I have always admired retired Gen. Wesley Clark, and rooted for him during the 2004 elections. As we remember, once the general declared his candidacy for the presidency of the United States—as a Democrat—he was excoriated by the righteous Right.
As a matter of fact, when Wes Clark was considering throwing his hat in the race and after he was skewered by Elaine Kamarck, I wrote a letter in our local newspaper on what might happen if he did. In part:
Kamarck’s indictment of retired Gen. Wesley Clark was quite charitable compared to the vicious attacks that the general will surely face from the right if he declares his candidacy for the presidency.
It is not hard to conjure up the following images of a conservative vetting process:
The candidate, a decorated four star general, has devoted 34 years of his life to serve his country in the most illustrious and honorable manner. “Great! Our kind of man.”
The candidate was shot four times in Vietnam; commanded NATO’s first major combat action that saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. “Similar to what we are doing in Iraq. Looking more and more like a solid, patriotic, conservative candidate.”
The candidate is a Democrat. “Oh no! This bleeding-heart liberal would ruin our nation.”
The candidate opposed our invasion of Iraq. “I don’t care if the general is retired: Court-martial the traitor.”
Sadly this is almost exactly what happened, once Clark declared his candidacy as a Democrat—as it did to John Kerry, and Max Cleland, and….
But, anyway, General Clark is back in the news again with an outstanding Op-Ed in the Washington Post called “Taking Command: Actually, Democrats and the military can get along. Here’s how.”
In it, Clark discusses “the partisan story line that Democrats can’t be trusted with the nation’s security,” and offers his thoughts on the two sides of the coin: “What do the Democrats need to understand about the military? And what does the military need to understand about the Democrats?”
An excellent article. Please read it.
