|
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 11:42 AM by Sparkly
The idea of General Clark entering the race is sometimes met with 'reasons' why he couldn't win the nomination. Arguments go back and forth about his campaign in 2003/2004, his experience, his polish as a non-politician, etc.
Let's get past that, and say for the sake of argument (and only for the sake of argument) that he can't win the nomination. Let's suppose for a moment that he IS such a "terrible campaigner," and Democrats don't like "military men," and he lacks "executive experience," etc. etc., and so he won't win the nomination even if he runs. That would mean that if you have a different preferred candidate, he's no threat to him/her.
So why not support him in running? Here's one reason I think you should...
Even if he doesn't win the nomination, I hope he runs to raise the debate about foreign policy in general, and Iraq in particular. His depth and breadth of experience and insight about global politics, military strategy, international relations, diplomacy with friends AND foes would be a great contribution in our decisions about a potential Democratic Commander in Chief. I want him to run, in part, so that he can question, challenge, inform, and stimulate the thinking of both the other candidates AND the electorate.
I also think he's amazingly brilliant on a broad range of issues, not only these. But these are the areas where his unique abilities are most striking in comparison with all others suggested as candidates. I think his voice would add a lot to the race overall.
Your thoughts?
|