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!)
UPDATE: It's official now! Clark is history. (Via Glenn Reynolds.) Now it's time for me to make good on my bet, I guess....
posted by Eric on 01.26.04 at 11:16 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/710
Comments
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.
Beth · January 27, 2004 01:04 PM
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:
(to the sound of drums):
General Clark: "Atten-hut!"
Lieutenant Kerry (salutes): "Yes, sir."
General Clark: "I order you to stand down. I'm taking over."
Lieutenant Kerry: "Y-yes, sir."
The General then gives the same command to Bush, who he also outranks.
The General rides triumphantly into the White House on a white horse.
Which reminds me of -- General. James. Mattoon. Scott!
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.
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.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
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.