David Hume and Wesley Clark

[Oso]

While at TAM2 I talked to several people about Genral Wesley Clark. You may have noticed the Clark hat I was wearing. For those of you that will be voting in the Democratic Primaries I thought I should point out something that may help you in making a decision.

General Clark's response to a question asked of him by Chris Matthews during an interview on the "Battle for the White House College Tour at Harvard".

Chris Matthews: "Favorite philosopher?"
Wesley Clark: "David Hume"

[Ignatius]

I read an article in Salon about Clark possibly entering the race about six months before he actually did. At that time it sounded like a great idea (being a general would counter conservative criticisms about Dems being 'wimps' on national security, moderate/liberal views, extremely bright guy, etc).

Now I'm concerned about his electability and his political skills. When charges of him flip-flopping on the war came up he didn't seem to handle it well. Worse than that, it seemed that he was not prepared for the question to even come up. Someone on this forum brought up recently that he got his ass kicked by Bob Dole recently on some news show (but I didn't see it).

I don't think things like this would play well in the general election:

McQuaid: Let's take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?
McQuaid: Let's take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?

Clark: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion—

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: It's between a woman, her doctor, her friends and her family.

McQuaid: Late term abortion? No limits?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?

Clark: Nope, nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?

Clark: I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You don't put the law in there. ...



Finally, he now has the very vocal public support of Micheal Moore (Run away, Clark! Run away!).

From the reports that I heard about Iowa, voters said they made their final decision based heavily on electability. I think it is a good thing that liberals are catching on to this.

Anyway, those have been some of my thoughts so far. I'm interested to hear yours.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Ignatius
...Now I'm concerned about his electability and his political skills. When charges of him flip-flopping on the war came up he didn't seem to handle it well. Worse than that, it seemed that he was not prepared for the question to even come up. Hi Ignatius.
He was unprepared. He was unprepared because he never flip-flopped and didn't realize yet that nuanced replys are beyond the grasp of most reporters. The reporter for the NYT article that started that tempest had been on the plane with Clark for an hour during which Clark had repeatedly explained why he was against the war and the resolution unless it was only to be used as leverage to get the UN to apply more pressure. A more complete rebuttal can be seen here:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040119&s=scoblic011904 Someone on this forum brought up recently that he got his ass kicked by Bob Dole recently on some news show (but I didn't see it). I did see it and he did just fine, he just didn't do well enough to change anybody's mind one way or the other.

On the abortion issue, my opinion may be somewhat prejudiced. I think a women should have that right for the first 9 years. Yes this is a wedge issue but what he said is simply that it is not a matter for law. I don't think he'll lose any undecideds for that, or at least he'll gain as many as he'll lose. Finally, he now has the very vocal public support of Micheal Moore (Run away, Clark! Run away!). I think all Moore does (along with George McGovern who endorsed him this weekend) is take away the argument that he's a Republican in disguise. From the reports that I heard about Iowa, voters said they made their final decision based heavily on electability. I think it is a good thing that liberals are catching on to this. Me too!

[Landis]

I too am a Wes Clark supporter. He's not a professional politician and subject to the pitfalls of the campaign trail. He is a quick learner and a strategist by profession. I think he will be able to polish his responses in short time. Another advantage is the fact that he is from a southern State, Arkansas, which went to Bush in the last election. As for him being a former Republican, so what? The Democratic party should welcome all the moderate republicans it can get. After all, enough Democratic politicans have crossed over to the Republicans to fill the proverbial "hell in a handbasket".

The thing I noticed the most about the Iowa Caucauses is that everyone just wants to beat Bush and to elect the best candidate for that purpose. I'm supporting Wes Clark until someone beats him.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Oso
On the abortion issue, my opinion may be somewhat prejudiced. I think a women should have that right for the first 9 years.

Nine years? That's BS! You should have the right until you stop paying for their education!

[subgenius]

Interesting Freudian slip:
I’ve been in the armed forces. I’ve been at the very center of the firestorm. I know what it’s like out there. And I’ve had people who have come up to see me about it since I’ve been out [of the service]—gay and lesbian people who need help.
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/907/907_clark.asp

[Clancie]

Posted by Ignatius

Someone on this forum brought up recently that he got his ass kicked by Bob Dole recently on some news show (but I didn't see it).
It was on Larry King Live on Monday. I didn't see it either, but I was told that Dole was very rude and Clark handled the conversation well...so, who knows? Anyway, here's their exchange, in full (and, re: Hume. Nice touch. Could Bush even spell it? :confused: )....
Transcript from Larry King Live, Monday, Jan 19

KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.

CLARK: Hello, Senator.

KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?

DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire.

I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.

CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too.

It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.

DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...

CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership.

I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.

DOLE: And I certainly wish you luck. I'm not being critical. I'm just being realistic. I've been there and I lost, of course, which is a lot more fun winning but...

CLARK: Well, I'll tell you what, I've been in a lot of tough positions in my life, one of them was leading the operation in Kosovo where I not only had to hold alliance but I had to worry about the Pentagon behind me. I'm looking forward to New Hampshire.

KING: General Clark, we'll see you next week. And Senator Dole just announced his support for you.

DOLE: In Kosovo, he had my support in Kosovo.

CLARK: I know I did and I'm grateful to you, Senator, for that.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Clancie

It was on Larry King Live on Monday. I didn't see it either, but I was told that Dole was very rude and Clark handled the conversation well...so, who knows?If you're interested in viewing the Larry King interview or just about any other Clark media appearance you can see them at http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html

For a particularly inspiring speech go to the last page and then down to the "Ted Sorenson Intro" and "Clark Speech". The General speaks on the "Principles of American National Security in the 21st Century" at the New American Strategies for Security and Peace Conference.
(10/28/2003) (and, re: Hume. Nice touch. Could Bush even spell it?) The magic ball sez 'NO' Clamcie.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Oso
Hi Ignatius.
He was unprepared. He was unprepared because he never flip-flopped and didn't realize yet that nuanced replys are beyond the grasp of most reporters. The reporter for the NYT article that started that tempest had been on the plane with Clark for an hour during which Clark had repeatedly explained why he was against the war and the resolution unless it was only to be used as leverage to get the UN to apply more pressure. A more complete rebuttal can be seen here:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040119&s=scoblic011904

Well, I hope that Landis is right and that Clark is a very quick study. It might be more advantagous to have a candidate that is already very skilled at these things and not just learning this as he goes along, but I'm certainly willing to give the general a chance to show that he is the best choice.

I don't have a subscription to TNR so I can't read the article. I was just wishing I did the other day because there is an article about the negotiations between the US and the Taliban to allow some members back in power. I could not find anything about this anywhere else (tried google news). I would certainly appreciate a summary or selected quotes from anybody willing to go through the trouble.


I did see it and he did just fine, he just didn't do well enough to change anybody's mind one way or the other.

Well from the transcript (thanks Clancy!) it sounds like he did just fine. It is hard to tell without seeing it.


On the abortion issue, my opinion may be somewhat prejudiced. I think a women should have that right for the first 9 years. Yes this is a wedge issue but what he said is simply that it is not a matter for law. I don't think he'll lose any undecideds for that, or at least he'll gain as many as he'll lose. [b]I think all Moore does (along with George McGovern who endorsed him this weekend) is take away the argument that he's a Republican in disguise.
I don't disagree with him being pro-choice, it is more HOW he handles the question. On CSPAN a month or two ago, a couple of reporters were talking about overhearing Rove describing how he approaches campaign commercials. Rove said that he thought a good campaign commercial should be like a silent movie. You should be able to turn the sound off and still get a very strong emotional response from it.

This is going to be a very tough race (no matter who wins the primary). I think Rove and crew are going to be very, very hard to beat. Everything that Bush does between now and the election is going to be completely focused on what is going to win for them. It will be very slick and disciplined and you can be sure that they will take maximum advantage of any mistakes made by the Dem.

That is why I have liked the fact that this primary has turned negative at times and they have went after each other. I think it is good to see who responds the best when they are under fire and it is good practice for them to start learning the best ways to respond.

On the Moore issue, after I posted last night I read a piece in slate about this political odd couple.
Wesley and Me (http://slate.msn.com/id/2094210/)
It occured to me at one point that Moore might not be such a bad fit for Clark. Moore will certainly bring in support and money from the far left base, but even with his support it will be hard for Republicans to try and paint Clark as the "Loony Left".

Oh, and thanks for not scolding me for not replying to the topic at hand. I'm afraid that I am many years removed from my one freshman philosophy class and the only thing I know of David Hume was that he could, according to some reports, out-consume Schoppenauer and Hegel.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Landis
Another advantage is the fact that he is from a southern State, Arkansas, which went to Bush in the last election.

I like the fact that he is southern for the same reason, but so is Edwards and Edwards seems to have more political skill (from what I have seen and heard).

As for him being a former Republican, so what? The Democratic party should welcome all the moderate republicans it can get. After all, enough Democratic politicans have crossed over to the Republicans to fill the proverbial "hell in a handbasket".

The thing I noticed the most about the Iowa Caucauses is that everyone just wants to beat Bush and to elect the best candidate for that purpose.
I completely agree.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Ignatius
...Oh, and thanks for not scolding me for not replying to the topic at hand. I'm afraid that I am many years removed from my one freshman philosophy class and the only thing I know of David Hume was that he could, according to some reports, out-consume Schoppenauer and Hegel. Hume was a naturalist. Here's a quote:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
David Hume (1711 - 1776)I suspect he would have greatly enjoyed TAM2.
Oso

[Clancie]

I like Clark, but is anyone else tired of hearing about how important being in the military is?

In the Advocate article he mentions it ("I’ve been in the armed forces. I’ve been at the very center of the firestorm. "). And in NH I've heard him say, "Kerry is just a lieutenant; I'm a general" or describe how they each went separate paths after Vietnam...with the implication that somehow leaving the military for a public service career as Senator was somehow...less wothy...than choosing the military and becoming a general....

I'm concerned that being a career military man may give him a skewed perspective that hurts him in the long run when he's trying to argue that experience makes him best qualified to be President.....

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Oso

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
David Hume (1711 - 1776)

Cool. Thanks!

[The idea]

Originally posted by Oso
Here's a quote:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
David Hume (1711 - 1776)

Why does he say "for instance"? It sounds as though he is simply saying that he would like to see the burning of all books about divinity and all books about school metaphysics.

Let's suppose that he really does mean "for instance." Do law books contain abstract reasoning about quantity or number? I suppose books about income tax laws do--some reasoning is required to perform various tax calculations-- so should we save those books and burn books about tort law and burn books about court procedure?

[Landis]

Originally posted by Clancie

I'm concerned that being a career military man may give him a skewed perspective that hurts him in the long run when he's trying to argue that experience makes him best qualified to be President.....

Excellent point. At least in the NH primaries we get to see him in more of a head-to-head with his democratic rivals. While I support him, I am still not 100 % convinced he is the best choice. I started out with Kerry and now I'm taking a second look.

[Oso]

Originally posted by The idea

Why does he say "for instance"? It sounds as though he is simply saying that he would like to see the burning of all books about divinity and all books about school metaphysics.

Let's suppose that he really does mean "for instance." Do law books contain abstract reasoning about quantity or number? I suppose books about income tax laws do--some reasoning is required to perform various tax calculations-- so should we save those books and burn books about tort law and burn books about court procedure?

High idea,
Excellent! I suspect this is exactly the type of reaction General Clark hoped to elicit from his students while teaching political philosophy at West Point. Here's a quote from James Fieser to give you a better understanding of Hume
Part of his fame and importance owes to his boldly skeptical approach to a range of philosophical subjects. He questioned common notions of personal identity, and argued that there is no permanent "self" that continues over time. He dismissed standard accounts of causality and argued that our conceptions of cause/effect relations are grounded in habits of thinking, rather than in the perception of causal forces in the external world itself.

He argued that it is unreasonable to believe testimonies of alleged miraculous events, and, accordingly, hints that we should reject religions that are founded on miracle testimonies. Against the common belief of the time that God's existence could be proven through a design or causal argument, Hume offered compelling criticisms of standard theistic proofs. Also, against the common view that God plays an important role in the creation and reinforcement of moral values, Hume offered one of the first purely secular moral theories, which grounded morality in the pleasing and useful consequences that result from our actions.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/humelife.htmNo matter what your political/religious philosophy, discussing Hume in a classroom environment should certainly hone your critical thinking. Ready to vote for Clark yet?
Oso