I originally posted a version of this diary on May 27, 2008, because I thought (and still think) that Clark and Obama would make a great team -- not primarily because of Clark's military background (though that doesn't hurt him), but because Clark is a strong progressive with a strong background in economic issues (degrees in economics and philosophy from Oxford) and also executive experience as Supreme NATO Allied Commander.
My original diary didn't last long, with the VP flavor of the day at the time being Webb or Sibelieus or Richardson. But today there are two diaries -- one front page -- that makes the case for Clark, so I think it is appropriate to let Clark's own words make the case for him on the issues that are important to us.
Follow me below the fold and let Clark's own words show him as a strong progressive and a great candidate for Obama's VP pick.
On the Iraq War -- Clark was against it from the beginning, and spoke eloquently against rushing into war even during the darkest days after 9-11: Here's Clark's Seton Hall Commencement address from May 12, 2002:
http://securingamerica.com/...
My favorite quotes from this speech show a truly broad grasp of history, our place in it, and the choices we faced after 911. I have edited it to string together various phrases throughout the speech. Bold phrases are my emphasis. Please click on the above link to see the full text:
Some will be tempted to seek our security by raising new walls to take the place of shriveled ocean distance. They will call for restricted travel and trade, for tougher visas, fewer tourists and students, closed courts, diminished rights, and less international traffic and trade. They will want an ocean shield and a missile shield, and a society far less open than it was before.
Others will argue, and in my view correctly, that our security depends more on building windows and bridges to the outside world than in building walls. They will suggest that in the new millennium our best security lies in reinforcing others around the world that share our values, rather than shutting ourselves off from them. They will suggest that national security is far broader than national defense, and they will argue that what is ultimately a conflict of ideas and ideals cannot be won by bombs and bullets alone, but must include commitments to human rights and democratic norms.
But where is the balance here? How much must we give up to be safe? And how much will such sacrifices compromise the very freedoms we seek to protect, or the prosperity we have come to enjoy? These are the issues with which you must grapple…they cannot be decided by “experts” and “authorities.” Coming up with the balance will be your responsibility – it cannot be delegated to so-called experts – or given over in trust to elected leaders. Rather, yours is the daily responsibility of citizenship, carried on through open debate and exercised at the ballot box on a hundred different issues and candidacies. And this will require dissent, dissent that cannot be silenced through charges of comforting the enemy without surrendering the very freedoms we say we are fighting for.
. . . .
They killed in the name of God. But they are not the first. This began in pre-history; the tragedy is that it persists today.
. . .
Ultimately, your generation will have the decisive voice. You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His Name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences.
And this is not a new choice, not for your generation – it is a choice that many others have faced throughout history. Only now, we can hope that with your help and engagement we can find a new answer.
. . .
Clark spoke out against the Iraq war throughout the run up to the AUMF and beyond, and has remained a steadfast advocate for tough diplomacy rather than a reliance on military action. He also was one of the first voices to speak out against the call for attacks on Iran, and is an active participant in VoteVets.org, which has made ads and campaigned against the rush to war with Iran.
All of the quotes below can be found
either
http://en.wikiquote.org/...
or here
http://securingamerica.com/
In an October 2003 Conference of Military Reporters and Editors, at a time when few in the public arena were speaking against the war, Clark spoke out:
Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than to consciously make a war based on false claims.
And lest we think that Clark's commitment became any less strong after he stopped running for President, he continued to speak directly against the administration's arguments. In 2007 he debunked the whole idea of the so-called "war on terror" being primarily a military endeavor. Instead, he spoke forcefully against the excesses of this administration:
You see, essentially, you cannot win the war on terror by military force. It is first and foremost a battle of ideas. It is secondly a law enforcement effort and a cooperative effort among nations. And only as a last resort do you use military force. This president has distorted the capabilities of the United States Armed Forces. He's used our men and women in uniform improperly in Guantanamo and engaged in actions that I think are totally against the Uniform Code of Military Justice and against what we stand for as the American people.
The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa.
92nd Street Y Cultural Center in New York City (27 Feb 2007)
There is no question but that Clark has one of the strongest anti-Iraq war records of all the potential VP candidates. However, his progressive credentials go far beyond the issue of Iraq, as shown below.
On the need for civil discourse and dissent:
We live in a liberal democracy....That’s what we created in this country. I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment... It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.
Interview with Bill Maher, on Real Time with Bill Maher (5 September 2003)
On jobs and poverty and this administration's economic policies:
I don't think it penetrates the minds of this Administration what it must be like for a factory worker to arrive home to his family with the news that he's been laid off. What it must be like not to know what the future holds for your children, because you don't know what the future holds for you. What it must be like to see the government take hundreds of billions of dollars that could be used to fund job training, unemployment benefits, or jobs programs — and instead to send that money off to people who have such staggering wealth that the new money won't make the tiniest improvement in their lifestyle. What it must be like to be told that tax cuts for the rich are necessary to create jobs for working people, and then to see jobs fall month after month for more than 30 months. If that doesn't break your heart, you don't have a heart.
Jobs Plan speech (24 September 2003)
On the dangers of the military-industrial complex Clark sounds like Kucinich (only more persuasive, given his military background) talking about a commitment to peace:
I think General Eisenhower was exactly right, I think we should be concerned about the military-industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today you've consolidated all these defense firms into just a few large firms — like Halliburton — and with contracts and contacts at the top level of government. You've got most of the retired generals are one way or another associated with the defense firms — that's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way — I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Department of Defense because I just figured it was time to make a new start. But I think the military-industrial complex does wield a lot of influence — I'd like to see us create a different complex. . . .we need to create an agency that is not about waging war but about creating conditions for peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for peace, advocates for economic development abroad, not just advocates for better weapon systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military-industrial complex.
Interview with Laura Knoy, New Hampshire Public Radio (5 November 2003)
In that same radio interview, Clark sounds almost like Obama talking about the artificial "red/blue" divide, when he states:
I don't have labels. I believe in human beings, I believe in a strong national security, I believe in maximizing freedom... I can give you a whole list of things i'm for, but I believe in solving problems. I guess, more than anything else, I'm a pragmatist with strong beliefs in people.
Interview with Laura Knoy, New Hampshire Public Radio (5 November 2003)
On reversing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% (back in 04)
If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families — and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty — by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families — those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it. And if that makes me an 'old-style' Democrat, then I accept that label with pride and I dare you to come after me for it.
Families First tax plan speech (5 January 2004), reported in Clark unveils tax plan" — CNN (5 January 2004)
Clark's vision for America in 2004 seems idealistic and hopeful, even as he recognizes the "dark side" to globalization -- very much in line with Obama's vision today. He asks us to "Imagine" a world where:
We'll still need our armed forces and we'll take every necessary action to make America safe — but we'll gain that safety not by force of arms, but by who we are and what we represent. For we should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity. We must make sure that globalization helps people around the world, raising living standards and improving the environment everywhere — rather than leading a race to the bottom.
. . . .
As with science and technology, there could be a dark side of globalization, in which progress for some means poverty for others, as jobs and opportunities ebb and flow, securities and currencies fluctuate in value, and the tension between private profit and public good persists. But surely these are risks that we can manage in a world with an America more attuned to its larger purpose and responsibilities.
The final frontier is perhaps the most difficult, but it's also the most important — and that's the frontier of the human spirit. For too long, people have allowed differences on the surface — differences of color, ethnicity, and gender — to tear apart the common bonds they share. And the human spirit suffers as a result.
Imagine a world in which we saw beyond the lines that divide us, and celebrated our differences, instead of hiding from them. Imagine a world in which we finally recognized that, fundamentally, we are all the same. And imagine if we allowed that new understanding to build relations between people and between nations.
Our goal for the next twenty years should be to finally recognize that our differences are our greatest strength. That's true not only here in America, but in all parts of the world, where we've allowed historic rifts to poison the well of opportunity. They've arisen from the natural prides and passion of humanity. Only when we recognize that — when we respect the human spirit — will we be a great nation and a great world. These are the steps we must take in the next twenty years, as we reach out for the newest frontiers.
Twenty Year Vision for America (2004)
Manchester, New Hampshire (10 January 2004)
Also on Wikipedia but unsourced is the following quote, strongly supporting the label of "liberal" and the Democratic "brand":
I am tired of being categorized as immoral and unpatriotic because I am a democrat and because I oppose this war. Why is liberal a bad word? It comes from the word liberty — a concept we used to cherish. Family values include loving and embracing all genders, sexual orientations, races, religions, physical and economic conditions, etc. As a Christian, and more specifically, a Catholic, that is my understanding of what Christ teaches. Battling for separation of church and state is one thing. Now, we also have to battle for the separation of church and hate. Family values and morals include making certain that a parent or parents can support their children, provide them with a home, food, education, medical care, etc.
And I am a patriot, despite opposing this war. We can't let the right tell us we are not because we question our leadership. It is my duty to question them. I do support the troops by questioning and opposing this war because, when I do, I help insure that they are sacrificing for a just cause worthy of their lives. When we don't, no one is there to protect them from the leadership putting them in harm's way for illegitimate reasons.
There are many other quotes, easily available either through the links above or else on Clark's own website: http://securingamerica.com/
Clark has many many aspects that make him an ideal progressive candidate. His progressive credentials are far stronger than Webb's, who is right on Iraq but not very progressive in many other respects.
Clark would also be a good "look" with Obama on the ticket. His background is modest, and he lived for 34 years on military pay, raising his family in modest circumstances. His wife Gert is a great asset, as is his son Wes Jr., who is very active in progressive causes as one of the Young Turks. He is brilliant and thoughtful -- a Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point. He is a white Southerner (Little Rock, Arkansas) who won the Oklahoma primary in 2004.
Clark has strong appeal to moderates and Independents, as well as crossover Republicans. He is a true military hero, who won the Silver Star after being wounded in Vietnam, where he continued to lead his men after being grievously wounded. His military and foreign policy credentials and his deep grasp of the issues not only shore up Obama's perceived foreign policy/national security "weaknesses", they also blow McCain out of the water with respect to experience and military service.
Although some would say Clark is not as "inspirational" a speaker as Obama (who is??), the quotations above show him to be an eloquent advocate for many of the same positions that Obama holds. He also is far less abrasive and confrontational in style than Webb (not to mention Clinton).
Clark's weaknesses in 2004 (he ran a poor campaign) stemmed more from his inexperience at the time (never having run for any other office), the fact that he entered the campaign late (September 03) and that he had poor campaign management (most of the good operatives were already taken) and made a fatal decision to skip Iowa due to lack of resources. All of these weaknesses are irrelevant to the Obama campaign, which would provide its superb management to the ticket. Since 2004, Clinton has been a tireless campaigner for progressive Democrats around the country, and is one of the most valued supporters to other candidates.
McCain has made it clear last week that he will challenge Obama with regards to military issues; that charge is blunted by Clark on the ticket. Clark has been thoroughly vetted and is squeaky clean. Both the Republicans and Edwards tried to "swiftboat" him in 2004 by having Gen. Hugh Shelton impugn his "character", but when Clark was testifying against Slobodon Milosovic and the defense tried to use Shelton's comments to impeach his testimony, Shelton recanted and admitted his charge had been "just politics". Nothing tarnishes Clark's image as a real war hero, with foreign policy expertise, "commander-in-chief" credibility, and broad appeal to independents and moderates.
Clark is also a strong environmentalist and champion of many progressive causes, but this diary is already too lengthy, so perhaps if this diary engenders a good discussion other aspects of his positions will be discussed in a later diary or in the comments by others.
The Obama camp surely has Clark on its short list for VP. Interestingly, Samantha Powers, the Pulitzer-prize winning foreign policy advisor that Obama had to "fire" after she made an offhand comment referring to Hillary as a "monster", once said this about Clark after endorsing him for President in 2004:
The mark of leadership is not to stand up when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing.
Samantha Powers, Pulitzer-prize winner and human rights activist, on Clark's humanitarian stances, when endorsing Clark for President
Again, all these quotes can be found at
http://en.wikiquote.org/...
or here
http://securingamerica.com/
I will let others argue the merits or demerits of the other favorite VP candidates. All of the names suggested so far have merit and bring certain strengths to the Obama ticket, but a look at Clark's past words and actions shows he would be a great progressive candidate.
I'll end with one last quote. Describing why he had made the choice to declare as a Democrat rather than a Republican when he retired and it came time to declare his allegiance, Clark said:
I'm pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-environment and pro-labor. I was either going to be the loneliest Republican in America, or I was going to be a happy Democrat.
UPDATE 1 I edited the above diary to update some of the previous points. What should be added (perhaps some commentators can do that) is that Clark has been a very strong surrogate for Obama on the issue of Commander in Chief "judgment" issues, and has had the backbone not to cower or back down after being attacked for suggesting (in response to a direct question) that McCain's experience as a fighter pilot didn't necessarily qualify him to be president. Clark was skewered by the media, and still refused to back down, and in fact called BS on the narrative as a typical Republican tactic, saying something to the effect that -- that's what they do, first they take you out of context and misquote you, then they turn it into a personal attack. I don't have the source links, but they are available at http://www.securingamerica.com
The poll is from the original diary in May, and I don't know how to delete it, so there you are.