For months now it seemed to me that Wes Clark was running for President without yet RUNNING for President. As I get an increasing number of emails from Wes supporters describing an increasing number of events surrounding this not-yet candidate, it has been inevitable for me to start assuming Wes will declare in time. What is he waiting for? Not sure. But clearly he is waiting for just the right moment. My money is on his declaring and has been for months. And this is one reason why I have taken all predictions about 2008, including the Hillary inevitability myth, as highly suspect.
Now, I am very unlikely to support Wes Clark in the primary. And I am very unlikely to support Hillary Clinton in the primary. I lean vaguely towards Edwards or Obama. But I will make clear that I almost certainly would campaign for either Clark or Clinton in the general election should they get the nomination. Though I might lean towards Edwards or Obama, I consider the other contenders perfectly good candidates for President and would eagerly support them over the Veteran who has betrayed Veterans (McCain) and the 9/11 "hero" who has betrayed the REAL 9/11 heroes (Giuliani) or any of the other political dwarfs the Republicans are running.
But what would a Wes Clark candidacy mean? I think the main thing it would do is knock Hillary off her "inevitable" platform. With Obama catching up to Hillary already in some polls, Wes Clark entering the fray would probably turn what is currently an almost two-way race with Edwards and Richardson in second tier (and the others almost certainly losers) into a probable 3-way race which not only will boost Obama's chances, but will bring the first tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and, probably, Clark) closer to the second tier candidates.
Clark and Clinton appeal largely to similar demographics...and, in fact, largely to the same donors and political supporters. The wealthier, "moderate," Democrats who are still scared of labels like "liberal" or "progressive" are the main demographic both appeal to. Clark entering the fray will suck support from Hillary far more than it will from Obama or, I think, Edwards or Richardson. Obama must be eager for Clark to throw his hat and general's stars into the ring.
Clinton will also have to focus a lot more on attracting the white male vote, possibly throwing the arguments of some Hillary supporters that you are racist if you don't support Hillary into disarray. Since Hillary's main competitor to date is Obama, that argument has always seemed a bit strained. But if she now has to emphasize her appeal to white males, she may have to leave behind the minority vote.
Don't discount any of the top five yet. It is WAY early in the game...so early that in past years NO ONE would even pretend to predict the outcome of the primary. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and, if and when he declares, Clark are all solid contenders with strong and loyal supporters. All are smart and capable. And all would make excellent presidents. Let's just hope we don't tear eachother apart too much in the primary process. But I think the attention that a five-way race among such good contenders would bring to the party would do us good. Let the general join the best woman candidate we have had to date, the best black candidate we have had to date, the son of a steelworker, and the first serious Hispanic candidate we have had to date. They are all impressive and having them all competing for America's vote will really show America we have a far better set of contenders than the Republicans do.
In my opinion Wesley Clark has no chance of winning the democratic party's nomination because there are too many progressive democrats who distrust the pentagon and the military culture far too much to make a general the party's nominee. They will never believe that someone who is a multi-star general and has grown up in the military and its conservative culture can be truly liberal or progressive.
Also, Clark made a fatal error four years ago when he skipped the Iowa caucuses. Iowa voters have long memories, they will not forget or forgive being snubbed. Which means Clark seems highly unlikely to win, place or show in Iowa, and New Hampshire voters aren't likely going to see him as electable if he hasn't scored out in the Hawkeye State.
I think a Clark candidacy would hurt Edwards the most, in part because it seems like there are many in the netroots who were Clark supporters two or more years ago and gravitated towards Edwards when he didn't start campaigning. Both of them are candidates for the anti-Hillary vote, and the presence of Clark would seem likely to splinter the Edwards vote. This because while Edwards has been running to the left, he had a centerist voting record and has centerist support, the same type of support that would go to Clark. The liberal voters will probably want to make history by going to one of the non-WASP candidates, no matter how far to the left Edwards runs, meaning Hillary or Obama.
The candidate that would hurt Hillary by getting in is Gore, not Clark. Gore is probably the only candidate who could get in at this late stage and still be a first tier player. Clark gets in and he could cause Edwards to lose Iowa and South Carolina. Edwards should beg him not to run.
Submitted by Jai (not verified) on 16 March 2007 - 3:26pm.
I can hardly believe that the blogger and the first respondent both seem to think Wes Clark is a centrist. You obviously don't know jack about Clark. Unlike Edwards or Hillary Clinton, Clark has never been anything but a proud liberal.
Geez louise, sometimes I fantasize that there could be a law requiring some bloggers to post a warning:
Caution. The author of the following is totally clueless about the subject and adds no more to the discussion than would a monkey pounding randomly on a keyboard.
There is no way that Clinton and Clark appeal to the same demographic, or ideology for that matter. Nothing could be more ludicrous, and it sounds like mole sipped a little too much of the right-wing "stalking horse" kool-ade of 2004.
I will give rwallnerny this much. There is a certain portion of the Democratic party who will never vote for Clark because of his military background. I will not call these people liberal (or progressive) because that sort of bigotry is the exact opposite of true liberalism.
But there is also a significant portion of the party who won't vote for Clinton for a whole host of reasons, and that percentage is far larger than any anti-Clark vote. For that matter there is a percentage who won't vote for someone with no more experience than a few years in the Senate like Obama. Or someone as truly centrist as Richardson. Or someone who talks about poverty but never sponsored one single bill to help the poor during his short Senate tenure.
I must say it's sort of absurd to think Iowans won't caucus for Clark solely because he bypassed them four years ago. I give them more credit than that, but I suppose we'll find out in less than 12 months.
Seems this kind of attack all and sundry who don't 100% agree with you is a characteristic of Clark supporters I have known. It is not a good way to attract support. In what is basically a friendly diary you choose to attack those who don't buy the Wes as Savior meme. All you will do is alienate potential friends about as much as the Hillary inevitablility myth alienates people.
As to Clark's positions, it is interesting that you criticize some who have limited Senate experience when Clark has no elected experience. That makes it very hard to judge where he stands. However, given his close links with the Clintons, his past support of Reagan I think your statements indicate a bit of cluelessness themselves. Or perhaps wishful thinking. Don't bill a candidate as something they are not. Clark is no liberal. Doesn't make him a bad candidate, but it is something to take into account.
So let me just suggest that you don't call people ignorant just because you don't like what they are saying. And I see no way to approach a potentially friendly blog in a hostile manner.
You notice I didn't address his comments regarding Wallner. Merely about Wes being the Messiah for the Left, which isn't true even if he would be a prefectly fine candidate.
I should note that the most recent polls, which do not include the possibility of a Clark run, back up Michael's assertions that Hillary is the worse candidate up against Republicans. Obama currerntly looks like the best candidate, though a.) I am skeptical that ANY candidate can emerge as the clear winner yet and Obama may be in for a Dean-like fall before 2008, and b.) Clark would indeed throw all numbers into disarray.
This race seems to be shaping up a lot like 1984's:
Hillary Clinton is this cycle's John Kerry, the veteran establishment candidate who has rank and file party loyalty but who many liberal progressives dislike.
Barack Obama is this cycle's Howard Dean, the charismatic outsider whose campaign followers want to to turn the campaign into a movement. Like Dean, I expect Obama to take the lead from Hillary in the polls by this summer or fall and end up for a while as the frontrunner. The question is when he gets the lead, and the press turns on him and tries to beat him up, can he and his organization take the heat.
John Edwards looks increasingly like this cycle's Dick Gephardt, the liberal pro-labor veteran of past caucuses whose continuing base in Iowa represents his most sizeable national support.
The question right now seems to be whether Obama will fade. If he doesn't fade, and his momentum just keeps building, he could be hard to beat. If Dean hadn't faded under press heat in December 2003/Jan 2004, he might have won Iowa. If Obama doesn't fade, he could easily win Iowa. If Iowa voters end up enamored with Obama, but reject him because he is whithering in press heat, history suggests that like in 2004 when the party rank and file reverted back to party veteran Kerry as a safe choice, that they may well fall back on Hillary for the same reason.
With all these big states moving their primaries to Feb. 5th, there may not be time for a third candidate, whether its Edwards or Clark, to break out. Clark would need to win Iowa, raise a hell of a lot of money, win New Hampshire and raise even more money and then somehow get on tv in 23 states. It seems insurmountable that he could do that when he isn't even in the race yet nor has he started raising serious funds. That is even if Iowa forgets that he put down the caucuses four years ago and wouldn't run in them, and even if the liberals up in New Hampshire choose to ignore that his experience is all military and none political.
Also in Iowa, its who you've got running the show. The best precinct captains and organizers are already taken. Clark's not there now and he wasn't there four years ago, he isn't going to have the people in his camp who win these caucuses. It is even a question whether Obama will have the best people, because Hillary and Edwards signed up people to run their precincts in Iowa years ago. Remember all the netroots support in the world didn't help Dean win Iowa. Kerry and Gephardt knew the party brass and had signed up the best precinct captains before Dean even got his Iowa organization off the ground. I';ve worked Iowa more than once. Those caucuses are an insiders game
Do you want to fight the last war? Do you want to compare new to old? Obama and Howard Dean. Whew, where is 08 to 04? So let's do a little history of the pre-primary debates in 04. Dean, Clark, Kerry and Edwards were the ones left standing. Dean opened up the can of worms by rightly, in my view, declaring that there should have been no Iraq invasion. Clark knew whereof he spoke, and set a motto of "It was wrong then and it's wrong now." But he had little knowledge of politicking. What he did have was a group of Texans in Austin who saw to it that he got drafted. I joined them after the candidates were decided and they are still down there working for him. I'm off their list, decising to slog through the Corker/Ford setto. Don't underestimate how willing Wes is to work for the good of the Democrats nor for the welfare of the military and its veterans. Go blog with him and you will see how there's one Arkansan, along with Bill Clinton, who knows that the country needs all the help it can get. As for Kerry, he's learned where to stay. And Edwards has spent almost every day since November 04 preparing for November 08. Since he has been the one to stick to domestic issues, his relevance will continue to be iffy if foreign affairs (from Iraq and Afghanistan to yet more countries) take the voters' attention and money.
So what is Obama and Hillary doing? So far they are not dealing with enough hot button issues to give us a clue. They are seen as representative of underrepresented constituencies and finally they will have to get real. Hillary is no Bill in stumping ability. Her politics are probably similar. It's a question worth asking whether Bill's policies would fly these 16 years later. Obama came lately to charisma, but he sure caught if after Bobby Rush trounced him. He's a wonk, with a mission, or vision if you choose.
There are practical questions of how much money any candidate can raise to take care of the new earlier primary dates. And is the media--print, television, radio, YouTube, whatever--going to skew the coverage? I hate to admit it, because I do think the candidates tend to rely too much on their stategists, but this may be the primary when being in the right place at the right time will be the clincher. And part of that strategy may be in making early alliances with the second string.
Oh, my! George W. Bush just might be ornery enough to bring his surges home and leave insurgents to fight it out in Iraq. A candidate on the Democratic ticket just might end up explaining their opposition to a peacetime administration.
good points margaret. A big question in the campaign is definitely what the balance is going to be between domestic and foreign policy issues. If things get even bloodier over there during the next year and we are still hip deep in this mess and not getting out anytime soon, the electorate might be convinced that foreign policy expertise is more important at the moment than domestic policy expertise.
This wouldn't help Obama. He has no foreign policy expertise. Nor would it help Edwards. It would probably help Hillary, particularly if she can offer Bill Clinton as the next Secretary of State or something, or Wes Clark.
But right now, I think the american public is so tired of this war that, as long as the candidates are willing to bring the troops home, they'll be willing to focus on domestic issues.
Clearly, Wes Clark will probably shortlist for vice president though, because none of the leading presidential candidates are so strong on foreign policy that they can't be helped in that area by having a general on the ticket.
Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.
Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
Wars are the clock ticking off the time of Israeli history: World War I; the "riots" of 1929 and 1936; World War II; the War of Independence, 1948; the Sinai Campaign, 1956; the Six Day War, 1967; the War of Attrition, 1969-1971; the Yom Kippur War, 1973; the Labanon War, 1982; the Gulf War, 1991. Not all these conflicts were equally significant in their cultural impact, and surely not in the same way, but together they create a ghastly rhythm in which every calm period is seen in Israel as a pause before future violence.
[Editor's Note: I would say this explains a great deal about Israel...and I would add that a similar statement could be made about Palestine]
— Ariel Hirschfeld, in his chapter in Cultures of the Jews, edited by David Biale
Post to Twitter
Wesley Clark
In my opinion Wesley Clark has no chance of winning the democratic party's nomination because there are too many progressive democrats who distrust the pentagon and the military culture far too much to make a general the party's nominee. They will never believe that someone who is a multi-star general and has grown up in the military and its conservative culture can be truly liberal or progressive.
Also, Clark made a fatal error four years ago when he skipped the Iowa caucuses. Iowa voters have long memories, they will not forget or forgive being snubbed. Which means Clark seems highly unlikely to win, place or show in Iowa, and New Hampshire voters aren't likely going to see him as electable if he hasn't scored out in the Hawkeye State.
I think a Clark candidacy would hurt Edwards the most, in part because it seems like there are many in the netroots who were Clark supporters two or more years ago and gravitated towards Edwards when he didn't start campaigning. Both of them are candidates for the anti-Hillary vote, and the presence of Clark would seem likely to splinter the Edwards vote. This because while Edwards has been running to the left, he had a centerist voting record and has centerist support, the same type of support that would go to Clark. The liberal voters will probably want to make history by going to one of the non-WASP candidates, no matter how far to the left Edwards runs, meaning Hillary or Obama.
The candidate that would hurt Hillary by getting in is Gore, not Clark. Gore is probably the only candidate who could get in at this late stage and still be a first tier player. Clark gets in and he could cause Edwards to lose Iowa and South Carolina. Edwards should beg him not to run.