Clark's star has dimmed a little lately, of course; he has bowed out of the Iowa race, and the fact that he considered pulling out of an upcoming New Hampshire debate suggests he may be placing most of his chips on the South. But for some, the Big Win strategy still makes sense: Forget about the details, focus on the big picture--a prochoice, pro-gun control, anti-Patriot Act Democrat running against the werewolf currently occupying the White House.

The Clark people were nice and well-meaning enough, I suppose. But it was hard not to notice that the fastest way to bum them out was to ask a question about the candidate's platform. At one point, when Yoken was talking to the "media committee" (I had joined a group whose job involved writing letters to the editor of various newspapers) about Clark's "New American Patriotism," I interrupted him.

"What does that mean, exactly, 'New American Patriotism'?" I said. "Is that as opposed to the old foreign patriotism?"

"No," Yoken said. "The New American Patriotism sees patriotism as something where dissent and civil liberties are encouraged."

"I thought that was the old patriotism," I said.

The committee fell silent for a moment. "Well, whatever," Yoken said.

The problem with the Big Win strategy is that Wesley Clark is a candidate with whom it is absolutely necessary to pay close attention. No candidate on the campaign trail is better at saying two opposing things at once, and no candidate's true intentions are harder to discern.

I saw numerous examples of this phenomenon. Up at the labor conference in Whitefield, for instance, the candidates were asked about their position on a labor dispute involving workers and management at the New Hampshire TV station WMUR. WMUR videographer Ryan Murphy asked the candidate if they would support a boycott of a WMUR televised debate if management failed to give workers a contract.

All the candidates except Clark said yes unequivocally. Clark's initial response to Murphy was classic:

"Let me ask you something," he said. "Have ya sat down with management?"

Murphy repeated what he'd said in his question: They'd been in negotiations for nine months. Clark squirmed out of that one, saying he'd "look into the matter."

Now here's when it got interesting. After the conference, a WMUR reporter went up to Clark and asked him if he would boycott the debates if the other candidates did.

"Oh, you betcha," he said. "I'm with you a hundred percent on that one."

I nearly dropped my notebook. "Wait a minute," I said to the reporter. "Are you asking him if he'd debate himself if everyone else boycotted?"

The reporter shrugged.

I turned to Clark. "General, what if the other candidates don't boycott? What will you do then?"

"We're going to take a look at this," he said, then rushed past us.

Other reporters following Clark have begun to notice this habit lately. Even among this credulous crowd, the double-talk act is beginning to wear thin. At a Clark press conference in Concord a few weeks ago, AP writer Ron Fournier literally threw up his hands when Clark, under repeated questioning, gave a two-faced answer to a question about why he had called the Bush Administration a "great team." "Well," Clark said, "like most Americans, I wanted them to succeed."

(Did they, by the way? I didn't.)

"Yeah, but why call them a 'great team' if you disagreed with them on Iraq?" Fournier asked.

"Because they were making the wrong decisions then," Clark answered nonsensically.

A murmur shot through the crowd. "What the hell does that mean?" I heard someone say behind me.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next »

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.