In hindsight, was it a mistake for Gen. Clark to skip the Iowa caucuses?

[brainshrub]

Thank-you Cuban_Liberal for the idea for this poll.

My own opinion is that it was a mistake for Clark to skip Iowa. We was counting on being the anti-Dean, but now he's head-to-head with another vet who has a lot more experience than him. (Kerry)

For the record: I'm supporting Dean.

[SheilaT]

1. Originally I thought he'd made the right choice.

I no longer think so.

And I, too, am a Dean supporter.

[jmaier]

2. I don't see how he could have competed in Iowa

Kerry and Dean had on the ground organizations and over 18 months of Iowa campaigning, as did Gephardt. Edwards had barnstormed all 99 counties well before the actual caucuses date.

Frankly, any professional party organizers were pretty much committed in Iowa before Clark even announced. Sure, I would like to have seen him compete but he only had the time and staff to work one of those get in contact with each voter states -- because organization was less essential, NH was the choice.

[TopesJunkie]

3. Yes, he missed some big press --

In addition, Kerry's push pollers and nasty caucusers would have had to split their time on Dean and Clark, mitigating his chances greatly.

[Monte Carlo]

4. Do we really have anything to judge this against?

I mean, it seems pretty useless to debate a hypothetical with any hopes of a certain answer. But that's just MHO.

[mdmc]

5. Hurt him

He could have been good, I tells ya.

[Jerseycoa]

6. Obviously, it would have been better, in many ways,

for Clark to have gone to Iowa. I don't think there is any argument on that, but was it possible? It really wasn't. He had no time, no money, no staff, and no developed policy positions. Overall, even with the shakeup after Iowa, I think Clark did the best thing he could have done. He had to learn the ropes someplace and staying clear of Iowa gave him a couple of months to build his campaign, warchest, and voter support without the competition battering him into the ground. Clark's won even if he doesn't win NH, because he is strong, well-funded, better experienced and focused going into the South and West than he would have been had he spent that time overwhelmed by experienced politicians in Iowa.

[Walt Starr]

7. This question cannot be adequately answered until at least Feb. 4

Iowa and New Hampshire are not the end all be all of the primaries.

[democratreformed]

8. This is my answer too.

[Justice]

9. Caucus No

[Jerseycoa]

10. Agree

I would have liked him to have taken part in the debate and to make a couple of public appearances in Iowa even though a caucus campaign was not feasible.