Click here for info on the Print Journal (and to purchase your copy)!

Just About One Year To Go: The Trouble with Clark

By Mark Grueter

---------------------------------------

The latest “whopper” out of campaign 2004 is that Howard Dean is considering foregoing federal matching funds. No Democrat has ever done this and Dean, only eight months ago, said he would not consider doing so because it makes for an “unfair playing field.”

By agreeing to abide by the established spending limit during the primary campaign ($45 million this year), presidential candidates receive funds from the federal government - up to $18.7 million this season based on how much they raise on their own. The Dean campaign has raised close to $30 million thus far. They feel they can raise more than $15 million in the next few months and they want to be able to spend all that they raise. Bush did this in 2000 and Perot did it 1992. Dean is trying to justify the decision by allowing all of his supporters to decide the issue for him. He’s currently calling on supporters to send in their votes via email, fax and phone. It is rumored that Clark and Kerry, as a result of this move, will consider opting out of the federal funds as well, in order to compete with the former governor of Vermont. All this could prove vital if the nominee is not decided early on.

Now, I am about to do what almost no other pundit will ever do: admit that I may have been wrong about something. I still think Wesley Clark will be the next President, but I can no longer go around betting hundreds of dollars on the prediction. I confess to having become somewhat irrational in my exuberance for the General.

Clark has this “what have I gotten myself into?” look in his eyes. Most presidential candidates are performers, actors - usually poor ones, but at least they try. Clark pretty much refuses to participate in the spectacle. During Tuesday night’s debate in Boston, Clark seemed shy and slightly passive. As the other candidates exchanged barbs over Dean’s desire to attract people that waive the Confederate flag, one could see Clark in the background grinning. Like me, he seemed to find it all pretty funny. This is both a good and bad sign. I like his mentality - it shows his appreciation for irony. But Clark needs to become more assertive and passionate if he wants to be President. His transition from straightforward military man and television analyst to politician has not been as smooth as some of us had hoped. At the same time, Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and Kucinich are too eager and aggressive in fielding questions. It makes them look menacingly desperate and frantic.

To Clark’s credit, he usually tries to answer the questions. The others usually go straight into their campaign stump speeches. And Clark is the only candidate that actually finishes speaking before the time allotted to him has ended. The other candidates just don’t know when to shut the fuck up. But I’m worried about Clark’s commitment to this race - does he really want the job?

First off, he needs to demonstrate a more thorough understanding of non-military issues. His heart is in the right place and I agree with almost everything he says, but he just doesn’t say enough. Even on questions relating to foreign policy and the military his answers are a bit terse and thin.

The main complaint I hear from undecided Dems and Indies is that Clark fails to explain why he is the best choice. What makes him, other than his military record, the superior candidate? Up until this point, Clark has not uttered a word of criticism of any of the other candidates. He’s the only candidate to refrain from “mudslinging.” If come January, he’s way ahead in the polls, Clark will be able to get away with this approach. But if it’s a tight race, or if he’s behind, Clark may have to go on the offensive. On the other hand, if he would just work on the issues more and improve his speeches, the poll numbers should go up and he may never have to attack any of the other candidates. By refraining from criticizing other Democrats he appears more statesmanlike. It has been shown that voters respond unfavorably to “negative” campaigning. But it’s a tricky concept.

Also this week, two more mid-country states voted in Republican governors. Right wing wins in Kentucky and Mississippi are seen as a sign that the GOP still controls the south and the Midwest. This may be a stretch but it should remind Democrats that they need to nominate a candidate who can appeal to these areas and potentially steal a few states from Bush.

Click here for last week's column.

---------------------------------------

Mark Grueter is pursuing a Masters in Liberal Studies at the Graduate Faculty for Political and Social Sciences. He is the Publications Manager and Web Editor for The Canon, the school's student publication and is a contributor to Stop Smiling, a magazine based in Chicago. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.  Grueter may be contacted at [email protected].

© 2003 Me Three