Clark's campaign merits no stripes

23 January 2004

Sitting in a Herald conference room, Wesley Clark spent considerable time making his position clear: If he had been president, the United States would not have gone to war with Iraq.

Which means, of course, that Saddam Hussein would still rule.

"No, not necessarily," he quickly retorts.

How so? Clearly, if the United States had abstained, Saddam would be living in a palace and not a jail, still terrorizing his own people, still nurturing his megalomaniacal plans. You can't have it both ways.

Unless, that is, you're Gen. Wesley Clark. Clark, as many have observed, is something of a political Rorschach test. Largely unknown, voters can see in him whatever they want. But don't blame voter ignorance. Vague, contradictory and confused, the general himself is a cipher.

All of this matters because, suddenly, the nomination is no longer Howard Dean's for the asking. After his loss in Iowa, Dean gave a frenzied speech that, as an act of utter self-destruction, dwarfs those of political legend: He was a teary-eyed Ed Muskie wearing a helmet in a tank with an intern in a blue dress by his side. And while many are now rethinking the prospects of John Kerry, others are eyeing Clark, hoping that in him they have the gravitas, temperament and foreign policy expertise capable of beating George W. Bush.

Keep on looking.

Clark is short and wiry, with a pinched face and slightly pointed ears that remind one of a Hobbit. He starts with platitudes. He believes in "patriotism, faith, family and pulling people together," as if these somehow distinguished him from the rest of the pack. You thought things confusing when it turned out blue-blooded John Kerry was part Jewish? Clark one-ups that: He's Jewish, Methodist, Baptist, Catholic and Presbyterian all rolled into one. I don't know how many services he attends, but he sure has a lot of holidays.

It is agonizing to hear him explain his position on Iraq. He admits he "bobbled" when he said just after he announced that he would have voted to give President Bush the authority to invade. Yes, he testified before Congress that he supported "pre-emptive" wars, but Iraq was "preventive." And commentary along the way that appeared to agree with U.S. actions was part of what he calls a "neckdown" - a discarding of options no longer available but still, he stresses, never agreeing with Bush's position.

So what would he have done? He wouldn't have worked through the United Nations, he says, because it's a political organization. NATO, with its military command structure, is not. That's simply untrue - NATO is deeply political - but the distinction nevertheless allows Clark to say that while "nations cannot cede their sovereignty" to the United Nations, "NATO's different." It's hard to believe Clark really means this, but he stresses the point: Let NATO decide, with the result being "legally binding" on the United States.

Still, Clark's thoughts on foreign policy are a model of clarity compared to his stands on domestic issues. His words are apocalyptic: "It's the end of an era" and "The golden window will close," he says. Yet he has no solid plans and his scattershot observations are sometimes goofy or just wrongheaded.

He thinks people are getting married later because U.S. jobs no longer pay well. He equates higher taxes with economic growth: We need to "raise the aggregate level of economic activity and to do that you need progressive taxation," he says (in fact, he speaks longingly of the days when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent). On abortion, he says he supports "what's authorized by law" but then says he disagrees with laws aimed at halting certain late-term abortions. The general is dubious about Bush's plan to go to Mars but then dwells on the prospects of a faster-than-light drive (at this point, his Hobbit-like ears begin to look increasingly Vulcan).

Sure, one can defend Clark on this, arguing that, as a career officer, he's never had to deal with domestic matters. But it's an odd excuse - the "but I'm a fast learner" response of a unqualified candidate in a job interview. Those who have watched Clark say he has improved. And he can deliver a good and passionate sound bite, such as this: "I can't wait until I'm standing on that stage, looking at George W. Bush and (I say): `You took us into a war to distract the American people instead of focusing on the real threat to America.' "

Those are powerful words. But Bush has as a good rebuttal, one he can read right back from the April 10, 2003, London Times: "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? . . . President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

The author of those words? None other than Wesley Clark.

Talk back to Tom Keane at TomKeane@TomKeane.com.