Dunman of Business Week severely affected public opinion by gushingly billing Gore as a "masterful" debater. Because Gore's skills were so hyped up, many claim, viewers gave the overwhelmed Bush a handicap and saw the debates as victories for him simply because they weren't blowouts.
As both theories illustrate, Republicans and Democrats believe that the three debates helped Bush gain crucial support from the "Undecideds"--the supposed 20 percent of voters who have no attachment to party and consequently decide most elections. It is these very Undecideds that campaign strategists pander to. And it is these very Undecideds that are now supposed to send Democrat Wesley Clark into the White House.
Clark's candidacy is indeed an interesting one. He has no political experience and was, a month ago, unknown to the vast majority of Americans. He claims to have only entered the race at the urging of others and has been less committal about his potential policies than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yet polls show him to have a legitimate chance at winning both the Democratic nomination and the Presidency.
So what's going on here? Well, as Jack Newfield of New York Newsday explains, "Americans might be ready for a straight-talking, four-star general." Indeed, the inexperienced Clark seems to have appeal for only two reasons: He is a renowned military official and he is perceived as being a straight shooter. And that's precisely why pundits don't like his chances; because as more and more information about Clark surfaces, it becomes evident that his military record is imperfect and his shooting anything but straight.
After announcing his candidacy, Clark was billed as the next Dwight Eisenhower because of his commanding of the Kosovo conflict. What is most amazing about the comparison is not the difference between the two wars, but that Clark was relieved of his duties during the Kosovo conflict after resisting the use of ground troops. "I can't believe that Milosevic won't sign when the crunch comes," Clark told another general in 1999. "He always holds out. He has to be leaned on very hard. But he will come around." Milosevic obviously didn't, and Clark angered many military officials.
And with regard to his famous four stars, note that Clark was not even on the promotion list to become a full general until he lobbied the Clinton administration for a fourth star. The reason for his absence from the list is even more interesting; in August of 1994 he met with Bosnian war criminal Ratko Mladic. The meeting conflicted with the wishes of the State Department and led to much embarrassment when newspapers throughout Europe ran a bizarre photo of Clark wearing Mladic's military cap.
In fairness, Clark points out in his book Waging Modern War that he was not aware of the State Department's wishes and has told reporters that it's customary for senior military officials to exchange gifts. In fact, neither his handling of the Kosovo conflict nor his meeting with Mladic would even be issues were his candidacy, fueled by a mass "effort to draft the General," based on much more than his military record.
The other reason for Clark's success has been his supposed integrity. It's therefore a problem that he has thus far sounded more like Bill Clinton than Abraham Lincoln.
On September 18, he said that he "probably" would have voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing war with Iraq (shouldn't a candidate for President have a better answer than "probably"?). The next day he flip-flopped and said he "would never have voted for" the war.
Reporter Matt Drudge once again beat everyone to the punch last week by reporting a May 2001 speech Clark made to Republicans, where he bashed Europeans and praised Ronald Reagan. Clark also said this: "I'm very glad 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."
Brian Williams called Clark on this last Thursday at the Democratic debate. Clark said that he'd undergone "an incredible journey...since early 2001. We elected a man we thought was a compassionate conservative," Clark said, "instead we got neither conservatism nor compassion. We got a man who recklessly cut taxes. We got a man who recklessly took us to war with Saddam Hussien and Iraq."
There are two notable parts to Clark's statement. First, he's implying that not having a conservative President is a problem. Second, his pro-Republican remarks came in May of 2001, exactly when the President was pushing his "reckless" tax cut plan.
It doesn't really matter if is Clark is liberal or a conservative. He's inexperienced, wishy-washy, and not the best candidate for Republicans, Democrats or Undecideds. The real reason for his quick start became obvious last Thursday when the Associated Press ran a pro-Clark story titled "Clark Takes Spotlight at New York Debate." The debate had begun at 4 p.m. The story hit the wires at 4:30 p.m.
Nathan Carleton is a Trinity junior. His column appears every other Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.