FAIR has an article calling into question Clark’s “anti-war” record. Here is a quote from back in February:
“The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we’re going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world’s got to get with us…. The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with.”
And Billmon says that Clark’s staff are full of people who “represent everything that’s wrong with the modern Democratic Party.”
I have to admit, the more I read about Clark, the more I feel that even though he expresses many views which I agree with, I am not convinced that he has the political acumen to actually get people to act on his views. He reminds me of Clinton in that he is probably electable — but not necessarily the kind of person who will shake things up the way they need to be shook once he is in power. I think people see his main appeal as his electability. This may not be a bad thing, and if he shows a little more political savvy during his campaign then maybe there will be some hope.
Matthew Yglesias has some interesting things to say about generals as presidents:
Certainly much of the yearning for a Clark candidacy seems to stem less from an enthusiasm for the candidate than from a lack of enthusiasm for the alternatives. History indicates, however, that while generals can triumph over weak electoral opposition, they can’t necessarily translate their battlefield successes into political gold.
