UGH UGH UGH

DLC-annointed savior Wesley Clark says he would have voted for the Iraq war.

Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

Umm, first of all, this is not the sort of thing a candidate should say in order to convey leadership and decisiveness, qualities the swing voters, for better or for worse, like.

More importantly, these sorts of statements aren't exactly ones that will energize the Democratic base. He appears to be taking a rather nuanced position (possibly leaning the way that the Repub-lite-loving DLC wants him to), and on some level I can appreciate that, as well as numerous others. Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and even Lieberman are trying to argue a similar position, that being "yes, we voted for Bush's war, but he fucked it up and betrayed our trust". They simply don't get it: That shameful showing by those four Dems in the October vote on the Persian Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is the root cause for the party's grassroots turning away from them and towards Howard Dean. Sure, there were plenty of other factors, including Dean's charisma, energy and plain-spokenness, not to mention his relentless articulation of the Democratic viewpoint. But if you go against the party's base on the thing they're most passionate about, that could prove to be very damaging to your chances as a nominee.

So why is Wesley Clark walking that plank? Especially since he wasn't in Congress last October, and could have said more or less anything he wanted. Three possibilities come to mind:

1) He has statements on the record both for and against the decision to go to war in Iraq. Given the statements in favor of the war he has made, it may appear more of a political liability to be anti-war and be attacked for those old statements, rather than be pro-war and be assailed for the anti-war position he has also applied to himself. Or possibly,
2) As I hinted before, perhaps the DLC gave Clark a bit of a nudge. Is he that much of a tool? I'm hoping not. Whether he is or not, the message seems to be that the DLC considers support of the Bush Iraq resolution as an ideological litmus test for a presidential candidate. This is not news, of course. Or maybe,
3) Clark is his own man, and his position in this matter is genuine.

In any case, for Clark, this is not a recipe for draining support from Dean.