Correction to Clark Supporters: When Clinton Started

[tsipple]

I'm a stickler for facts, and I'm really getting tired of the claim that Bill Clinton "entered the race in October, 1991," in an attempt to justify Clark's potential (and some would say "late") entry into the Democratic nominating process for 2004. That claim appears here in DU forums over and over and over, despite repeated attempts at correction.

October, 1991, is when Bill Clinton officially announced his candidacy for the 1992 Democratic nomination. And of course it was hardly a surprise.

But it may surprise many of you -- it surprised me -- that Bill Clinton had a presidential exploratory committee in 1987. (Source: OpenSecrets.org.) Forming that exploratory committee signaled (four years in advance) to Democratic elected officials and pundits that Clinton would likely compete for the prize, and it started the fundraising, endorsement, and organization-building processes. Thus, at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton was openly described as a "future presidential candidate" -- and his poorly received speech that year was described as a blow to his candidacy. Forming a 1987 exploratory committee, registered with the Federal Election Commission, is a darn important step in the presidential race. It's extremely significant that Clinton did so that early.

I would appreciate very much if Clark supporters would not keep repeating an incorrect statement about Bill Clinton's campaign history. If in the future you'd simply say, "Clinton officially announced in October, 1991," then you've got it right. While some Republicans argue that Clinton "entered the race" from the womb, or at least with his famous draft board letter, I won't go that far. But the 1987 filing is a very clear marker. (I'm certainly open to arguments that Clark did something similar four years ago, if he did.)

For the record, I don't think Clark is late. But misstating basic facts doesn't do Clark any favors. Quite the contrary, it upsets Democrats like me who are tired of obfuscating the truth and who want to support any eventual nominee. And it only illustrates how completely opposite Clark's approach to the presidential run is from Bill Clinton's long term and years-long 1992 effort.

[roughsatori]

1. Kick NT

[disgruntella]

2. has clark ever made this claim?

Or is it just his supporters.

[Trajan]

3. So ....

You are blasting the 'wrong' answer given by Clark supporters to a question that has no real relevence to begin with ? .....

Chuckles ....

You must REALLY REALLY hate Clark, .... and quite a few of your fellow DUers ....

GEEEEZ ....

[renie408]

4. Perception is everything, isn't it?

Cause that was not at all what I got out of the post. I got that Clark supporters might be deluding themselves if they are equating their potential candidates coy toying with announcing a run with Bill Clinton's strategies leading up to his election. I felt that the poster was stating that Clinton was as clearly in his race before his official announcement as Kerry was before last week and Edwards is now. The difference with Clark is that he has only just recently decided to even announce that he is a Democrat and he is still leaving people hanging as to whether he is considering jumping into the rather overcrowded pool of candidates. It may be a strategy to keep a buzz going about him, I dunno. But this poster is simply pointing out that it is erroneous to draw parallels between Clinton and Clark based on their chosen dates of official candidacy announcements.

[Trajan]

6. Whether a 'candidate' is 'in the race' ....

before or after a specific date isnt relevent IF that candidate finds support from the greater part of the party membership when they IN FACT officially state their candidacy ....

Clark will be measured by his philosophy, not by his calendar ....

IF most Democrats agree with him whenever he officially enters the race, then he wins .... if they dont; he loses .... its no sweat off you .. OR your chosen candidate .....

I have not been overwhelmed by any candidate who has already declared: and Im sure I am not alone ..... I like all the candidates for one reason or another .... and I like Clark for certain reasons as well ....

Furthermore: .... He can declare whenever he feels: it ONLY impacts his own possibility for success to gain the nomination at convention, NOT his ability to win the big prize, if he happens to gain that nomination .....

The question of whether Clark is 'too late' is NOT relevent to those who dont support him .... and hence the answer to that question is unnecessary by those who do .....

[renie408]

9. Did that make any sense??

Nobody said Clark was too late (though I think he is). The original poster said that you cannot equate Clark with Clinton based on their dates of announcement. I said that possibly he was holding off announcing to stimulate interest in himself. I don't get what your post has to do with this thread. And I got news for you, HE might be measured by his philosophy, but the balance in his election fund is going to be measured by how much money he can raise and THAT takes time. IF he announces, which is up in the air, he is going to be playing one helluva game of catch up.

I happen to like Clark fine. I just think that if he is/was going to do this, he should have said so by now. All this 'will he/won't he' seems like a ploy to generate buzz to me.

[roughsatori]

5. You handily missed the point

Clark was not attacked. Everyday Clark supporters make the claim that is being addressed in the post. If it has no relevance why do his supporters continually make that claim? Perhaps you can refute the point made in the original post.

I will say that at this time I like Clark, but many of his supporters at DU strike me as not very progressive. That is why it is amusing that they love to crow how he is more progressive then the other candidates.

When moderates start trumpeting a(maybe)candidates progressiveness I worry.

[Trajan]

7. If you would stop asking irrelevent questions ....

then you would stop getting irrelevent answers ....

IF a citizens desires to run for office, then it is HIS choice when the officially do so: .... it ONLY affects his own ability to win if he does so at a late date, but it certainly doesnt IN FACT automatically make him lose .... such a candidate, if he finds good support can STILL win, whether he began early OR late ....

So: the question is in itself fallacious: there will ALWAYS be a FIRST and a LAST candidate to declare: .... just as the FIRST candidate to declare doesnt necessarily win, neither does the last necessarily lose ..... so the whole point is moot ....

so IF you stop presenting questions that have no real bearing on the outcome ... then you wil stop getting answers with which you disagree with ....

BTW: .... Though I would vote for Clark, I would vote for ANY democratic candidate that emerges from convention .... I dont promote Clark, .. but I will defend him ......

[renie408]

10. WHAT QUESTION??

Where is the question? I missed it.

[roughsatori]

11. No one asked you a question

Maybe you could re-read the original post.

[burr]

8. I agree...

If there is a relevant comparison to 1992, it would be to Mario Cuomo not Bill Clinton. Cuomo would of certainly been a frontrunner in the race, but because of his late entry..taking down Clinton would of been a huge challenge.

Clark now faces this same dilemma.

[tsipple]

12. Factually Accurate Comparison: Bobby Kennedy

Bobby Kennedy did indeed jump into the 1968 race VERY late, and most political observers believe he was on a path to winning the nomination with his success in California. Mario Cuomo is another good comparison.

As about half the follow-up posters have astutely observed, it is (some of) Clark's supporters (as I said) who continually and incorrectly make the comparison. And it's time to stop, I argue. Let's everybody stick to the truth.

It's absolutely correct that Clark himself, to my knowledge, is not drawing that comparison. And that's exactly the point. Bogus comparisons only detract from Clark's positive attributes and do him a grave disservice. Waging his campaign like Clinton is most certainly not one of those attributes.