I've long been a Clarkie, and now that Clark has strongly endorsed Obama after his initial support for Clinton, I continue to see him as a strong pick for VP, not just for his military credentials and foreign policy experience, but also because he's a strong progressive and an unabashed "liberal" Democrat.
This morning, he was interviewed on Huffington Post, and totally toook the battle to McCain on McCain's supposed strong suit, foreign policy and national security.
Read the whole article, on Huffington Post , but follow me below the fold for some great excerpts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
In a wide-ranging interview with The Huffington Post, Clark offered opinions on the current state of American foreign policy, the Democrats' emergence as a more "full-service" party on security issues, and -- lest anyone doubt his potential use as a running mate for Obama -- the shortcomings of Sen. John McCain.
"I know he's trying to get traction by seeking to play to what he thinks is his strong suit of national security," Clark said of McCain while speaking from his office in Little Rock, Arkansas. "The truth is that, in national security terms, he's largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is."
Clark directly attacked McCain on his suitability as president and Commander in Chief, stating:
"McCain's weakness is that he's always been for the use of force, force and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. ... When he talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes ditties about bombing Iran, he betrays a disrespect for the office of the presidency."
* * *
Clark linked McCain to the Republican "fear tactics", saying Democrats can compete in national security areas without having to become like Republicans :
"Republicans like to focus on the threat, on fear, on insecurities. It's what motivates their base," he said. "As Democrats, we focus on hope and possibilities in the future. So the two parties are asymmetrical. And because the two parties are different, it makes the national security [issue] play differently to both parties. But I think we have to point out the failures and shortcomings of the current approach. In the foreign policy arena, John McCain has pretty much bought the central thrust of the Bush administration's foreign policies: relying on threat and bluster [and] isolating people we don't agree with instead of engaging them."
Clark also blasted McCain and the Republicans on Iran, suggesting the Bush administration fumbled "a prime window of opportunity" to engage with Iran early on, before the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"
I think Iran has come out of the Bush administration as a much stronger power," he said. "First of all, we eliminated the primary blocking force to their west in Iraq. Secondly, we have been ineffective in using the broader tools of U.S. diplomacy and moral suasion in the region -- and that's allowed Iran to capture Hamas, displace Fatah and strengthen [its] grip on Hezbollah. ... Without effective diplomatic engagement of Iran, we've allowed them to pursue a nuclear program that is likely aimed at achieving nuclear weapons. But we've refused to sit down and talk to them about it. ... I still favor an effort to engage Iran, but the clock is ticking on their probable nuclear program. This makes everything much more complicated and difficult now.
While admitting that there are never any guarantees that diplomacy will have certain results, Clark notes that such uncertainties are even more risky regarding the use of force.
But there are never any guarantees with force, either. John McCain should know that. He and I, along with many others, were caught up in an inconclusive war in southeast Asia."
* * *
The HuffPo article then talks about the buzz around Clark as a possible VP choice for Obama, noting both his perceived weakness (he ran a poor campaign in 2004), and his great strengths, which are a strong work ethic and a commitment to electing Democrats to Congress, noting that he was invited to help with candidates in 2006 where "no other Democratic spokesmen were invited."
Clark in 2004 was strongly supported by Kossacks, but his early support of Clinton (the Clarks have known the Clintons for decades) has diminished his support on this site. As I've said before in various diaries and comments, I think Clark would make an excellent VP choice, not just because of his actual hands-on foreign policy and national security credentials -- which totally eclipse McCain's national security role in the Senate -- but even more because Clark is a strong progressive and unabashed liberal who nevertheless appeals to moderates and independents.
From Wikipedia comes this quote, wherein Clark embraces the "liberal" epithet hurled at Democrats and turns it into a positive:
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.
And also this quote, when asked why he had declared himself as a Democrat rather than a Republican after leaving the military:
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.
So what do you think Kossacks -- Clark as VP or no?