UCSB CLARK MEETUP

Just a few minutes ago, I attended a Wesley Clark meetup, sponsored by Gauchos for Clark (if you don't know, UCSB's mascot is the Gaucho, an Argentinian cowboy essentially). Turnout was pretty high, With attendance being around fifty, or thereabouts. In attendance were numerous Clark supporters, a large contingent of non-committed UCSB student voters, UCSB Campus Democrats president Marissa Brown (sporting a hilarious Democrat-themed button on her backpack), and yours truly, wearing a loud shirt.

The bulk of the meetup was devoted to two events. First, as I had guessed, was a viewing of Clark's wonderful 15-minute campaign video, "American Son". But the real main event was a speech, followed by Q&A, from mathematician Theodore "Ted" Hill, who was Clark's classmate and roomate at West Point back in the 1960's. He painted a very interesting picture of Clark, a motivated, funny, dedicated young man, never judgemental or aloof despite his rapid ascent through the ranks of the US Armed Forces. Hill recalled a recent memory, spending time with Clark in Brussels, while he was still Supreme Allied Commander; they apparently threw around a foxtail together, all while being surrounded by NATO bodyguards. Just a genuinely cool man, unpreoccupied with status and such.

If Clark is still an active and viable candidate come Super Tuesday, it is likely that I will vote for him. The more active Clark supporters at the meetup stressed his status of not being "a career politician". Some candidates whose names start with "J" and end with "ohn Kerry" have touted their extensive experience in the lawmaking process in DC as an asset in their chances against Dubya. (another candidate, whose name ends in "ephardt", made that same claim, I might add) There's an argument to be made for that, no doubt. But Rove and company might have a better chance of stopping the Democratic candidate if they had an extensive legislative record, through the many twists and turns of recent American history, that they can distort and misrepresent until the cows come home.

However, one the somewhat accidental advantages of Clark's non-career-politician status is that there isn't a yea-nay log there to distort. His positions are straightforward, he doesnt have to juggle his way through a history of votes that, at least superficially, appear contradictory (in this regard I'm being fair to Kerry, because a large chunk of the crap he has received has been the result of the willful stupidity and mock outrage of those who attack him, not because of actual lack of conviction on his part). All they have on Clark so far is some poorly cherry-picked congressional testimony that made it appear that he supported unilateral action in Iraq. (nevermind that not only does context reveal that he didn't, but also that he was debating against Richard Perle when delivering his testimony)

Should Clark be the nominee, this would certainly help him in debating Dubya (as if the spectacle of a 4-star general debating aWol isn't help enough in and of itself). There will be less of Jim Lehrer and Tim Russert asking questions like "you once voted for X, but now you seem to advocate Y, so why Y now?". (okay, Tim still might try to do that anyway) Clark may have more time to talk about A) his biography, B) his clear positions, and C) Dubya, including what he was (or, wasn't) doing in 1972.

All that being said, an experienced national politician like John Kerry, an experienced state politician like Howard Dean, or a somewhat experienced politician like John Edwards can beat Bush too. Clark's advantage is that in the area of attacks that arise from willful ignorance, distortion of records and votes, he probably gives Karl Rove the least to work with. Now that he's won a primary and will get a greater-than-zero share of the spotlight, they'll certainly try to cook up something to throw at Clark, though I'm not sure what.