Clark Blog

Though he's visiting the 2004 battlegrounds of Wisconsin and Iowa this week, former Dem presidential candidate Wes Clark says the 2008 presidential race is not on his radar screen.

Through his political action committee, WesPAC, Securing America, Clark is traveling the country helping bolster Democratic candidates for the '06 elections. That's a timeworn way to collect hits for a future national run. But Clark sidesteps a question about a possible presidential run in 2008.

"Right now I'm really focusing on my business and trying to help the Democratic Party for 2006," Clark said in an interview with WisPolitics. "Because we've got to be a full-service party. We've got to be able to not only articulate but deliver on things like education and health care, but we've got to handle the business community, an energy policy, and most importantly the national security mess that we're in with Iraq and the so-called war on terror."

Clark spoke to WisPolitics in advance of a visit to the state. He's in Madison Tuesday for a state Capitol event with state veterans, including state Rep. Bob Turner, a Vietnam War vet. Then he'll move on to La Crosse for a series of events with Dem U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, ending with a 6 p.m. corn roast/fundraiser.

Clark said the mission of Democrats is to brand their party, emphasizing national security and working for a common good.

"The long and the short of it is that party labels in America are important, and this is a time when the Democratic Party has to strengthen its brand image in America, and that's what I'm working on," Clark said.

Clark will also be in Iowa Wednesday, and he thinks both Wisconsin and Iowa will play key roles again in '08.

"I think the people in Iowa and Wisconsin, the people, especially the Democratic Party in both, are critical parts of reshaping how we think of ourselves as Democrats ... because of Iowa's historical position of nominee selection, and also Wisconsin's, that they have the historical early primaries. People who are in the Democratic structure there pay a lot of attention to what the party stands for and they carry a lot of weight nationally."

See the Web site for Clark's PAC: Securing America

WisPolitics reporter Greg Bump interviewed Clark on Aug. 25.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Bump: Have you thought about running for president again, or any other office?

Wesley Clark: Right now I'm really focusing on my business and trying to help the Democratic Party for 2006. Because we've got to be a full-service party. We've got to be able to not only articulate but deliver on things like education and health care, but we've got to handle the business community, an energy policy, and most importantly the national security mess that we're in with Iraq and the so-called war on terror.

Bump: But do you plan to run?

Clark: My focus, as I said, is on 2006. What I've got is, I do have a political action committee, and people have been kind enough to support me, and we can work the issues that our party needs to work. I think this is a time where Democrats, of course, our party always longs for leadership, and we felt the absence of that leadership when President Clinton left the White House.

But the real key for us is what we stand for as a party. In study after study of American politics, people identify with party. In just a few words they can tell you what a party stands for. We all know what Republicans say they stand for -- a strong America and lower taxes and a balanced budget -- not that they always produce these things. But they have a label.

What we've got to do is make sure the Democratic Party label is accurate and strong. We're historically a party that has been terrific on national security. It was Roosevelt who won World War II, it was Truman who set in motion all of the events and institutions and strategy that eventually won the Cold War.

For whatever reason, after the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party lost the label of a party that understood the world and was internationally engaged. When I was the commander in Europe, and I had to come back to the president and ask for his support to do my legal duties in Kosovo, the Republican Party didn't want to help our allies in Europe deal with the crisis in the Balkans. They were isolationists. I remember very clearly what (Pennsylvania U.S. Sen.) Rick Santorum said. I called him and talked to him on the phone, I asked for his support and he said, "No."

Bump: Why didn't that parallel register with voters in the 2004 election? You talked about Kosovo and how the Republicans shifted their stance on international intervention, but it didn't seem to make a difference with voters.

Clark: Well, I think that's a complicated question, a good question, and a complicated answer, a difficult answer, which I'll get to in a minute. The long and the short of it is that party labels in America are important, and this is a time when the Democratic Party has to strengthen its brand image in America, and that's what I'm working on.

Bump: What exactly are the identifiers you're trying to present to voters when it comes to the Democratic Party?

Clark: National security, and working for the common good.

Bump: How do you demonstrate that, it's pretty broad?

Clark: People are going to vote for this party because we do what's right for America. In the preamble to the Constitution, it says we believe in the common defense and promoting the general welfare. That's why we have a government. And people vote for congressional representatives, they vote for mayors, they vote for presidents and senators all for different reasons.

But when it comes to voting for president and selecting a party for national leadership, the vote for someone and for the party that's going to do what's right for the country. And so we've got to make sure that they see in the Democratic Party the qualities that can let them vote for a party that will take care of and protect the country. So that's one of the things.

The other is just in terms of the general welfare, the common good. I think if you take the two parties and take them apart - did you ever see the movie "Wall Street?" There's this incredible speech that Michael Douglas makes, and he says, "Greed is good!" trying to explain how good greed is and how good it is for our country. This is the 1980s, this is the essence of right wing Republicanism economics; that is if everybody does what's right for themselves, minimize government, take government away and we'll all be better off.

And Democrats believe that it's important that people have equal opportunity. We also understand that free markets are free because there's a greater power than individual greed. If individual greed were the standard by which the world was built we wouldn't have the freedoms we enjoy in America today. And so we believe that there is a place for government, and while taxes should be minimal, they should be fair. And while government interference in the economy should be minimal, it should be there to protect individuals, small businesses and it should be there as an offset for those who don't have the power to protect themselves in a free-for-all market.

So I think that those two principles â€" what's good for America as a whole, and how to protect our country â€" are two elements of the traditional Democratic brand that we need to emphasize and strengthen.

Bump: And this is your mission with WesPAC and on these visits, like those you're doing for Congressman Kind and Lt. Gov. Lawton?

Clark: Yes, absolutely.

Bump: But as we said, these concepts are broad. How specifically do you get them across?

Clark: It's to go out myself as someone who's not - I'm not particularly political. I haven't climbed the political ladder; it hasn't been my career profession. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a politician, I'm an Army officer. I spent my life leading soldiers and studying national strategy. I also had the opportunity to teach economics, work in the White House as a civilian in the Ford administration, and live all over the world.

I came into politics late in life at the request of a lot of people who asked me to lend a voice to the party and try to help set the country on the right course. And I think by going out and talking in state and local areas, speaking to small groups, I think I can put across the fundamental principles that it takes to strengthen the party's image in national security and overall Democratic Party values.

Bump: You mentioned your military background; the military is now seen as a Republican Party stronghold for voting. Is that true, and why do you think that is?

Clark: I think that for people in the military, those of us who went through Vietnam and the aftermath, the Democratic Party was a problem. There were a lot of people in this very party who didn't seem to appreciate the men and women in uniform, even though the men and women in uniform were draftees, for the most part, in Vietnam.

We didn't create the Vietnam War. It wasn't our idea to stay there and fight. We were just doing the best we could to do the mission the country gave us to do. But somehow the protests against the policy turned into bad feelings toward the people.

We've worked very hard as Democrats to prevent that from happening in this case, even though many of us have been against the war in Iraq since the beginning; I certainly was. I knew it was a war that we really didn't have to fight. And I don't believe in using force unless it's the absolute last resort.

Bump: You think the war has been a mistake since the beginning?

Clark: I think it was a strategic blunder for the United States to go into Iraq.

Bump: So you think it's time to pull the troops out?

Clark: No not yet. What we need is a winning strategy in Iraq.

Bump: So would you support (Wisconsin U.S. Senator) Russ Feingold's suggestion of a timeline for troop withdrawal?

Clark: First of all, I like Russ Feingold, he's a hell of a good guy, smart as a whip, and I really empathize with the feelings that are behind that resolution. But I wouldn't want the United States right now to set a hard and fast exit timeline; because I think it takes away from our ability to maneuver strategically and diplomatically.

But I would say this, if the president can't create a winning strategy in Iraq, then we need to get our troops out of there. The president this far has not succeeded in creating a winning strategy in Iraq.

The reason is the president has a strategy for the region that involves - as Paul Wolfowitz explained to me in his office 13 to 14 years ago - is knocking off these old Soviet surrogate states one by one, as though it's all about states and governments. And they went into Iraq believing that was the first of several states they were going to knock off. They'd go in and people would welcome them there, and then they'd just knock off the top of the government and then start a Democracy â€" it was naïve in the extreme.

The thing about Iraq is that it has always been along the fault line between the Shi'a sect of Islam and the Sunni sect of Islam. ... Shi'a has always been a more extremist and more militant form of Islam. It's also identified with a lower economic strata in the Persian Gulf. The Shi'a haven't had the political power and they haven't had the economic power in the Persian Gulf.

So the Saudis weren't unhappy that Saddam Hussein fought, took the edge off, Shi'a revolutionary fervor in the 1980s. The Saudis used and the Kuwaitis used Iraq as a buffer state.

Now the Iranians want Iraq to be a Shi'a buffer state while they develop Iran, strengthen its military, continue to put pressure on Israel, perhaps go after nuclear weapons, they haven't foreclosed that option yet â€" well, they say they have, they haven't.

So, now you have a big tug-of-war, and you've always had a big tug-of-war, over Iraq. So to think you can get inside Iraq, kill a few people, form a constitutional document and tell all these people, "Now, you all get along like we do in America," â€" it's hooey. It doesn't work that way.

Bump: Do you think the president should have met with Cindy Sheehan?

Clark: I think he should have met with Cindy Sheehan; it was the right thing to do. He should have met with her.

Bump: Do you think this has backfired on him, and is this something that will carry over? His approval ratings have slipped since this began.

Clark: Well, I think that we may be at a turning point in public perception, in recognition, of the war in Iraq. Now more than half the people believe that going to war in Iraq was a mistake, and his personal approval rating has dropped. It's so hard to justify not meeting with the mother of a deceased soldier, and if she wants to meet with you twice, meet with her.

Bump: OK, will you be coming back to the Midwest after this week?

Clark: I'll be in Wisconsin Tuesday and Iowa on Wednesday. I don't know what the calendar will be for the rest of the year; it has yet to be defined. But mostly I'm in business â€" I've gotta earn a living.

Bump: Do you think Wisconsin and Iowa will play important roles in the elections again in '08?

Clark: I think the people in Iowa and Wisconsin, the people, especially the Democratic Party in both, are critical parts of reshaping how we think of ourselves as Democrats ... because of Iowa's historical position of nominee selection, and also Wisconsin's, that they have the historical early primaries. People who are in the Democratic structure there pay a lot of attention to what the party stands for and they carry a lot of weight nationally. So this is about how we Democrats think of ourselves, and how we project our image to others.