Did Clark Skipping Iowa Hurt Him In New Hampshire?

[THUNDER HANDS]

It seemed the only guy on the news NOT getting covered much this week was Wesley Clark.

He skipped out on Iowa and all that free media attention. Now he's lagging way behind Kerry, Dean and probably Edwards in the exit polls.

If he does finish a distant 4th, should any of the blame be placed on the team around him for deciding to skip Iowa?

Or do you think he's doing about as well as he could do in a state like New Hampshire?

[Trajan]

1. From a visibility stand point ...

it WAS a mistake ...

Iowa isnt all the marbles, but it's the first door to walk though ... and it creates a huge buzz at the start ..

[LiberalTexan]

3. I agree

And, if he decided to skip it, I knew he'd have to WIN in NH. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case.


I can hardly wait for the results tonight. Anyone else feeling antsy??????

[MrSlayer]

2. It wasn't a mistake, it just wasn't possible.

In the interview with Wolf a few minutes ago Wes addressed this very question. He wasn't set up in time to go to Iowa. Quite simple really.

[wtmusic]

6. Just what needs to be set up?

His answers?

That's about the lamest excuse I've heard. :eyes:

[MGKrebs]

4. I wouldn't think it was a mistake

if he discerned that he wasn't going to do well in Iowa anyway. He has been concentrating on NH, and if he doesn't finish well (top 3?) it won't sink him, but it's gotta hurt.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. I should have voted other.

The mistake was waiting too long to get in the race, which made Iowa impossible for Clark.

[Indiana Democrat]

7. Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

No one knows.

[TexasSissy]

8. Doesn't matter. Couldn't be helped.

[waldenx]

9. He doesn't do well with Democratic voters

an anti-war general is a tough sell and the voters are too smart for that charade.

[overground1]

10. It was a huge mistake, and I said so at the time

By skipping Iowa and concentrating on New Hampshire exclusively, Clark is setting himself up to collapse by not showing well in NH. Just as Gephardt did in Iowa.

He won't win any delegates, and should drop out.

[MGKrebs]

13. A candidate only has to get 15%

of the vote in any district to get delegates. I would assume Clark will get delegates at least in Arkansas, perhaps throughout the South. Who knows about elsewhere. Dean finished 3rd in Iowas and got 6 delegates.

[uberotto]

11. Heard it said once before...

How you do in Iowa and New Hampshire is important to all of the candidates, not for determining who will win the nomination, but for who will win the press coverage.

By being a no show in Iowa, if Clark doesn't do well in New Hampshire, he's going to have a very difficult time getting his face on any of the News Channels.

That's how skipping Iowa hurt both Clark and Lieberman.

[cjbuchanan]

12. Only because Dean did not win Iowa

I do not think Clark was planning on a Kerry win. If things had gone as the polls in Oct. said they were, Kerry would not have a chance in NH. Clark would then be the military candidate and the Southern candidate.

If he finishes 4th, he is going to need a surprise win on the 3rd (OK does not cut it because he is expected to win there).

Still, the way this primary season is going, I would not be shocked if this happened.

[cprise]

14. Actually it hurt DEAN, too

The anti-war message simply did not reach Iowans with authority. There had to be more than one major candidate for that to happen.

So I think in the end a lot of people didn't have enough background on the issue to vote for Dean. The Club For Growth message prevailed:


The husband replies, 'Well, I think Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ? "

The wife jumps in: "Body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont where it belongs."