General Wesley Clark appeared on the Charlie Rose Show, last night.
One of the first questions Charlie asked was what plans Wes had for 2008. The answer was unequivocal.
The General acknowledged that he is interested, has formed an informal committee, and told Charile that he has been asked to run "by a lot of folks", but he does not feel he can marshall the tools needed to win, yet.
Clark said the first time (2004) was great fun, and he learned a lot about the process, but he does not feel he can run again, unless it is clear that he has a chance to win.
You can receive an e-mail copy of the entire transcript for $9.95 from Voxant
Charlie then peppered Clark with all of the questions we might have asked, given the chance.
On the 24th of July, Tom Rinaldo laid out his thoughts on a Clark candidacy in his diary, Gore, Clark, Kos, and the 2008 Election. Tom makes the point that this race has had room for only one shadow candidate and that place has been reserved for Al Gore.
As it becomes increasingly clear that Gore is not likely to jump in the ring, a Clark candidacy becomes more likely - but only if we genuinely care enough about foreign policy, America's place in the world, genuine experience with war, and more brains than are normally poured into one cranium.
Domestic issues tend to dominat our concerns because we are only experienceing war at arms length. Most of us have no direct experience with Iraq, Afganistan, or the Pakistan border. (Tip of the Hat to our serving and retired military.) We desparately want it to end, and talk and plan as though that will be the result of any Democratic President, regardless of which one we support.
My growing concern is that the scenerio we so fervently want is not likely to occur. Not quickly, and given the mess we face, not with any acceptable resolution, unless we throw our support behind a skillful commander who has some idea of how to extracate us from the region without even greater loss of life, and American prestige.
Bush/Cheney and the Neo-Con Cabal have done a great deal more than destroy Iraq. They have so throughly screwed up generations of US foreign policy, the US military, and our economic standing in the world, that it may take a generation to recover - if we can. This moment in time seems to call for a candidate who not only understands our military, but has a deep understanding of international relations, an appreciation of the need for multilateral agreements, and who values the role of the UN and Nato, and who has the brains and skill to pry us out of Bush's War.
Disclaimer: I was an early Clark supporter. I continued to cling to hopes that the world would see the light, long after it became clear that the DC Establishment was determined to see to it that Kerry won. (I've always had a soft spot for blazing intelligence, and a world class education, put to good use for humanity.)
I was heartened by Wes Clarks appearance, last night. It seemed as if he was saying that one of the primary blocks to his declaring might be money...
Can we move away from fantasies of a quick out in Iraq? Both Clinton and Obama have made it clear, multiple times, that they intend to try. What does "trying" mean? Does that involve turning the draw-down over to the Generals that Rumsfield and Bush have not yet purged from the military for their disagreement with the Iraq policy? Do either Clinton, or Obama, understand the military and DOD culture, sufficiently to demand, and supervise, the implimentation of a policy that requires a combination of unerring leadership, and a profound understanding of the issues?
Is it time for a Four Star to be thrust into the debate?
If you think it might be a good idea to concentrate the mind on the real issues created by a stupid and shortsighted ideological blunder by forwarding the candidacy of a man who has the tools, and the gravitas to handle the problems, consider Wes Clark, for President.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.