Reply #5: He might just convince Americans to go our way. [View All]

[carpetbagger]

For years, we've been losing elections because of the image we project. Sure, we got Clinton into office, but immediately there began a backlash. It's one thing to propose univeral health insurance, it's another thing to pass something resembling it. Clark's views are as liberal as most of the pack. What sets him apart is that calling him a liberal doesn't seem to have the same resonance among voters who are not liberal. Maybe I have a low opinion of voters, but when I ask my Texan acquaintences why they like Bush, few of them say anything outside of personal preferences, prejucices, and image. So I've concluded that the best way to get the liberal agenda done is to hand up someone who can get the working majority. I like pizza, but I wouldn't put it on a bait hook.

Is it meritocracy? I accept that he's not paid his dues in partisan politics. But neither Bush nor Reagan were products of any discernable meritocracy system. But Clark's got as broad a base of experience and skills as the next guy. He's negotiated a peace treaty, he's served in a number of military positions having to do with White House and congressional functions (probably he's spent more time in the White House than any other candidate). He's worked at OMB. He has a Masters in Economics and taught economics at West Point. He's held a number of commands where he's personally been responsible for the well-being of many thousands of soldiers and their dependents. By all accounts at the time of his announcement, he was a tireless advocate for those families.

He's got brains. First in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar.
He grew up without a whole lot of special priviledge, and had his share of knocks.
Some of my preferences are just that, but I'm impressed with his speaking style, and frankly the guy makes me think there's more good in this country than what I'm seeing.