Driving into the Alvirne High School parking lot in Hudson, New Hampshire for the "Conversations with Clark" event, I knew it would be an enlightening evening as soon as I saw a young woman braving in the subzero weather to hold up a sign that read. "We miss you, Clark! When are you coming back? Love, the GOP." In the next hour and a half, I heard him dodge a question about hunger programs by talking about keeping "tuition down and employment up." I heard him describe environmental issues as a national security threat. I heard him say that lobbyists "keep America safe." All after sitting through what the Clark campaign calls a "biopic" -- an 18-minute film titled "American Son" that felt like the sappy clips NBC puts together to depict the tragedy-ridden lives of Olympic athletes.
Clark spoke to the crowd of potential supporters as if he were not familiar enough with the script he was reading. He kept pausing after each vague sound byte to wait for the feeble applause that followed. His speech was the equivalent of a limp handshake. Later in the week, it was related to me that one of his opponents had described Clark off the record as being "like the Stepford wives." I couldn't agree more.
Bill Clinton Reincarnate?
Conspiracy theories abound on the topic of Clark and his connection with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Is he a Dark Horse? A puppet? A diversion? A decoy? To the GOP, nothing is scarier. To many Democrats, it is the second coming for those to like to think of Clinton's reign as the golden era of their lifetime. Clark has tried to have it both ways: touting his weekly conversations with Bill at some points, and shaking the association at others.
My question is: why do we want Clinton back? He was okay -- there were more jobs then, certainly. But he failed on some big issues like welfare and heath care reform, issues on which the current candidates have bigger and better goals, and some of them even semi-viable plans for attaining them. Sure, Clinton was ten times better than Bush, but I think *naïve admission to follow* that we can do better with at least one or two of the Democratic candidates we have running. As Michael Moore said last Saturday at a Clark rally in Pembroke, New Hampshire, "We have an embarrassment of riches" among the eight (now, seven) candidates vying for the chance to oust Bush.
Plus, inheriting the Clinton legacy isn't necessarily a good thing. Clinton lost a lot of the country's respect with the whole blowjob-in-the-oval-office shenanigans. Gore shirked Clinton's repeated offers to campaign for him during his 2000 campaign to take his place. While the disgust for Bush these days is potent and (hopefully) omnipresent, the same could have been said about Clinton in this country circa 1998. I mean, hell, the guy was nearly thrown out of office.
Some say that Gore's attempt to break free from the Clinton shadow cost him the election. One of the upsides of Gore's exit from the political scene is that he has been much cooler since shedding the need for electoral approval. He's got nothing to lose by being honest, which he's done in a few key speeches in the past year and a half -- and he's got nothing to gain by kissing ass. That Gore rebuffed the Clinton crowd and the Democratic establishment to support Dean is a good thing, and only reinforces the weight of his decision and the deservingness of Dean as a candidate.
If Clark really has been anointed as the Clinton's chosen one, what will that make him if elected -- an apprentice or a marionette? And how scary is it that one power couple -- no matter how good, evil, or self-serving -- can have so much influence on a nation for so long? That's why we have term limits, people. And that applies to Bushie, Jr. as well. Chelsea, if you're reading this: don't get any ideas. Your parents are not the new Kennedys.
Wes vs. Howard
To the extent that Clark is hallowed by the mainstream press, Dean is damned. The media spends so much time looking for the shocking slip of a statement from the former Vermont governor that they forget to report on the substantive stuff. The truth is, Dean can speak off the cuff about things like global warming, homelessness, the prison system -- and say more than just "they're all bad things and we should get rid of them" which is just about all I hear from Clark, with a little "family values" and "faith" thrown in for good measure. Dean knows details, he knows numbers, and he knows feasibility. And he calls Bush out on more than just his lying and his tax cuts for the rich. He cites the nitty-gritty falsities and the even minor disappointments Bush has bestowed upon the nation in areas such as education and the environment. Those topics might not be interesting to the mainstream media because it is harder to sensationalize them, or use them to instill fear into the reader, but they are critical to the United States, and to many average American citizens and voters.
Pundits ask if Howard Dean will be able to stand up to the GOP's attacks if nominated. While both Dean and Clark have a lot of pride and, some say, arrogance, I have seen Howard Dean be humble, self-effacing, and good-natured in response to attacks. Monday night, after his less than expected Iowa finish, Dean was pushed by Larry King on CNN to talk about how crushed he was. Instead of taking the bait, he congratulated Kerry and Edwards and left it at that. Moments later Clark appeared and was cajoled by co-host Bob Dole who said Clark, though not technically in the Iowa contest, was the loser of the night because the results of the caucus increased the competition. The General freaked out. "He's a lieutenant, I'm a General!" in reference to John Kerry's rank in the Navy thirty years earlier. Talk about a temper.
While at a town hall meeting in Hudson Clark was asked a touchy question about being "relieved of [his] command" at NATO. He immediately bristled up, looked physically tense, and took a bitter tone to answer the question. Admittedly, I'd probably be bitter, too. And maybe I'd even show it. So he's human -- that's okay. But so is Dean, and so is Bush. Bush, though not often mentioned by the media, is also known as a hothead of sorts, which is the reason he's held less press conferences than any president in the modern media age. His handlers simply do not trust him to stay calm and collected in front of the microphones and cameras when asked to deliver off-the-cuff responses to critical questions. The major networks need to get some perspective and pass it on, in a neutral manner, to their viewers.
The General -- Broken Down For You Again
Clark has been successful because of people's desire for the image he represents. They want to have it both ways -- the liberal, peace-lover and the general. I'm not saying that a liberal and peace-loving general can't exist -- I'm saying that Clark isn't one. A middle-of-the-road, war-avoiding general? Maybe. I've gotten the feeling after seeing him speak a few times and observing his supporters that his canned answers are just fine with them because they're not listening. They've made up their mind based on who he is. And by that I don't mean his personality, per se, because the guy looks kind of uncomfortable saying the words that come out of his mouth, as if he's not even convincing himself -- like he's thinking, "Why am I yelling? What's the politically correct answer for this topic again? Why is my fist clenched all the time like I'm really passionate on the issues?"
As far as ideology, Dean has called Clark a Republican, while Michael Moore has maintained that Clark is to the left of Dean himself. Some voters are looking for a moderate candidate, hoping the White House is to be reached by a road down the middle. But if you're looking for a conservative Democrat, which Clark undoubtedly is, Lieberman's your guy. Ideologically, he's the most like Clinton, plus he one-ups Clark in two areas: (a) the political experience, and (b) he has the character not to flip flop on issues that, unlike Clark, he was not briefed on for the first time only months ago.
I feel almost like a traitor for not getting behind this guy. After all, I've spent most of my life as an Army brat. I truly believe that a career military man or woman could be up to the job of President of the United States. I think the military instills great values in its members. I think serving your country is truly one of the most admirable things a person can do. Yes, Clark has the values of the military, there's no question, especially as he likens most of his policy solutions to military life. But the truth is, of the people I've spoken to in the Army, many of whom have met the guy, none of them are planning on supporting him for the nomination. That says a lot.
