Tuesday, August 19, 2003


I like Clark, but if he enters the race we're going to have come to terms with the fact that he faces the Kerry problem tenfold. Kerry's problem is, of course, that he voted for the Iraq resolution and then subsequently criticized the president for going to war. Now, I'm smart enough to realize that this can be a perfectly consistent position, but on the other hand Kerry should have been smart enough to realize that the resolution made war inevitable. But, that isn't the point - the point is either way the media isn't going to let him get away with this "middle" position whether or not it's consistent.

That brings us to Clark. Wesley Clark had a CNN soapbox for all the months leading up to the war. While he wasn't a cheerleader for the invasion, he wasn't exactly coming out swinging against the war. Of course, I know Clark was playing by SCLM rules - as long as he was "fair and balanced" he got to keep his job. Still, if the war was such big mistake why the hell didn't he say something?

I'm not trying to bash Clark here. I'm actually more than impressed with the guy - very few people could have taken the thrashing from his NATO allies that he did during the Bosnia conflict and then turn around and write a book praising international alliances. Nor am I making opposition to the Iraq war my personal "litmus test" (please can we banish that phrase?). Nonetheless, the guy had ample opportunity to speak his mind on the Iraq situation. He's started to come out swinging, but what took him so long? And, more importantly, the contrast provides a wide open door through which the MK Ultrahacks of the world can drive right .

UPDATE: I just want to add that I don't think this torpedos a Clark candidacy any more than it torpedos a Kerry candidacy - it's just a complication.