Re: Clark...

[sfecap]

The General is in.

Notwithstanding all of the hysteria here both pro and con, it may be worthwhile to sit back and consider a few things...

It is undisputable that Wesley Clark has an impressive resume. Accomplished in his field, highly educated, charismatic, well spoken, and he looks good in front of a camera.

Unfortunately, that is not enough to win a primary, let alone a general election. Running for the office of the POTUS is probably one of the most personally grueling things a man can attempt. It is tough, folks, very, very tough. One's life is laid open. Every move, every word, every nuance of evey statement is parsed and distilled. And regardless of what the resume says, it all comes down to motivating a person to walk into a voting booth and cast a vote for you. That is much easier said than done. Many here have convinced themselves that Wes Clark can "easily" beat gwb. Nothing could be farthur from the truth. It just ain't that simple. Wes Clark has never participated in a political campaign as a candidate. Never. He's now in the most brutal, arduous, campaign there is, a national Presidential primary. His inexperience is perhaps the thing that will bring him down. He may have fought in wars, led troops into battle, but this will be unlike anything he has faced.

Clark is getting a late start, both in terms of visibility, and fundraising. People here will say "Well, Clinton didn't get in until October in 1991...", and that is correct. But there is one big difference between Clinton and Clark. Bill Clinton was a politician the like of which we may never again see in our lifetime. He is and was the consummate pol. Wes Clark is no Bill Clinton. He may have Clinton's support, he may have former Clinton staffers, but it still comes down to the candidate. Clark still must go out on the campaign trail day after day, and prove to the people why they should vote for him. In addition, when Clinton ran, there wasn't 9 other candidates. Clark is way late in this race.

We can spend endless hours here slicing and dicing the man. We can parse and analyze everything he has done in his life. But the bottom line is this: can Clark campaign? Can he motivate and energize voters? Does he have a message? Can he "sell" his message to the people who vote? Can he raise enough money (and it's going to be a massive job), to be competitive against the others? Historically, the candidate who raises the most money ends up with the nomination. Time will tell.

Frankly, I don't think he'll win the nomination. But I could be wrong...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Clark can't win the primary on social issues alone

He has an opportunity to catch up in the primaries if he would only take a populist economic stand, but so far he's been wishy-washy on it. His resume will be gold in the general election, but he doesn't have anything the base really wants, except for the social liberalism that *all* the candidates have.

It will be a damn shame if Clark never gets any traction in the primaries because he can't disinguish himself on economic issues.

[Friar]

2. Can he motivate and energize voters? Does he have a message? Can he "sell"

in a word, yes.

Is Clark perfect? No. Is he a perfect candidate? Yes. Unless he gets accused of child molestation, he can unite all True Americans™ to defeat the Bush Cabal. The VRWC cannot attack his patriotism or his stance on Fatherland Security. His only fault is his honesty.

[Racenut20]

3. I think being "late"

Gives him a certain competitive edge, ie. more free tv exposure, etc.
And if Clinton is really supporting him, he should be able to raise the money. BUTTTTT. I am concerned about all the "Gore Staffers" he has picked up. If there was ever a case of a crew blowing an election, they were it in my opinion. I have been watching these things for close to 50 years, and that is my view.

[CWebster]

4. doubtful money problems

with the machine behind him. And the machine can sell him--look what they've accomplished thus far and he hasn't even lifted a finger. They sell us image, and we have yet to see if their sales pitch will be all that matters. After all, if you can sell George Bush, if you can sell Scwartzenegger, you can sell anyone. And Clark is just another commodity being pitched.

[sfecap]

5. Remember...

It's still only $2000 per person. The "machine" ain't what it used to be. :-)

[Democrats unite]

6. Neither is the true Democratic base.

Just some food for thought.

[newsguyatl]

7. SFECAP

i agree it will matter whether he can campaign, too, but i urge you as well to begin looking at his record... it's not looking pretty... this isn't 'slicing and dicing' - this is his record. the truth is rearing its ugly head.

[sfecap]

8. Oh...I'm looking at his record...

...some disturbing stuff there. Particularly the "colleagues" remark in Salon...

[PATRICK]

9. Since the actual voters haven't weighed in

let's concentrate on the positive. Worrying and fault finding will only find its way into the enemy's media campaign. IF the public is getting deceived about a candidate by the fake media, then that merits education and defense. IF a candidate was palpably a wolf in sheep's clothing THAT would be a concern. I don't believe that is reasonable true about ANY of the candidates. most especially the strongest ones.

Clark has to prove himself electorally. Good luck. It takes more than a military image and a good astrological chart to sew up the Democratic electorate, but maybe he will. The poor GOP electorate on the other hand only has a poor choices of fixes and lies to cling to. There the candidates CAN rig a victory IF they have the support of kingmakers. That's not even close to what happens with us. Enjoy the choice, human though it is.

(I note with some forced humility that the Brookings Institute(Dionne, does he count?) repeats some of my assessments about the "General" factor not being strong as the savior figures of Washington, Eisenhower, and Grant. Naturally he does not stress Clark's strong personal assets, better speech and appeal and populist Democratic issue platform. It IS the Washington Post talking about the Democrats after all.)

The party would do well to let the military leader earn his fair spurs in the electoral arena. It will not be a coronation like Powell was hoping pathetically for from the other side.

[tsipple]

10. Resume Does Not a Candidate Make

Anyone remember Max Cleland v. Saxby Chambliss? Or George W. Bush v. Al Gore? Bob Graham arguably has among the most impressive resumes this year (both Senator and Governor, Florida, and Intelligence Committee), yet he's struggling mightily.

A successful candidate is a combination of factors.

[John_H]

11. Any primary opponent who doesn't take clark deadly seriously is a fool

He'll raise a ton of money, fast. And many people within the party understand the potential of his candidacy--Chimpy has exactly one issue to run on, national security, and Clark makes it go permanently bye-bye.