Showing posts with label Wes Clark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wes Clark. Show all posts

Obama's VP - how about Clark

At lunch last week with a former professor of mine, we agreed that Obama should consider Wes Clark as a Vice Presidential nominee.

The benefits of Wes Clark as Obama's running mate:
  • Perceived (perceptions > reality) national security experience balances Obama's inexperience
  • Close ties with the Clintons help bridge the gap between the Obama people and the Clinton people
  • Isn't associated with Washington politics, keeping the "change" theme going
  • Clark's background as a poor white boy from Arkansas might help makes inroads on the bigot vote, especially if McCain picks Bobby Jindal (Brown '91!) as his VP, who is Indian
  • Beloved by media types like Bill O'Reilly and CNN
The benefits of Wes Clark as Obama's actual VP:
  • Very smart
  • Experience with messy wars in Bosnia and Kosovo
  • Knows a lot of the Pentagon people already
  • Hasn't been slamming Obama in public - although he endorsed Clinton for President, he hasn't done any negative campaigning and has put most of his energy into targeted Congressional races and specific bills
  • Isn't Dick Cheney
Another potential VP for Obama I'd like to see is Senator Jim Webb.

A laugher from Heritage

I was doing a little research on the hypertoobz (I'm still in the finals crunch) and just found this paper from Heritage, dated January 15th, 2004: The Iraqi Mafia: An Evolving Insurgency, by Dana Dillon and Melissa Parham. Check out this line (emphasis added):
Despite presidential candidate and retired general Wesley Clark's comment that the war in Iraq is a "$150 billion mess," and Al Gore's declaration that it was a "catastrophic mistake," Saddam's capture is more proof that the democratic transition in Iraq is progressing well. America is developing new methods and tactics to defeat an unpopular and increasingly criminal Iraqi insurgency. The U.S. will drive that insurgency out of existence by hitting it where it hurts the most: the pocketbook.
If I had unlimited time I would go through all the DC think tanks' publications and see which had the best track records on Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think Heritage would fare well.

Interesting reads

Two from Wes Clark: first, his article in the Washington Post's Outlook section on The Next War:
...the next war is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S. military can adapt in time to win it.
Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran...
...But if it's clear how a war with Iran would start, it's far less clear how it would end.
...The next war could also come from somewhere unexpected; if you'd told most Americans in August 2001 that the United States would be invading Afghanistan within weeks, they'd have called you crazy.
...the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't be more clear: Don't ever, ever go to war unless you can describe and create a more desirable end state. And doing so takes a whole lot more than just the use of force.
...The best war is the one that doesn't have to be fought, and the best military is the one capable and versatile enough to deter the next war in the first place.
Also, yesterday Clark officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Clark's been close to the Clinton family since the Kosovo war, and I interpret his endorsement as a signal that he'd definitely be involved in a Clinton cabinet, or possibly as a running mate.

-------------------------------------------------

An article from Der Spiegel on climate refugees - Tuvalu may be the first country in the world to entirely disappear as a result of climate change.
"Is it supposed to become a virtual country?" asked Rainer Lagoni, Professor of Maritime Law at the University of Hamburg. There is no legal definition for a country entirely without land.
Climate intelligence would certainly be a priority for countries in the South Pacific...

-------------------------------------------------

Boston Globe - The Nonbelievers
In a world where zealots crash planes into buildings in the name of God and politicians use the Bible to craft public policy, Epstein sees himself as in the vanguard of an emerging movement fueled by the rise of skepticism, advances in science and technology, and a spreading aversion toward radical religious ideologies and traditions. He and other humanists, who also call themselves atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, secularists, or brights, point to a survey... which found that 20 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 say they have no religious affiliation or consider themselves atheists or agnostics – nearly double those who said that in a similar survey 20 years ago.
-------------------------------------------------

Vanity Fair - Going After Gore

A very interesting after-action report on the press coverage of the Gore campaign. It describes a cycle in which Gore received disproportionately unfavorable coverage, which caused him to restrict access to the press, which caused more unfavorable coverage, etc. Gore also dumbed down his message because he felt reporters were too stupid to understand what he was talking about (arguably true):
Gore: You're reduced to saying, 'Today, here's the message: reduce pollution,' and not necessarily by XYZ out of fear that it will be, well, 'Today he talked about belching cows!'"
-------------------------------------------------

The Economist - Does independence beckon?

Article on the prospects for official independence for Kurdistan. The way I see it, the status quo is great for Kurdistan, and any attempt to formalize what they have now would jeopardize everything.

-------------------------------------------------

Enterprise Management Resilience Blog - Explaining Development-in-a-Box

Steve DeAngelides explains in detail his company's conception of practical aid to developing regions.

Wes Clark gives a speech

Wes Clark argues that American foreign policy should be reoriented towards restoring American legitimacy. Read the whole thing. Key paragraphs:
I know there's a few thousand or maybe a few tens of thousands of people out there who are impervious to logic, reason and any moral communication, but there are hundreds of millions, billions out there who watch the United States. They observe our actions in the world. They hear our rhetoric. They're not committed enemies, but they're not necessarily our friends yet. And if we want to succeed in the world, we've got to win over these people, at least to the legitimacy of our aims and purposes.
Related,
There are a few thousand people out there that we can't reason with. We know that. but the way we win is to cut them off from the hundreds of thousands or millions of potential recruits who judge America by the legitimacy of our actions and who take their humiliation and anger and frustration and powerlessness and weigh it against America and find a cause that suits their personal psychological needs. We need to remove our actions as a justification for their allegiance to Al Qaeda.
Compare this to Giuliani's comments just after the Republican debates:

Look, it's real simple what happened. These people came here and killed us because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women, because they hate us.

The Daddy Party wants you to stop paying attention to government and let them take care of everything. The Daddy Party's base approves, as you can see by Giuliani's little fit bringing the longest applause of that night. Just shut up and go shopping.

Back to Wes Clark:

How do we regain our legitimacy?
Well, there are three elements here. First, we have to change some of what we're doing abroad. Second, we have to change some of our laws and policies at home. And third, we've got to make some inquiries and serve justice about past conduct.

Just go read the whole thing.

Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson came out with two new ads recently. Here they are:



Richardson apparently has a real sense of humor. Here's an ad from his 2006 reelection campaign for Governor of New Mexico (he won in a landslide):



Right now, I'd say that if Wes Clark doesn't enter the race (as is looking more and more likely with each passing day), then Richardson has my vote.

A few random Wes Clark links

Matt Stoller at MyDD talks about how Wes Clark has been one of the few public officials with something to lose to speak out against the Administration's hysterics about Iran.

A video from Clark's 2004 run where he talks about his domestic credentials.

Another video from the 2004 run where he talks about the foundations of the current wave of terrorism.

In both those videos, he fielded unscreened questions, off the cuff, something our current President rarely does, for good reason.

And one last video:

"We're five percent of the world's population. We're taking twenty-five percent of the world's consumable resources. And that's an unsustainable condition in the long term."

Imagine a President who can think of the long term.

Me & Wes Clark, just hanging out

I went today to the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting 2007 at the Washington Hilton. The format was a bunch of speakers at the big stage, followed by a meet & greet in smaller rooms.

I got there at about 7.30am to be sure to get a seat (most were reserved for official members, the press, etc.). I wandered around, picked up a free Wes Clark for President t-shirt, got some buttons, talked to a few people, got a few business cards, etc.

The speechifying began a little after 9am, with Howard Dean saying a few things, basically "I'm only talking right now because Harry Reid called and told me to stall for him because he'd be late," then handed it off to Harry Reid when he showed up. Then Dean gave a speech of his own. Of the two, Dean is definitely the better public speaker. It was also nice to see Reid and a lot of other Democrats give Dean the respect and credit he deserves for the recent midterm election victories. Then all the candidates gave seven-minute speeches, although Biden, Richardson, Gavel (Alaskan Senator, I had never heard of him before today) and Vilsack are speaking tomorrow.

The first presidential contender to speak was Chris Dodd. I honestly hadn't given him a second thought, but he is a good public speaker. He basically said "The Bush administration has screwed up by doing A, B, and C. I will do X, Y, and Z." He got the crowd riled up and had a lot of supporters waving Chris Dodd signs as well. You can watch the video here.

After Dodd was Barack Obama. He got multiple standing ovations for showing up and giving his standard "The other side aren't bad people, let's not be cynical and all work together" speech. I started out skeptical, not being a fan of the way Obama defines himself against the Democratic Party ("Democrats are this negative stereotype, but I am different!"), and remain so. His speech was long on rhetoric about being a great nation and not being cynical and this and that. He had a great line, something like "Now some have said that you need specific policy proposals. Well I say we need hope!" That didn't exactly cure me of my skepticism as to how he would actually govern ("Well Mr. Director of National Intelligence, you just need to hope the North Koreans don't sell nuclear weapons!") You can watch the video here. He also had a large number of fans waving posters.

Clark came after Obama. Frankly Clark is nowhere near as good a public speaker as Obama or Edwards, however his seven minutes had a lot of meat. After he introduced himself and gave a brief personal history, the first half of his speech was basically "I stopped a war in Korea, ended a war in Bosnia and won a war in Kosovo, with zero combat fatalities. I will know what I'm doing as President." He then transitioned to talking about domestic policy, and how he thought we needed to return to the values of justice, fair play, etc. His first line on domestic policy was "where is then justice when a woman still makes seventy-seven cents on the dollar compared to men?" That drew some surprised applause - I don't think anybody thought they would hear a professional soldier from Arkansas say that. He also talked about poverty, etc. Because Clark is the only candidate who hasn't actually declared yet (other than Gore if he runs, but he's not scheduled for this winter meeting thing) Clark didn't have the standard imported 100 people waving signs - me and a couple other people were the only ones wearing Clark t-shirts. Clark's video isn't up yet, but you can check out videos of him speaking at www.securingamerica.com.

After Clark, Edwards spoke. He is, along with Obama, a fantastic public speaker. He quoted Martin Luther King, saying that silence is betrayal, and then used that over and over about Iraq, health care, Darfur, and poverty. He kept asking "will you stand with me?" as a cue for a standing ovation and for his 100 supporters to wave their Edwards signs. There were also a bunch of Code Pink people there who generally came off as rude and mentally unbalanced. I generally think movements like that are stupid and egotistical, as they focus your attention on the people themselves ("Look! We're wearing pink! We're against the war and we're WOMEN!") rather than the actual issue of the war itself (Mahablog talks about this really well).

After Edwards, it was Kucinich. He came off as a bit of a joke. He talked about how he visited Lebanon and saw some of the villages that Israel destroyed in the recent war. He then started talking about how all we need is peace, and how that he has the perfect plan for Iraq that will lead to immediate withdrawal and stability and peace in the entire Middle East. I almost choked when he said that.

Hillary Clinton was the last speech of the day. Another good public speaker, but I still am not voting for her in the primary. Her basic gist was that she's been a winner her whole life and she will win the Presidency. Hillary had the largest group of imported cheerleaders waving signs. She had one great line, "If I was President in October of 2002, we would not have gone to war in Iraq!" That was a stunner, considering that she voted for the war and as recently as February of 2005 was saying "It's going great, clap louder!"

After Clinton's speech I left immediately to try to get to the meet & greet part of the day. Somebody up at the mic as I was leaving the big chamber said that the first hour was only for DNC members. I asked one of the people staffing the Clark table outside the auditorium if this was true, and she said "Pssh. I doubt Wes would stand for that." I took that as my signal to act like I belonged and just walk into the room where Clark was hanging out. Operation Infiltration proved a success, and I got free hot dogs and soda as my reward. I waited around to talk to Clark, shook his hand, talked to him for 10 seconds "I'm a student at Georgetown and my professor is [So & So]" "Oh, [So & So]! He's my favorite person in Washington, tell him I said hello!" Then I saw one of the guys I had met before the speechifying had a camera, so I went to Clark again and got my picture taken with him - hopefully it'll be on facebook shortly. Then I ate another hot dog (free food!) and left. 'Twas a good morning.

Clark '08!

Update: Here's the video of Wes Clark's speech.