Heidi and I had the pleasure of seeing General Wesley Clark speak tonight at Heidi’s school. The event was a fundraiser for the school, though it turned out that General Clark’s daughter-in-law was a grad. His speech was interesting, as was the Q&A period after. I was too chicken to go up to the microphone, so no questions from me.

His speech really focused on foreign policy which made me pretty happy. The most interesting of his observations came about the rise of China and India into the global arena and essentially that we (Americans) needed to focus beyond the Middle East when looking at America’s strategic goals. I think he was advocating that making sure the rise of China and/or India didn’t result in economic and diplomatic losses for us in the future. What was interesting is that he felt the Chinese were much closer to at least entering our neighborhood in terms of gross GDP than I’ve heard or would’ve guessed (he said 10-15 years; I would’ve thought 25 or more). He’s a good speaker and I encourage folks to see him if they have the opportunity.

I can’t help but feel that Kerry should have chosen Clark as his VP candidate. I would’ve loved to have seen the debate between Cheney and Clark. Edwards was a great candidate on domestic issues but, quite frankly, the Kerry had those votes sewn up. Clark is a southern guy (home in Little Rock, AK) and he’s a smart foreign policy guy. Of course, Heidi leaned over at one point and asked, “And how’s this guy a Democrat?” I got her point, but her definition seems too narrow. (more on that some other day when I’m less tired)

Clark is unabashedly honest about needing to maintain our strength both economically and militarily. Heidi read him as advocating maintaining our global economic and military hegemony by holding back China and India. I read it (more correctly, I think ) as a call to focus on the changing landscape so that we might change it from being a zero sum game. China and India growing and bringing their populations out of poverty is a good thing, but if we sit back we guarantee that we will be reacting to changing circumstances instead of taking action to secure our options and build the partnerships to keep America strong in the future (for example a strong relationship with Europe).

The most interesting response tonight was to a question by a serviceman who served under Clark in Kosovo. A K-O grad and a lawyer, he pointed out that few folks in the prep school socioeconomic circles serve in the military. Clark’s response was, again, honest. He first agreed and recounted a couple of conversations he’s had with wealthy folks who are gung ho for war until Clark or his wife asked them whether they would allow their children to serve. He then defended the choice to go into the military and claimed it was the best thing for young Americans. The interesting thing was that he phrased it by saying that the parents were the ones saying no. He asked the audience to allow their children to “make that choice” to serve. Interesting perspective.

Oddly enough, it applied directly to me. I wanted to join the Navy as a high school kid but my parents absolutely forbade it. I could do a lot of other things but joining the Navy was absolutely out. So, I didn’t and ended up at Hopkins and all the way along until I got here. I don’t have any regrets… I probably wouldn’t be with Heidi now if I had served.

After the speech and Q&A, he was signing books. We bought a copy and got in line. It was pretty cool. I got to shake his hand twice and say hi. Not often you get to say hi to a man who’s done the things he’s done and had the responsibilities he’s had. Seeing the “To Sujal and Heidi” scrawled on the inside of the book is pretty cool, too. I’m happy we went tonight. I hope he considers running again in 2008. I’m not sure he’s the candidate for me, but he brings a lot to the table and brings some expertise that seems sorely lacking for the Democrats. I would be very happy with him as a VP candidate regardless.