What are the "preconditions" Clark was talking about?

[gulliver]

On Charlie Rose, Clark spoke about needing to see "preconditions" before getting into the race. He wants to have a realistic chance to win. Does anyone know what his preconditions might be?

http://securingamerica.com/node/2579

Maybe it is just wishful thinking, but I thought that Clark's answers on this show sounded more and more like he is very interested in running. He didn't just blow off the question like usual. Also, the show mentioned that Clark has his memoirs coming out in the Fall, "A Time To Lead".

[frogcycle]

1. oh, he is interested

he said that he thinks about it every day

he lays out the conditions right there in the first pp:

"you want to really have a shot at winning, and that means you've got to have the money and the organization behind you... it's not enough to just go out there and say, 'I'm running, because I believe in it.' "

[earthlover]

2. Clark!

Maybe it SHOULD be enough if Clark is the best candidate on....

national security (he could make it an issue FAVORING Democrats!)

defense (who has more experience or prestige?)

getting out of Iraq (Wes opposed it from the start, is better prepared to safely withdraw our troops)

preventing a war in Iran (Wes has been fighting hard on this issue, while other wannabees have ignored it or "talked tough" against Iran)P

providing universal health insurance (Wes has been at the forefront on this issue)

reforming the tax code to make it more progressive (during the 04 campaign he proposed the most progressive income tax reform in decades)

the environment (OK, maybe Gore, but he isn't running yet)

Dialogue with our enemies (Obama stumbled onto this issue, Clark has been advocating dialogue for quite some time)

Finding a regional solution to Iraq and the Middle East (finding regional solutions is something Clark has advocated for quite some time)

I could go on...but there comes a time when the BEST candidate on most of the important issues facing America becomes someone that should be in the running. The present group of "contenders" don't inspire.

[CTyankee]

23. No, it shouldn't "be enough" that he is "best" candidate w/o the requisite money and organizational

strength. It cannot happen without those two crucial factors. Even with them, a campaign can fail. Just look at John Kerry.

I supported Clark in 04 very early on, but then he was gone from the race. IMHO, he is truly the best candidate to lead this nation. But wishin' ain't gettin', as the saying goes.

Sad, but true. Clark is smart. That's one reason we like him. It is his smarts that tell him he has to have "preconditions."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. I think the #1 precondition for Clark running is Gore not running

Once it becomes clear Gore is not running Clark can enter and have a legitimate chance at winning. If Gore is in the race Clark's odds of winning are low because the IWR-based vote will flock to Gore and most of the remainder will stay with Obama. Clark's instant base (what he will immediately start with. His base will obviously grow as he makes his case) is those who automatically write-off anyone who voted against the IWR. Right now, with DK being viewed as not viable, these votes are going to Obama by default.

I am glad to see Clark is considering running. I hope he joins the race. He brings a lot to the table. He is an extremely intelligent individual, he cogently walks people through his thought process and does not just state his position with generic rhetoric, he is our party's most credible voice on national security (with Sen. Webb being #2), and he has the potential to be a progressive Trojan Horse who can appeal to some red state voters via his military credentials. Perception is reality. It will be very difficult for right-wingers to paint a 4-star general as a "far left liberal." I hope he runs. My dream ticket is Edwards-Clark. Edwards-Clark=landslide. :bounce:

[Cameron27]

4. I thought about Gore being a precondition too,

but this time, I thought it sounded like something that he himself has to accomplish or work around. I get myself tangled in possibilities so I just stopped trying to figure it out lol.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. I think Clark needs to wait until Labor Day

If Gore isn't in by then it is unlikely that Gore will run. What I find inexplicable, though, is why Clark is waiting so long. The reason he lost last time was because he entered late and had to skip Iowa. HRC has $45 million on hand, BO $36 million and even Edwards a healthy $13 million. It is going to be very tough for Clark to compete with them because he has given the rest such a huge head start in fund-raising. That said, Clark has a loyal following on the netroots that will help him raise money. Clark did well in fund-raising last time, raising $10 million in the 4th quarter, which was second only to Dean's $15 million. However, while Clark had great grassroots support (second only to Dean) he also had a lot of wealthy donors because he was, at the time, viewed as the only alternative to Dean. Right now he won't have that same dynamic to attract as many wealthy donors. I think Clark cannot be written off. If he enters, he will be competitive so long as Gore is not running. However, by waiting this long he has made things more difficult for him than they otherwise would. Of course, who am I to question the planning of a man who was once the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and led a successful air war? :) Clark must have something up his sleeve (perhaps he is really angling for VP?).

[Cameron27]

8. I'm not giving up hope until Labor Day,

but I agree with you that it's hard to understand why he's waiting so long this time around. I just know that he doesn't play games, so there's something significant that's holding him back, but I can't imagine what it is. Of course, he knows the problems he had in 2004 better than anyone else, so if he still thinks there's time, I'm going to believe him. (I'm going to be chewing my nails off in a few weeks, but I'm willing to wait a little longer lol.)

[calteacherguy]

10. He said what it was...money and organization.

A lot of the big players than run things at the state level have already committed. There is only so much Oxygen in the room, and Hillary took up a lot of it going in. I am biased and think Clark could still win without all that support structure going in, but I'm probaby naive in thinking the best candidate can beat the system.

[Dinger]

16. Labor Day Is D-Day For Me Too. (nt)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. I agree. Clark is a brilliant man

He must know something we don't at this time.

[jenmarie]

50. My thoughts

are that he's directly or indirectly getting signals from the Party insiders that they've already chosen their candidate. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think it's too far fetched to think that the power insiders would be able to keep $$ and support from Clark.

[Cameron27]

57. But didn't it sound as if it was something that he

personally could accomplish? That's the first time I've heard him state it that way. (I hope the insiders aren't sending him any signals, but no, it's not all that difficult to imagine.)

[Dinger]

15. Hey, That's Cool

It is very refreshing to see an Edwards supporter speak so eloquently of Clark. I have been very guilty of thinking negatively about Edwards, and I was very guilty of posting anti-Edwards many times here in the '04 campaign. I have soooo learned my lesson. After Kerry chose Edwards as his running mate, I did a ton of work for their campaign. It was easy to do. I believed in them. I am giving Edwards a new look at this time. What's making me do this is all the eternal Hillary/Obama talk. No "top 3/top tier" talk anymore, just "Hillary/Obama ad nauseum. Nothing against them, I'm just weary of others trying to narrow my choice for me. I can do that all on my own, thank you. My hope for now is: 1) Clark, 2) Gore 3) Edwards. All three are very close for me, so don't take Edwards' position as "he's last place, " believe me, I hold him in high regard. I would happily work hard for him again.
I do so want Clark to run. Really, who matches up to him? It would be very interesting to see how the candidates/potential candidates match up against Clark, issue by issue, everything. Foreign policy? Clark.
Leadership? Clark. Diplomatic experience (ex: Dayton Peace Accords) ? Clark. Bi/Tri partisan appeal? Clark. Wartime experience (Someone who has been in the line of fire and knows first hand how devastating war is): Clark. Intelligence? (ex: Rhodes Scholar): Clark. Economic/Educational Experience (In OMB in WH, taught economics at the college level, etc.): Clark. Heroism (ex: saving 1.5 Ethnic Albanians, Presidential Medal Of Freedom, Most decorated soldier since Eisenhower, etc.): Clark. There's more, believe me. Why do so many ignore these qualifications?
Edwards and Clark have many things in common. 1) Humble beginnings 2) Overcoming several obstacles (ex: poverty) and working hard to achieve success, despite these obstacles. 3) Both are liberal, progressive Democrats (Kucinich might win this one though) 4) Both are being set aside, in favor of the"top 2" candidates.
5) Both have "southern appeal" etc.

Anyway, thanks d_m_c for your post. I just shot this one from the hip, so to speak. Hope I don't get nailed, but if so, this is what I believe.

[Adelante]

21. Don't make me do this

:spank:

:evilgrin:

[Dinger]

27. ?

I guess I'm a little foggy today. I slept like shit last night. I need a nap.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. You said what you felt, which is what we all should do

Take that nap and don't lose any sleep over it. Not all opinions are equally popular with all people, you know? Hasn't it always been that way? Sometimes ya just got to take the predictable lumps. No one ever said that message boards are easy.

[Adelante]

31. Aw, I was just joshin ya, Ding

:hug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. I think Edwards and Clark supporters should be on the same page instead of at each other's throats!

I wasn't at DU during 2003-2004 so I am not exactly sure what caused this bad blood (although I've been able to pick up pieces of the hostility) but it is now the middle of 2007. Isn't it time to turn the page?

I have my own guilt too regarding Clark, so don't feel bad! When I came to DU I noticed there was a group of Clarkies who constantly attacked Edwards, and almost always as a hypocrite. So I would respond to them by playing devil advocate about Clark. That was stupid. I saw the light after Tom Rinaldo pointed out the absurdity of me doing this every time someone with a Clark avatar or Clark in their name called Edwards a hypocrite. Moreover, it was counterproductive. It damaged both Edwards and Clark, two great Democrats.

=What's making me do this is all the eternal Hillary/Obama talk. No "top 3/top tier" talk anymore, just "Hillary/Obama ad nauseum. Nothing against them, I'm just weary of others trying to narrow my choice for me. I can do that all on my own, thank you.==

I agree. What also disturbs me is the Wall Street and other fat cat support HRC and BO are getting. How can they truly be candidates of change when those most interested in preserving the status quo are flocking to them--even more so than the Republican candidates? In contrast, Edwards' leading contributor--by far--is ActBlue...

==My hope for now is: 1) Clark, 2) Gore 3) Edwards. All three are very close for me, so don't take Edwards' position as "he's last place, " believe me, I hold him in high regard. I would happily work hard for him again.==

I definitely understand. My list is: 1) Edwards 2) Clark 3) Gore. I like all three and would happily work for any of them if they won the nomination.

==It would be very interesting to see how the candidates/potential candidates match up against Clark, issue by issue, everything.==

I agree. In 2004 he was actually more progressive than Dean. He has come out for single-payer health care. He has called for cutting the defense budget by 25% (only a 4-star general could realistically push for this during an election).

Clark definitely is #1 in most of the areas you mentioned, and is on par with anyone else on the rest (I think Richardson and Biden can match up to him in diplomacy, for instance. However, on national security and military issues Clark is in a league of his own).

==Edwards and Clark have many things in common. 1) Humble beginnings 2) Overcoming several obstacles (ex: poverty) and working hard to achieve success, despite these obstacles. 3) Both are liberal, progressive Democrats (Kucinich might win this one though) 4) Both are being set aside, in favor of the"top 2" candidates.
5) Both have "southern appeal" etc.==

I agree. This is why I think Edwards-Clark would be an unbeatable ticket. :bounce:

==Anyway, thanks d_m_c for your post. I just shot this one from the hip, so to speak. Hope I don't get nailed, but if so, this is what I believe.==

You're welcome, and thanks you your post too! It was interesting and made the case for Clark and why Edwards and Clark are similar very well. :hi:

[Clark2008]

39. I don't trust Edwards, though.

It has nothing to do with my support of Wes Clark.

I don't think they have that much in common, to be honest. I think one is a leader and the other is merely a politician.

But, thanks for being civil.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. I accept that Senator Edward's current populist emphasis,

and his championing of economic measures to address issues that disproportionally concern those of lower income, is sincere, and I am very pleased to hear those sentiments being expressed by Edwards in this race. I have my reasons for believing that he would not be our best candidate to run for President, but I do not hesitate to give him credit where I think credit is due.

[Clark2008]

37. Why would you put the CINC as head of the senate and the former

senator as CINC?

You have that backwards. Should be Clark/Edwards. However, I doubt that a ticket featuring the both of them, in any combination, would EVER come about.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. I just can't imagine

he's going to run at this point, even though he'd be my candidate in a heartbeat if he did.

The last time, he got in late and was hurt by that. I just can't see him doing the same thing again.

[madfloridian]

7. I imagine Clark is meant to be Hillary's VP.

I had heard that discussed, because they were for him in the last prinary, all of them being from Arkansas.

[calteacherguy]

9. I don't know if Clark wants to be a VP. He's happy what he is doing now, however...

Clinton/Clark does alliterate nicely and looks good on a bumper sticker.

I imagine whoever the nominee is will consider asking Clark to join them. He would definitely strengthen the ticket...more so if he were at the top, where he belongs, but even Clark as VP could be the winning factor to put us over the top.

[Totally Committed]

13. I sincerely hope you are wrong about this.

I actually think one of the "preconditions" Clark spoke of was that Hillary sucked up all the $$$ and big donors from Arkansas so he couldn't run. Also, I'm not sure that the same ticket should have both candidates at least nominally from the same state. For those reasons, I am hoping he stays away from a Hillary ticket if there is one.

*fingers crossed*

TC

[Clark2008]

40. But what's funny about all the big donors from Arkansas

sucking up to HRC is this: Clark has MUCH more of a chance of flipping Arkansas than Hillary does in the general election.

[ArkySue]

55. True...

And the Dem Party here is filled with regulars that know Billary from the Governorship. Pshht! That was 15 years ago and I'll bet Hillary has been here maybe 4 times since '92. Yep, she loves Arkansas so much she moved to NY. What has she done for the state lately??? Nothing except have a fundraiser in NW Arkansas during the '06 Congressional races. NW Arkansas is our only Repub Rep. She wasn't raising money for the Dem Congressional candidate, she was raising it for her "Senate" campaign. Of course the Dem lost in the Congressional race. I'm sick of the Clinton machine. It's all about power for them. It's about America for Wes Clark.

[Totally Committed]

59. True, but he is not the former Governor of the state, and former POTUS....

Bill is, and Hillary is calling in all his "markers" in that state from what I have heard. Tactics like this are a good reason why we are where we are in this country today.

TC

[Adelante]

20. You wish

So he could live down to your expectations :eyes:

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

54. Because all current Dem candidates are handicapped - Each NEED Clark for their VP

....and that's handicapped on leadership experience including National security AND Foreign policy.

I'm not voting to elect a VP to compensate for leadership deficiencies in a Presidential candidate, therefore I would not want to elect a POTUS, who's feels (s)he handicapped in experience and leadership.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Probably polling that shows people are unsatisfied with the current candidates

But he already pulled that one in 2004 and it didn't work out. IMO, Clark was the only candidate running that would've had a better chance than Kerry of beating Bush.

[pacalo]

26. Lack of enthusiasm & energy -- yes, that could be it.

Also, I don't think we've yet experienced the full throttle of the Rethugs' character assassination machine.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Clark would have surely won. They could not have "swiftboated" a 4 star general! nt

[dmosh42]

12. Could be a winning strategy.....

I agree with the previous posts about Gore being a factor, plus his group don't have the cash available. But maybe he sees the two leaders having weakness due to their general messages, and trying to be cautious. If he came out with a detailed plan for what he wants to do, it may take only a few months to get enough feedback to get the results he wants. I know I'm one of those who will be voting Democratic, but the present leaders don't fill in the blanks.

[Sparkly]

14. I wish I knew.

And I wish I could do something to make the preconditions happen!

[robcon]

17. If "having a chance to win" is a precondition,

I don't think he will enter the race.

Money is an issue. Awareness is an issue. Lack of experience in politics or elective office is an issue.

If he entered, he'd be in the Kucinich/Gravel/Biden area of polling numbers, IMO.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. You really are underestimating him...

...which isn't to say that it's a slam dunk Clark can put together the resourses he needs in order to make it competitive enough to pull him into the race. Clark is already polling above Dodd and Gravel and equal to Biden and Kucinich in the few polls I've seen that include him along with Gore in the list of choices, and that is with absolutely no campaign for the last eight months and virtually no coverage of him as a potential candidate.

Lack of experience blah blah is not an issue I give any credence to, getting elected one time to an office is not all that some crack it out to be as a way of vetting good politicians. Otherwise someone like John Edwards couldn't get elected to the U.S. Senate with no prior experience in politics at all, or run for President without ever having to go back and face the voters in North Carolina, who took a chance on electing an untested want to be politician the one and only time he ran, to find out if they approved of the work he did for them, or whether instead they were going to dump him in the dust bin.

Clark has extensive exectutive experience, which only one of our current candidates, Richardson, can claim. And he has extensive national security experience, and he has diplomatic experience. He has spent more time outside of the United States dealing with leaders in various parts of the world than the rest of our field combined. And Clark is doing damn well at the art of politics. Ask any of the Democratic candidates running in 2006 who made Clark the most requested national Democrat to campaign in congressional races. Clark saw Jim Webb as a winner before any one else in our Party did, and he helped him get started. Clark was the only Democrat that Jon Tester in Montana invited to come campaign for him. And Clark was unafraid to go to CT and stand with Ned Lamont and call out Lieberman to his face.

[venable]

24. TR, why the Edwards slam on this?

This seems characteristic of others in Clark's camp, but wholly uncharacteristic of you - not because you need to be nice to Edwards, but because you generally let rationality guide your posts.

When someone with less experience that Edwards is polling right up at the top of the heap, why choose Edwards as a model?

If actual political experience - ie the act of getting elected - matters, lets look at it: Edwards beat an incumbent Senator in a red state, he came within a couple thousand votes of winning Iowa last time (which would have changed the rest of the primaries), he ran for VP (to the extent that the campaign allowed him to). Obama was elected a state senator in a blue state, and beat an insane man not from Illinois to become a US senator (and IIRC he was neck and neck, at best, with Jack Ryan, and S&M club denizen).

Obama is doing very well now, with minimal vote-getting experience? This should help you make your point.

Why pick on Edwards?

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I had a very solid reason, and it wasn't meant as a slam. I'll explain

But first I welcome the opportunity to explain, because others probably saw it as you did, which was not my intent, so thank you for asking.

I used Edwards because he was the best match for the point I was making. Nowhere did I say that he wasn't experienced enough to do a good job as President, nor did I imply in any way that the people in his home state would not have gladly returned him to office had he run again for Senate. I simply meant to poin out that no verdict on that question was ever rendered on Edwards by the only people who ever elected him to anything.

I did not use Edwards instead of Obama because I thougbt Edwards had less experience than Obama; remember my point is that having held an elected office is not the be all and end all of vetting someone for election to a high office. So here are the reasons why I used Edwards in my example - keeping in mind that I was only seeking to find an example from the pool of Democrats who offer themselves to the public as our possible future President, otherwise there are other elected officials who would have worked equally well as an example:

The first time Obama ran for an office in an election, unlike Clark and Edwards, it was for a State rather than Federal office. In other words Obama did not start out his career in politics by shooting high, he proved his worth first by getting elected to a postion in the State Senate that mostly dealt with issued confined to the local and state level. And he got himself re-elected by the same constituents to that same office, providing a track record that the work he did was approved by the people who elected him to do that work. It was only after going through those hoops that Obama than ran for office again, only this time to the U.S. Senate.

Again, keep in mind that I support someone who is running for President who never got elected to any position even once, so I am not trying to use the fact that Edwards only got elected once as some type of slam against him. That is not my feeling on this matter. John Edwards simply makes a better basis of comparison to Wes Clark in regards to the point I was trying to make than Barack Obama does. People in the past have attacked Clark for entering politics at the top instead of working his way up the ladder (more like how Obama started out, anyway). Well Clark had Head of State status in Europe, among other relevent experiences, prior to running for President, so to my mind that gave him a basis to seek the Presidency directly, even though that could be considered a leap.

John Edwards went directly from being a trial lawyer in North Carolina to seeking a U.S. Senate seat from that state, and I have no problem with that. Compare that to atheletes getting recruited to run for Senate for gods sake. It was first up to the Democratic Party in N. Carolina, and then the general electorate in N.Carolina, to decide if John Edwards had the qualifications needed to be a good Senator and they said through their votes that they believed that he did. But that was point "A" in support of my argument, an argument better supported by using Edwards as an example than Obama. Point "B" was that getting elected one time only only "proves" that voters think enough of you to give you an opportunity to represent them even though you had no previous track record in office to judge you by. This is an issue that has been raised about Clark, and I think the post I responded to was heading there. One can logically only establish with some certainty that those same voters approved of the job you did on their behalf if they were given a chance to vote on you again. Unless they do one is left deducing the answer to that question, which of course could very well be affirmative.

In Obama's case however, unlike the example of John Edwards, it can be established that the voters who took a chance to elect an unknown quantity were satisfied enough with the results of that experiment to vote for him again to continue representing them - this of course in reference to his position in the IL Senate. Thus Obama was not a good example for the point I was trying to make, which was narrowly focused on how meaningful the vetting process is to have someone elected once only before running for higher office compared to running for higher office without ever having been elected.

My point really had nothing to do with experience related qualifications or negative judgements on any of the Democrats running for President. It was a technical point that worked better using Edwards as an example rather than Obama.

[venable]

51. makes sense

thanks for the clarification.

[robcon]

52. I think lack of experience is very, very important.

For the most part only war heroes (Washington, Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower) have made it to president with no prior political offices. Clark is a capable commander, but he was not a famous military commander in 'his' war, Kosovo.

We'll see.

[ArkySue]

56. Not a famous commander?

Well, probably not to most people in the US. No one was paying attention to foreign affairs in the 90's. They were busy making money and enjoying life. Wes Clark is a genuine hero to many people: US soldiers, Kosovars, a lot of Europeans, etc.
And 'his' Kosovo war succeeded in stopping ethnic cleansing of 1.5 million Albanian Kosovars and WITHOUT A SINGLE LOSS OF AN ALLIED TROOP IN BATTLE!

[robcon]

58. But you didn't address whether Clark was a famous commander.

Certainly Clark was a very capable and successful commander of the NATO forces. But was he famous??? Was he renowned like Schwarzkopf? or Eisenhower? Was his success so outstanding that he could be given the presidency as his first political position?

Could you answer that question - not whether he was successful - was he famous for his military exploits, battles won, leadership? Maybe you already answered when you wrote "Well, probably not to most people in the US."

President? Not going to happen, IMO. Not a chance.

[Adelante]

19. I doubt anyone on DU knows what preconditions

Here is what he said:

Charlie Rose: You have not ruled out a candidacy this year.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I haven't. No, I haven't. I think about it every day. I'd love to be able to run.

Charlie Rose: Why can't you?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's- There are several preconditions that have to be met, and they haven't been met. And, and I've worked with them, and I've tried to work around them, and I haven't been able to. It was a great, it was a tremendous honor and a great experience to run the first time. If you run the second time, you, you want to really have a shot at winning, and that means you've got to have the money and the organization behind you. And I've worked to, on this from several different angles and until and unless I believe that there's a genuine candidacy out there, I can't do this. I, it, it's not enough to just go out there and say, 'I'm running, because I believe in it.' There's a lot of people who want me to run, but I haven't met the preconditions I've set for myself.

For what it's worth, I think he hasn't given up trying to arrange it at this point, but will decide soon enough if he will or he won't. He has a plan. He knows what it will take to implement the plan. Either he will have what it takes or he won't.

For my own ends, as far as it concerns me, myself and I, when he says no, he's not running, is when I will know I am free to support another candidate. I can wait until October sometime, for that matter, if need be, but I expect we will know by early September, which is when the primary race will settle into something that matters. The above statement is the most he's said about the preconditions to date, but they may be more than the money and organization he mentions, we don't know.

[roseBudd]

22. Clark would be our most formidable candidate, you heard the term Reagan Democrat?

with Clark you could start hearing Clark Republican. With Clark the disaffected lower income white southern male could come back to the party of his parents and grandparents, and quit voting against his economic self interest.

More than anything I want to win & if it's a landslide they can't steal it. I think '08 could see a landslide, and we certainly need it because of Rove's cheating ways.

[Clark2008]

42. You are more right than you know.

Clark would capture the swing-vote Bubbas in SPADES.

And it's these very voters - white males disaffected with the Republican Party - who vote in droves in the South and mid-West.

I don't think we have a shot at the presidency with our three front-runners because of THIS group of people who, like it or not, will NOT vote for a woman, a black man or a "pretty boy." Yes, they're that shallow.

But, they WOULD vote for a former four-star general from the South/mid-West cusp with a strong jaw who could bench press the Republican contender (no matter who that will be) without breaking a sweat. Clark is seen as a "man's man."

And, sadly, in this country, that's what it takes.

Never mind that Clark probably is the best suited for the role of president (other than maybe Al Gore).

[roseBudd]

49. Edwards won't just be tarred as a pretty boy, he will be labeled frivolous lawsuit

[TwilightZone]

48. Agreed.

Those of us who supported him in the '04 campaign definitely saw his cross-party appeal. He's socially liberal, yet he obviously has a very solid foreign policy background, much more robust than anyone else in the current race. He may have more foreign policy experience than all the other candidates combined.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

30. I was an early supporter of Gen Clark, but I just

don't see how he can get in at this late date with the new, squished primaries.

The only one I see having a reasonable shot getting in this late is Gore. He's got the name & the backing & the staff, etc.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I think of it this way

First, Clark has no chance of winning if Gore decides to enter the race. It is too late for Clark to establish himself in the race both against the current field AND against Gore. So any scenario for Clark entering and becoming competitive in my mind assumes that Gore decides not to run, which all have to conceed is a strong possibility at least.

There would not still at this date be such a strong Draft Gore movement, given Gore's clear ambivelence at the very least at moving back into partisan politics, if more people felt that we had an incredible field of candidates already in the race. I don't think that we do. I think Edwards has moved hard to the left, which is to my liking but seemingly is starting to drain support away from him from less progressive Democrats based on his slow slide down in many polls (outside of Iowa where Edwards is making his real stand). I think Obama will never be able to adaquately shake concerns that he is still too inexperienced to elevate to President of the United States.

To me the fact that Hillary Clinton overall retains a solid lead in this race so far, polling strongly relative to Obama and Edwards, speaks to the weakness of our field. Most Democrats are concerned about the extent to which Hillary is unpopular witht the larger public, which causes concern over the notion of her being our nominee. Clinton has alienated much of the liberal base that usually drives primary results, and still she is much more than holding her own because she is the only Democrat to many who seems plausible as Commander in Chief.

Wes Clark in the anti dote to perceived unseasoned leaders seeking to become President. Al Gore would be also. Yes Al Gore would mobilize a burst of support instantly, but Wes Clark would be in 4th place shortly after entering the field, and he would build from there, especially if it became clear that Al Gore is not going to run. And at some point this fall either Gore will say yes or people will realize that he's not going to. By Novemeber that would clear the field for Clark to move up higher if Al Gore is out. That leaves plenty of time.

Clark has more immediate support that he can draw upon than anyone in the race other than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. He rapidly will rise above the rest of the field, which would quickly establish Clark as the designated dark horse.

Back in December when most activists thought Clark would run, he was in a statistical tie for popularity in polls here at Kos, with Edwards and Obama (they had 26%, Clark had 24%, dispite the fact that Clark was getting a tenth of the media attention then that Edwards and Obama got.

Here is what I predict will happen. There are many people still holding out for Gore, who are not content with the current field. If it becomes clear enough that Gore isn't running, a lot of that support will find itself to Clark and that is when he will break into the first tier. That could be aided by a sense of resignation from some supporters of a current front tier candidate if that candidate is seen as underperforming. If Clark can stand up to Hillary on a debate stage and out expert her on issues, which I think he can, Clark will increasingly be looked at as the only candidate with a real chance of stopping Hillar from winning. She is doing very well against the current field.

Late breaking momentum is usually what has won these races in the past. Most candidates who have been the front runners at this stage in the race have gone on to lose, often in dramatic fashion.

As to where Clark can find a pool of talent and resourses to build a campaign from at this somewhat late stage, I see that happening in stages also. By staying out untill now Clark has not tapped a single big donor yet, not one, while the declared candidates by now have all hit up many contributers for the legal max over the last six months. So Clark can start out by disproportionally raking in those two thousand dollor checks that other candidates have already exhausted. He has some key staff to build on now, and others may leave struggling second tier campaigns when Clark leap frogs those candidates. But the mother load may well be the support that has been held back from the current field by people who have been waiting for Al Gore.

Here is my metaphor. There is lovely park land in West Marin County overlooking San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. It's called the Marin Headlands, and it could have been extremely prime real estate but it never got developed. That's because until relatively recently it was owned and used by the military, originally to help defend the San Francisco Bay, and later as a Nike Base. The point is that the military kept that land out of commercial play during a period when public demand for park lands was less of a powerful social force than it is now, not strong enough on its own to fend off the hunger of developers so as to keep that land open in its natural state. But military use trumped commercial, and so that land lay undeveloped. When the military finally withdrew, that resourse was still there for the public to lay claim to.

Al Gore in my metaphor staked out an early claim on some prime political turf, key political infra structure, which has prevented other active candidates from laying claim on it themselves. He can of course use it himself for a Presidential run if he so desires, but up until now the other candidates have had to cede his control of those particular resourses and develop their campaigns without them. That "turf" in a sense still sits idle with neither Gore building on it nor anyone else having real access to it while he controls it. That can't last indefinately. Either Gore will exercise his option on that "land" or his lease on it will expire and it will go back onto the market before the primaries.

For Clark to be able to tap into that prime turf in time for him to make effective use of it, Gore has to let his lease there expire soon.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Great post, my take

I agree Clark has no chance of entering late and winning if Gore is in the race (and it seems Gore is not going to run).

As to Edwards, he is moving back up in the national polls and catching Obama for 2nd. ;) I do agree, though, that the support for Gore indicates some people are not satisfied with the current field. I do not believe that is because he have a weak field. There is always this yearning for an outsider if a big name politician is not running but considered a potential candidate. Look at Mario Cuomo in 1988 and 1992, Clark in 2004 (remember, when Clark got in the race he immediately shot up to 1st in the national polls at roughly 20%.), Obama in December of 2006 and January of 2007, Gore in 2003 and now again this time, and F. Thompson on the Republican side.

==There are many people still holding out for Gore, who are not content with the current field. If it becomes clear enough that Gore isn't running, a lot of that support will find itself to Clark and that is when he will break into the first tier. That could be aided by a sense of resignation from some supporters of a current front tier candidate if that candidate is seen as underperforming.==

I agree. Moreover, Clark would peel off a substantial slice of current Obama supporters. Why? Much of Obama's support is derived from people who automatically write-off anyone who voted for the IWR. Since Kucinich is viewed as "unelectable", this bloc is going to Obama by default right now. Clark offers these voters a choice. Moreover, Clark trumps Obama on this. What Clark said on the IWR mattered. Clark was part of the national debate in 2002. Clark is also a far more effective anti-war advocate than Obama (or anyone else), for obvious reasons.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Thanks d_m_c It is just one possible scenario

Obviously there are others, and in some of them a rise in support for John Edwards could make him seem increasingly viable and thus better positioned to pull in more of Gore's reserved support, and you make a good point about Clark being potentially positioned to compete for votes from those who simply will not support (in the primaries) anyone who cast a vote in support of the IWR, which could come at the expense of Obama more than Edwards. Many possibilities but as you noted, my real point was to show that it is plausible for Clark, under some circumstances, to still enter this race and win.

[Cameron27]

36. Reserved prime turf,

I never thought of it in that way, but it's an excellent metaphor. I said above, that I wouldn't lose hope until Labor Day, but I'll probably be hanging on until Wes gives an absolute no answer, and this scenerio encourages me even more.

Right now, I really don't feel inspired enough by the current candidates to throw my support behind any one of them, so it's not a big deal for me to wait for Wes to annouce either way. FWIW, I don't think that Gore will ever make an absolute 'no' announcement, but I could be wrong.

[Clark2008]

45. If Gore nor Clark runs, I really have no earthly idea who I'll vote

for in February 2008. None. Zilch. Nada.

Hubby can't find a candidate to back, either.

(I'm a Clarkie. He's a Gore-ite. Clark is his second favorite and Gore is mine).

[Blue_In_AK]

38. I would vote for Clark in a heartbeat...

Clark, Gore and Kerry, always my favorites.

[Colobo]

43. Obama/Clark sounds awesome.

[Blue_In_AK]

44. Clark/Obama

:evilgrin:

[TwilightZone]

47. He's the best candidate, but he's going to need extraordinary fundraising...

ability to compete with Hillary and Obama, especially if he waits much longer.

[OHdem10]

53. I think it is possible Clark was considering Money and

enough followers to make it feasible for him to win.

His last run made him painfully aware of how much money
a candidate needs. When the Smear Ads start you have to
be on the air withing 24 hrs refuting the attack. Lots of
Funds required.

He spedificially said-Preconditions for myself.

He needs to feel he has a fair shot.

[dogman]

60. Strategy?

He has said that he does not want a candidacy to distract from his efforts to Stop the Iran War. In his speech to YDA he outlines the three "hot" wars and two "cold" wars we are engaged in now. Quite possibly Gore is using the same strategy in promoting his environmental visions. If either were to engage these issues as candidates, they would not only find themselves fighting the RW, they would be engaged in intra-party squabbles. We see the willingness of Democrats to use RW smears against Clark simply for the beliefs of his supporters. How long before the efforts to avoid war would be drowned out with the "butcher of the Balkans", "perfumed prince", and "empire expansionist" memes we've seen on these forums. The Edwards' supporters have to deal with the "haircut" and "house" smears because of Edwards' populist stand against poverty. It has brought his motives in to question because he is a candidate. We now see a phony "battle" between Clinton and Obama over the you-tube question about meeting foreign leaders. They have said basically the same answer, one just more nuanced. Clark may miss the '08 race, but he realizes the importance of his cause to this nation. He has always put that ahead of his personal gratification. If the path clears for a run, I will support him.