I must’ve inferred what wasn’t there. That is my fault entirely. Please accept my apologies.
I personally think that Wesley Clark wont run. I don’t know if he will or not and I don’t even know if he knows, but the delay suggests to me that he is less likely to run.
On Dean I still think that his political skill is why he will win. After all this is a guy who won by 10 points after he signed a civil unions bill that most of the population in his state did not like and where he faced both a challenge from the left and the right.
For anyone interested, if you didn’t follow all the links in the draft site that I linked to above, here is a good story about Clark in Esquire.
Of course you could be right, but I disagree. Until a week or two ago he never said which party he would be affiliated with – he announced recently that he is a Democrat (which everyone knew already). Also, he and the draft Clark campaigns had no contact until the last day or so but now they have.
We should know for sure in the next week or two.
I like Clark. He seems like a good man who would make a fine President.
The next president is going to be handed a bunch of military hoopla and I think Clark is a good choice to handle the situation.
I’d vote for him.
Bill Clinton was the keynote speaker at the previous democrat convention, had been involved in the DLC for years, had succesfully run 7 political campaigns, and had over a dozen years as governor of Arkansas. Clark has no political experience and no constituency in the democrat party. Clark has very little money and will need alot very quickly. There is alot of uncommitted money out there, but the big money is liberal money and he won’t get that. His opponents have a huge lead on him both in fundraising and organization. His only chance is if the party leaders get scared of Dean and try to get behind him as the anti-Dean.
As for the GOP attack lines, the obvious one is “In the middle of the war on terrorism, do you want a president who with no governing experience?” Also the Kosovo bungling would be good ammunition against a candidate whose military background is his only credential.
If the roof collapses at the next democrat debate and Clark does win the nomination Ralph Nader will be licking his lips. A green party candidate could do very well against Clark and Bush, maybe 4%. About half of those votes would probably be democrat votes.
I’ll second(or is it third now) the recommendation to watch this interview. Clark was poised, articulate and extremely impressive. Granted, Maher was kind of kissing his ass, but he was great nonetheless.
Clark sounds good to me. Those who focus on “show me the money” forget that nowadays instant celebrity leads to money: Dean is a case in point.
People understandably like to believe that their own viewpoint is the dominant one. But I wonder if the overall democratic party is as across-the-board liberal as some seem to believe. I think Dean has caught on (and confounded the experts, BTW) not because he is especially “left” (he isn’t) but because he is a fresh face with a forthright manner and he was willing to break from the pack on Iraq, which is the sort of phenomenon the media find attractive.
It will be fatal for the Dems to presume that Iraq will be anything like a central issue next fall. (…whether it ought to be is another question, of course…) As always, the contest will be between America’s two “cultures,” to wit: “that W–my kind o’ guy” vs. “that W–jest can’t stand 'im!” George II has managed to make a good case for himself; the Dems will have to find a candidate who can advance a national screenplay in which his victory is a more satisfying ending than 4-more of Geor’. Clark, Dean, and–please try to be objective!–Lieberman could do it. Gephardt? Edwards? The first has been around forever, the second just can’t get any traction. And Kerry never made it out of the gate.
Clark would be fine as veep, but veeps don’t make for a Presidential victory, as Pres. Dukakis found out. Graham will have to be on the ticket unless he foolishly promises not to be.
So sooth-sayeth I.
I am surprised that no one is annoyed that Clark, like Clinton, is an Arkansan.
Puddleglum wrote:
I agree that Clark’s political ability is an unknown factor at this point. We don’t know how he will perform on the campaign trail - he could be arrogant, or thin-skinned, or make gaffes. But as for the rest - money, organization, and constituency - all that can be overcome if he gets people to believe that he has the best chance to beat Bush. The biggest constituency and the biggest donors in the Democratic (not Democrat) Party right now all have one thing in common: they want Bush out. And as for liberals, read the glowing things Michael Moore has to say about Clark.
A good Democratic politician can look liberal to liberals and moderate to moderates. Bad ones, like Dukakis, look liberal to moderates and moderate to liberals. We have already seen Clark embrace the term liberal in the Bill Maher interview, but we also know he, as a general with international affairs credibility, could potentially have a freer reign to be moderate, as his base is not so much voting for him as voting against Bush. Recall how Bush ran as a moderate, “compassionate conservative” while throwing conservative hints and clues to the right wing. Don’t think Democrats haven’t watched and learned.
I disagree on both points. Generals have a tremendous amount of budgetary, organizational, and logistical experience which is, to the average voter, at least as relevant to running the United States as governing AR or VT is. Let me rephrase your slogan: “In the middle of the war on terrorism, do you want a General as President?” Yes, I do.
Second, I have a feeling that Clark would like nothing better than for people to look more closely at Kosovo, a conflict in which we achieved our objectives (getting the Serbian military out of Kosovo) without committing ground troops and despite severe interference from conflicted, fickle, and micromanaging civilian leaders. Clark brings up Kosovo as an analogy for everything, he’s written two books about it (one that’s about to be published) and something tells me attacks on the man will backfire in middle America. But you seem to be well-informed enough to accuse him of bungling, so why don’t you elaborate?
Definitely wrong. Nader’s central message is that Democrats and Republicans are just the same. I knew many people who thought this in 2000; I don’t know any one of those people who think that’s true today. Liberals aren’t buying that anymore. Period. Did you think Buchanan stole a lot of support from Bush in 2000? No, because conservatives mobilized for a candidate who could win. The same effect holds true for any Dem. candidate, not just Clark. Where are you getting 4% from?
As a note to Puddleglum: I know some Republicans who misuse Democrat as a kind of slur (as in the Democrat party, or the Democrat candidate. Is that your intention?)
Finally, Scott Dickerson:
This makes no sense to me. For one thing, if Bush himself doesn’t make an issue of this, what exactly will he run on? An invasion of North Korea? Iran? The economy? That’s assuming things turn around, which is anyone’s guess at this point. Iraq is the centerpiece of homeland security for Bush, which in turn is his strongest issue. If Bush himself doesn’t make an issue of it, then he will be making it easy for Democrats to cast him as a failure on what should be his trump card. If Bush captures or kills Saddam, we will never hear the end of Iraq as an issue. (BTW, I think Bush probably has already killed Osama, and that he’s done a creditable job against al Qaeda.)
Breaking News
CNN is reporting on TV that they have learned that Wesley Clark will announce his candidacy tomorrow in Little Rock.
Interesting. I started this cycle excited by Edwards, have started paying attention to Dean, and am now taking a second look at Clark. I’m feeling a helluva lot better about Democratic candidates this go-round than I did back in 2000.
Daniel
I’m much the same, Daniel - I still like Edwards, but he just can’t seem to get any traction in the polls. I like Dean too, though I worry that he will be easier to smear as a New England liberal, even though he’s a moderate, much like the Willie-Hortonizing that Republicans did to Dukakis, who spent his tenure dismantling state programs and yet still is thought of as a liberal. Witness Limbaugh kicking off the process by calling Howard “Nikita Dean.” Oh well, what else is new? :rolleyes:
I definitely agree that it’s a stronger field this time around, and I’m very excited to see if Clark can live up to the hype. Some folks are really looking at him to be a savior, so I’m a little worried that expecations are setting him up for an inevitable chastening once it becomes clear that he’s actually a normal political candidate. On the other hand, you definitely can’t write him off, and who knows what will happen once he starts getting prolonged national attention? I’m actually thinking of volunteering for the guy. We’ll find out soon. But it’s a very exciting and hopeful time for this particular Democrat.
My take:
Clark won’t be able to overcome Dean’s momentum, but he’ll mop up the surplus effectively enough to starve Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman out of the race. Regardless of which of them wins the primary they’ll acknowledge the other as the ideal running mate, and the Democratic ticket for 2004 will be next to impossible for the incumbent administration to beat.
Agreed. My voting sentiments have followed the same track.
Based on what is presently known about them, I would be happy with any one of the three candidates you list as an eventual nominee. At the moment, I think Clark may be the strongest choice, both for his ability to neutralize national security as a campaign issue, and his potential for winning Southern states, which could (as usual) tip the balance in the Electoral College.
I like Dean, and I think his straightforward manner would play surprisingly well with Southern independents (in spite of his Notheastern background). Additionally, he has done a great job of exciting young voters. He is wisely paying close attention to the voters that have come of age since the last election. A potential gold mine. I just hope these energetic young voters don’t get alienated and fail to turn out in the general election if Clark manages to wrest the nomination from Dean. (Note to Democrats: Please don’t let the battle between Dean and Clark turn ugly. We are all on the same team here.)
I agree with most of the things I hear Edwards say, but I’m not sure he has the gravitas (or at least the aura of gravitas) that is needed for a Presidential run. Yet. He may just need a bit more seasoning. (Making his formal campaign announcement on the Daily Show probably didn’t help him in the gravitas department.) Still, I think that with the right running mate he could do well as the nominee.
It is indeed a strong field. My current rankings (based on my estimation of their chances of success next fall):
- Clark
- Dean
- Edwards
(I don’t think any of the other Democratic candidates would have a prayer in the general election.)
Just my humble opine for the folks who do not believe Clark can overcome Dean’s current lead now that he’s entered - take a second look at the primary schedule. If I recall correctly, South Carolina is 3rd after NH and IA. Dean & Clark split NH (Kerry is effectively out now that Clark is in - Vietnam was Kerry’s only trump card, voting for Iraq was his baggage, Clark now nails him on both counts), Dean & Gephardt split IA…
…which makes South Carolina the bellweather. Who would you put your money on - a fast-talking white doctor from the north woods, or a drawling ex-general from Arkansas? If Clark is able to wrest any cred from the African American community, he’s in like Flynn.
I would be interested in any data folks can find on early state results and the eventual nomination - is there precedent for someone winning first two- or three- primaries, but being overtaken down the road for the nomination? And if so, how did that candidate ultimately fare in the general election?
For what little it is worth, I have moved from the Dean camp into the Clark column. He is more electable than Dean, and I’ve come to the conclusion that for at least the next few elections, it is difficult for a Democrat to win the White House but impossible for a non-Southern Democrat. I see the Democratic race as a two horse field now, Clark and Dean. The others, excepting Al Sharpton, will drop out after New Hampshire.
Yes, GW Bush certainly proved that you’ve got to have oodles of gravitas to become President.
To me this is telling, from the Esquire article, referenced above:
I’m sure that there’s some nasty politics going on at the Pentagon, but it’s nothing compared to the dirty politics that will be brought on by George W. Bush’s personal minder and pitbull, Karl Rove.
If Clark were to run against Bush, he would win. There is no way that Clark will run against Bush, because Clark is a Democrat. There is no way that Clark will get the Democrat candidacy because Clark is not a crackpot or panderer. The extremists and cultists within the Democrat party will ensure that a thoroughly un-electable excuse will be nominated.