We're not waking up, and I just don't get it.
Democrats make the same mistakes over and over again. Someone moves the party left or takes advantage of Republican mishaps (Kennedy, Carter, Clinton). When the ball returns to the Republicans' court, we nominate a McGovern, a Mondale, or a Dukakis. Last election we managed a slightly better but extremely uninspiring Al Gore.
The 1972 Democratic presidential primary was eerily similar to the one we face today; because of the specific ties it has, I will use that as my model. There was a swarm of candidates, and each one seemed to hold a connection to a candidate, or several candidates, in the 2004 primary contest. Edmund Muskie, a senator from Maine, seemed to have the contest wrapped up early. He then squandered his political support by losing tussles with the centrist candidates in the race and being outclassed by George McGovern (the eventual nominee). It is also said he was ripped apart as "weak" because he once cried in front of the press. Muskie was somewhat of a John Kerry or Joe Lieberman.
He was an establishment choice and just couldn't make ends meet. Shirley Chisholm was the first Black to run in a set or primaries. Chisholm was making a statement, just as Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun are at the moment. She surprised everyone with a strong, grassroots second-place finish in New York; I have a feeling Reverend Al is trying to do the same. He is banking on the southern Black vote to grant him some exposure and bargaining power.
Hubert Humphrey, a former vice presidential candidate and pure democratic hack, represents the part of the party that is being criticized for buckling to Bush today. Just as the Democratic congressional leadership of today helped push through the resolution for war and the PATRIOT Act, Humphrey and the Daley/Johnson/Muskie wing had supported the Vietnam War and a wide variety of legislation from the Nixon agenda. Humphrey performed well, taking McGovern down to the wire before losing the race in the California primary. McGovern represents Howard Dean. He was the liberal, grassroots contrast candidate. Dean was the only one legitimately criticizing McGovern. And in the end, McGovern took the day.
The only part of the equation that isn't there is the mysterious Gen. Wesley Clark. Clark does not represent any of the 1972 primary candidates. He is not part of the party leadership. He is not the idealist criticizing the leadership either. In fact, it is surprising that he hasn't made more waves due to his own individuality.
We can see Clark did not criticize the administration due to being a politician; he did it as a CNN analyst less than a year ago. He may be the most qualified man to run for president in this century, with a 34-year military career, an impressive position as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and another as a key Clinton military advisor. He is a true American hero, with three battle scars from Vietnamese guns to prove it. His experiences have given him empathy, as he knows battle, knows owning a small business, knows what it is like to be a Jew, a Baptist, a Catholic. He understands the environment. His small business, WaveCrest laboratories, has created a more efficient electric motor, an electric bike that is being used by NATO troops all over the world and a smooth-running, slick-looking electric car. He wrote a brief on behalf of Michigan in favor of affirmative action.
He led a war in Kosovo without a single civilian casualty, rebuilt the country, put Slobodan Milosevic on trial, held together the coalition of allies that were involved the entire time while dealing with internal problems due to certain members of the Clinton administration, and later this year he will take time off from campaigning to testify specifically against Milosevic (the man is no opportunist). He also advocated stopping the situation in Rwanda before that turned to genocide, and he turned out to be right about that as well.
Clark has turned himself into a great debater and a true blue candidate in a mere two months. Despite stumbles, he is organized; his grassroots base and insider supporters, after bickering, have joined together and smoothed over their own conflict. This candidacy is rock solid.
Support the man. He would have won in 1972, and can beat George W. Bush in 2004. I'm sick of nominating Mondales and McGoverns. Let's nominate a Clark.
