Andrew Sullivan has "Second Thoughts on Clark", figuring any fan of Reagan and Bush can't be all bad.
Whether Democrats will feel as comfortable with this Reagan Democrat remains to be seen.
But what is up with Andrew Sullivan's reading comprehension? The post is marked "2:01:04 AM", which may explain this puzzle:
I was actually reassured by Drudge's quotes yesterday, where Clark comes across as a gung-ho hawk, an admirer of Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld. I agree with him that "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship." I couldn't second highly enough his view that he was very glad after 9/11 that "we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." I'm delighted he has such a high regard for Ronald Reagan.
Emphasis added. Since Gen. Clark was speaking in May of 2001, I doubt he was praising the 9/11 response.
Andrew also agrees with the General that "we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship." Since Drudge places that in a quote after President Reagan, it is entirely likely that the General was referring to the first Bush, whose peaceful resolution of the Cold War is, indeed, praiseworthy. As of May 2001, the second Bush had scarcely had time to show his leadership and statesmanship. (And I know some of you are still waiting).
Since Andrew places the excerpt immediately after praise for Rice and Powell, I wonder if he noticed which Bush the General had in mind.
Our current spin - the General voted for Nixon, loves Reagan, and admired the current foreign policy team back in May 2001. If elected as a Dem, he will be Mr. Triangulation, annoy everyone he works with, and be gone like Jimmy Carter.
Psychologists will blanche upon reading this:
...Speaking to a NEWSWEEK reporter on the night he announced his candidacy, Clark did not want to let go until he was sure the reporter understood him—not just understood him, but respected him, believed him, appreciated him, liked him. Clark quivered with a desire to please.
Groan. Where is the self-confidence? A bit later, we are informed that Gen. Clark is "Possessed of a defiant need to win, which was born of overcoming childhood insecurities...".
Echoes of Johnson and Nixon. And Knight-Ridder delivers shades of Jimmy, telling us that "Privately, his military critics complained that he was a micromanager".
Oh, boy. So Clark is an unpopular micromanager who is smarter than everybody. He evidently has had great success alienating every military officer he has worked with, so perhaps his natural instincts will be enough for him to fully antagonize Congress. However, a bit of free advice for the General - always remember, you are much smarter than the Congressfolks you are chatting with. They will be awed by your genius, and embarrassed to admit they can not keep up with your mighty river of logic and fact. So, try to speak VERY slowly. Enunciate! Repeat your main points frequently, and don't be afraid to ask questions such as "Are you following me" or "Am I going to fast?"
General, you are going to be fine.
MORE: The NY Post says it was Bush I, Cold War.
UPDATE: Reality gets results.
Speaking to a NEWSWEEK reporter on the night he announced his candidacy, Clark did not want to let go until he was sure the reporter understood him—not just understood him, but respected him, believed him, appreciated him, liked him. Clark quivered with a desire to please.
This was the NEWSWEEK'S reporter's sense of the man, I understand that. But in what way can we assume that these are the FACTS behind Clark's behavior, whatever it was?
What kind of actions, facial expressions, etc. convey "not wanting to let him go until..." Who is this reporter? Can we know so we can judge how his own personality or history may have colored his reaction to what happened?
This anonymous or deliberately non-informational "eeeuuwing" about Clark (cf. Shelton) is beginning to get on my nerves.
Tell me who you are and exactly what your problem is with the guy. What did Clark SAY, what did Clark DO, and why do you see those things as evidence of characteristic A, B, or C? Be real journalists, be honest brokers. Tell the whole story of your unhappiness with the candidate.
Only then can we feel informed enough to mull over what weight to give to your dislike, distrust, disrespect, whatever your feelings are. If you don't give me more facts about its origins, your opinion is worthless to me.
OUT with it, people!
Posted by: Julia Grey | September 27, 2003 at 11:56 AM
Well, Gen. Shelton should have said either more, or less.
Anyway, I am back on the "NY Time loves Clark" theme on Saturday.
Posted by: TM | September 27, 2003 at 05:44 PM