Wes Clark, "A Time to Lead" (publication date: 9/4/07)

[calteacherguy]

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kfYhH0x+L._AA240_.jpg

Book Description
Four-star General Wesley K. Clark became a major figure on the political scene when he was drafted by popular demand to run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 2003. But this was just one of many exceptional accomplishments of a long and extraordinary career. Here, for the first time, General Clark uses his unique life experience—from his difficult youth in segregated Arkansas where he was raised by his poor, widowed mother; through the horror of Vietnam where he was wounded; the post-war rebuilding of national security and the struggles surrounding the new world order after the Cold War—as a springboard to reveal his vision for America, at home and in the world. General Clark will address issues such as foreign policy, the economy, the environment, education and health care, family, faith, and the American dream.
Rich with breathtaking battle scenes, poignant personal anecdote and eye-opening recommendations on the best way forward, General Clark’s new book is a tour de force of gripping storytelling and inspiring vision.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Lead-Duty-Honor-Country/dp/1403984743/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1224664-8505601?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181258515&sr=8-1

[Clark2008]

1. I hope this is an indication of certain things.

K & R

[Bucky]

16. If so, it's the same flippin' mistake as last time

Clark announced his campaign on September 17th, 2003. Only a real Clarkie-nerd will know why he picked that date. The two critical errors he made were (1) skipping the Iowa caucuses and (2) jumping in too late.

I don't know if he'll be able to even file for lots of states for the primaries now that most of them are happening by the middle of February. But if 9/17 is too late for a kick off four years ago when the calendar was slower and the fundraising far less cutthroat (both Obama and Clinton camps are quietly letting people know not to donate to anyone else), I don't think a 9/4 entry date is going to cure that shortfall.

If Clark commits, I'll drop everything and every commitment and work my ass red for him. But if this is really his strategy, he better have a real big fucking ace up his sleeve. September 4th is categorically too late to enter.

Except maybe for Gore.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Only one "critical error" last time

And it's apples and oranges from this time.

Last time his only error was that Clark got in too late. Not competing in Iowa was purely a function of his late start. In hindsight, it seems to many he should have tried anyway, but I'm not so sure. If Clark had run an Iowa campaign and lost miserably -- something that was quite possible for someone with no ground organization at that point, and unknown to just about everyone in the state party except Harkin -- he would have been out completely, possibly not even registering in NH, assuming he stayed in at all and didn't drop out with Gephardt. Instead, Clark came in 3rd in NH (ahead of many experienced politicians), won OK, and finished respectably in a number of other states. But without all that, I think it's likely he wouldn't have been asked to surrogate for Kerry, and quite probably would have ended up quitting politics altogether. For sure he wouldn't be in a position to so much as contemplate a 2008 candidacy. So who's to say skipping Iowa was a mistake in the long run?

But either way, that was then and this is now. First off, it's not September yet. He still has three months to go before he's as late as last time. By 3 months into his '04 campaign, he had raised more money than any candidate except Dean, and was closing fast in the NH polls. I sure wouldn't say that this book's scheduled release in Sept means he intends to wait until Sept.

But more importantly, Clark is not the same guy he was in Sept 03. He knows so much more about the process and the party. And WAY more than last time, the party knows him. He has activists ready to jump on board. His policy positions are more matured and how he articulates them is more practiced. He knows what he wants in a staff and what he can expect from them (and I'd be real surprised if he doesn't have some of that staff already lined up). In other words, even if he waits to declare in Sept 07 (not that I'd expect him to), he'd still be many months ahead of where he was in Sept 03 because he won't be starting from scratch.

[FrenchieCat]

2. I will be preordering......

Should be a wonderful read, from all accounts! :thumbsup:

[calteacherguy]

10. Me, too. nt

[FrenchieCat]

11. I wonder how many pages!

Will he write about the '04 campaign?

So many questions to wonder about until then!

[Dinger]

3. I Can't Wait!

Wes needs to be our president, period. There are some who want him for VP. I say bullshit! He doesn't need to ride anybody's coattails, they need to ride his!
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[eNeko]

4. I'd love to see him run

[FrenchieCat]

5. Welcome to DU.....

:hi:


and yes, so would I.

[lyonn]

6. Does the September date mean that is when he will announce?

A person can hope can't they? He will be on the book circuit no doubt and talk the talk that he does so well.

[Cameron27]

7. I'm preordering...I can't wait!

K&R

[NCarolinawoman]

8. I wonder where his book tour will take him?

I hope he might come South to some medium sized cities. I hope it will include a "red state" kind of tour"; not just the usual NYC, Los Angeles, etc.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Wes never forgets the South.......

He will be there, of that I am certain! :)

[ArkySue]

19. Hometown stop, fer sure!

:bounce:

I can't wait for the book! Go Wes!!

[calteacherguy]

12. I find the scheduled release date...the day after the labor day weekend, interesting.

It seems deliberate.

[justinrr1]

13. Unfortunately I dont think he is running

he is too smart to repeat the mistake of getting in too late.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Yes he's smart. And it's not too late

A month before this book comes out Clark will be the keynote speaker at the first full day of Yearly Kos, on Friday morning, as prime as it gets.

And no it's most certainly not too late:

2008's Second Season
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2007/05/2008s_second_season.html

[Bucky]

17. August is cutting it close. September 4th is too late.

He joined up on the 17th of September (a symbolism lost on 99% of the voters) last time when the calendar was far far longer than this year's. I'd love it to be so, but the timing just falls flat for me.

[ArkySue]

20. Never say never.

Since the "race" started so early this election cycle, I think many people will be sick of most of the candidates (I know I am) and would welcome some "new" faces. The "front-runners" will keep beating each other up and will look like damaged goods by September.

[Bucky]

26. That really sounds like you're rationalizing from after the facts

People don't get disgusted with their chosen candidates over time--they get invested and hardened. Note how poeple on DU moved from being intrigued or interested in Dean, Kucinich, Clark, and Kerry last time to being utterly uncivil toward all criticisms by the end of 2003. It got pretty ugly in here four years ago. Over time people become more emotional and more attached to their candidates and Clark writing a new book isn't going to shake that.

What sounds like mild critique from a Clinton supporter to an Obama supporter to the objective ear today will seem like vicious smears four months from now. There's also the consideration that late entrants may be resented as spoilers & applecart tumpers. If you were around in 1992, remember how Bill Clinton's people (me among them) felt about Ross Perot jumping back into the race in September. Clinton was on his way to an honest majority, possibly a full on mandate, when jug ears decided he needed more attention.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Comparitively small numbers of hardened supporters are involved now

DU members who were here for 2004 remember, usually not fondly, the "primary wars" and a major front of that at the time included hardened Dean and Clark supporters, all true. But also true is that there were many many Dean supporters and very few Clark supporters in early September 2003. Clark supporters emerged from those who had not been happy with their prior choices, as well as from many who had soft support for another candidate who switched to Clark once he became a candidate. I was in the latter camp, I was a soft Dean supporter who became a hard Clark supporter, lol (though I never stopped liking Dean).

Bucky if you are focusing mostly on the netroots, which in your post it sounded like you were, the netroots are not representative of most Democrats who vote in primaries in terms of how early they lock in support for one candidate over another. We are the Beta testers of politics. In regards to that a September Book publishing might not be that powerful an event for Clark with the netroots, but being the keynote speaker at the first full day of the Yearly Kos that procedes the 2008 primaries is a completely different story. Yearly Kos will be netroots ground zero for 2008 campaigns this summer, and it provides current non candidate Wes Clark with a unique opportunity to win new converts. It's put up or shut up time so I can go out on a limb and predict that Clark's speech will Wow a lot of people there. If I'm wrong about that time will soon tell.

And you are talking about Jug ears jumping back into the race against Clinton in September of 2008, not September of 2007 with over a full year before the General Election. In September of 2007 Bill Clinton was in single digits in Democratic Opinion polls for who should become the Democratic nominee. The significance of that full year difference in the Presidential election cycle can not be overestimated. What we are talking about now is the equivelent of September 2001, to use your analogy.

[Bucky]

35. First off, "Jug Ears" means Ross Perot, not Wes Clark.

Ross Perot re-jumped into the race in September, but he was already on virtually every state ballot, so he had that option. It was just two months before the 1992 election.

I don't think you're reading the calendar correctly here. The elections that Clark or Gore would be jumping into are the January and February primaries--not the 2008 general election--and this would be occurring just a couple of weeks ahead of the filing deadlines for the primaries (some states may vary, but generally speaking caucuses don't require filing deadlines).

So this is a very last minute blitz either would be trying to win. This isn't a full year, as you suggest, but only four months before the D-Days start rolling in.

"What we are talking about now is the equivelent of September 2001, to use your analogy"

See, I don't get that at all. 2001 was over three years ahead of the election. Clark was just a retired general with no political ambitions or prospects at that time. My analogy is about coming into a race just a couple of months before it's over. There was a general concensus about what Clark did wrong strategically speaking in 2004. He came in too late and he skipped Iowa. He's acknowledged both of those two choices as his fatal errors. He never quite broke into the top tier of candidates, altho he certainly came preciously, painfully close.

One thing that held him back was that he was always treated by the major press as a side show (Gephardt got consistantly better coverage despite his numbers) and a bit quixotic because he didn't fit the prefabbed "story" of what a Democrat is supposed to be. Coming in this late does not address that basic problem. Instead he'll fit into a broader story that the current crop of candidates are somehow inadequate--that will be the message conveyed to the supporters of other candidates, the activist base, and that is an inherently divisive message, one not conducive to picking up new supporters as some of the also-rans begin to drop out.

Clark has said explicitly that if he was going to get in this time, he'd get in sooner than September 17th (his 2003 start date). Frankly, August doesn't strike me as being that big of an improvement. If you look at the accellerated calendar this time, 60% of the delegates chosen by the end of February, an August kickoff is functionally the same time spread as what he faced in 2004. On top of that, Clark alluded to having some big money backers talking to him back in February or March of this year. Since then, he's not been a big presense. He focused on preventing an Iran war and working his Fox gig, instead. If that was all a cover story to lay the foundation for a draft, I appreciate the need for some political theatre. Still, his star has not risen as a result of those efforts. If it was a gamble to raise his profile, it failed.

But if he was sincerely believing there would be an attack on Iran, I'm afraid Clark seriously overestimated the influence Dick Cheney has in the administration. The fact is that the window closed on a possible attack on Iran in November '06, and even then it was never a serious possibility. This is why I suspect some theatre was involved. Clark was working to create a domestic political reality to match the international reality that the US would get slaughtered if it followed Cheney on Iran. Good for him, but still nothing that puts him as the natural choice for a draft.

There's one other possibility to consider, and I hate to even think this; I doubt I'll ever believe it but it's something one can't honestly not consider. Gore playing coy about getting in when it's possibly too late for him and Clark playing coy when it's probably too late for him, all serves to help one candidate in the Democratic campaign. Mrs Clinton has just about maxed out her support level (around 35-40%) until third tier candidates start dropping off and Democratic voters have to start making hard choices. The longer a share of uncommitted voters stay waiting for Goredot, (or in the case of you and me, a knight in shining armor) then harder it will be for an anti-Clinton base to gel around a single candidate. Either Gore or Clark staying flirty manages to keep the race Clinton's to lose.

I won't say Clark absolutely won't run. I'm just saying the longer he waits the more brilliant and the more flawless his master plan for victory has to be. And a smart general never counts on having a flawless master plan.
.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Bucky, you said that "He never quite broke into the top tier of candidates"

back in the 2003-04 primaries. But what I remember is Clark polling 1st until Mid October and then dropping to a weak 2nd to Dean most of the time after, until January of 04, when he came out polling a strong 2nd again.

I think the reason that you say that Clark never quite broke into the top tier was because there was only one frontrunner that the media recognized through most of the pre-vote primaries that season, and that was Howard Dean. Dean got all of the press, and instead of now, when there are 3 frontrunners that the media has decided there should be, back then, Wes Clark just was simply NOT recognized a top Tier candidate, although he actually was by any standard of the imagination.

The media manipulated our primaries in 2004, and that is one of the several reasons that I hate the Corporate media so.

Here's a diversity of polls, and each and everyone really never show Clark less than 1st or 2nd once he announced.

1/12-15/04 12/21-22/03 12/14-16/03 11/10-13/03 .

% % % % .

Dean 24 16 23 14 .

Clark 12 10 10 9 .

Gephardt 11 9 6 12 .

Kerry 7 4 4 7 .

Edwards 5 5 2 2 .

Lieberman 5 6 10 9 .

Braun 4 6 1 4 .

Sharpton 3 2 5 3 .

Kucinich 1 2 1 2 .

Other (vol.) 13 16 10 15 .

Don't know 15 24 28 23 .


-----------------------------------------------------------
10/14-15 9/23-24 9/9-10
% % %
John Kerry 10 10 17
Howard Dean 12 13 14
John Edwards 3 5 4
Wesley Clark 13 20 n/a
Joe Lieberman 11 9 16
Al Sharpton 2 2 2
Dennis Kucinich 2 1 2
Someone else/Other (vol.) - 5 7
Wouldn't vote (vol.)/Not sure 35 21 26
Dick Gephardt 9 9 6
Carol Moseley Braun 3 2 3
Bob Graham n/a 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------
12/11-14 12/5-7 11/14-16 11/10-12 10/24-26
% % % % %
Howard Dean 31 25 17 17 16
Wesley Clark 10 17 17 14 15
Joe Lieberman 13 10 13 15 12
John Kerry 10 7 9 10 10
Dick Gephardt 8 14 13 12 12
John Edwards 4 7 6 7 6
Carol Moseley Braun 3 5 4 4 4
Al Sharpton 5 3 5 3 6
Dennis Kucinich 1 2 3 3 1
Other/None/No opinion 15 10 13 15 18
.

10/10-12 10/6-8 9/19-21 9/8-10 8/25-26
% % % % %
Howard Dean 13 16 13 14 12
Wesley Clark 18 21 22 10 2
Joe Lieberman 13 13 10 13 23
John Kerry 11 13 11 12 10
Dick Gephardt 10 8 11 16 13
John Edwards 6 2 4 5 5
Carol Moseley Braun 5 4 3 4 5
Al Sharpton 6 6 4 2 4
Dennis Kucinich 3 2 2 2 1
Other/None/No opinion 15 15 16 17 21
Bob Graham n/a n/a 4 5 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/5-6 1/29-30 1/22-23 1/8-9 12/18-19
% % % % %
John Kerry 48 45 30 11 6
Howard Dean 13 14 12 24 26
John Edwards 10 11 13 3 5
Wesley Clark 9 5 12 12 15
Al Sharpton 4 2 6 5 7
Dennis Kucinich 1 1 3 3 1
Other (vol.) 0 - - 1 2
None (vol.) 1 2 3 3 5
Don't know 14 15 14 15 20
Joe Lieberman n/a 5 7 7 7
Dick Gephardt n/a n/a n/a 12 5
Carol Moseley Braun n/a n/a n/a 4 1
.

12/11-12 11/6-7 10/30-31 10/23-24 10/9-10
% % % % %
John Kerry 5 7 11 8 11
Howard Dean 24 16 13 15 10
John Edwards 5 6 3 5 6
Wesley Clark 12 15 13 12 15
Al Sharpton 5 4 8 8 5
Dennis Kucinich 2 2 3 2 1
Other (vol.) 3 1 4 1 1
None (vol.) 5 4 3 3 5
Don't know 14 21 20 22 20
Joe Lieberman 12 8 9 10 13
Dick Gephardt 10 9 9 8 8
Carol Moseley Braun 3 7 4 6 5
.

9/25-26 9/18-19 7/03 1/03
% % % %
John Kerry 10 12 10 13
Howard Dean 12 12 12 4
John Edwards 6 7 6 14
Wesley Clark 16 14 n/a n/a
Al Sharpton 4 2 6 6
Dennis Kucinich 2 2 2 n/a
Other (vol.) 2 1 1 1
None (vol.) 5 3 3 4
Don't know 20 19 23 13
Joe Lieberman 9 8 13 22
Dick Gephardt 10 10 14 13
Carol Moseley Braun 2 6 3 n/a
Bob Graham 2 4 7 5
Gary Hart n/a n/a n/a 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quinnipiac University Poll. Jan. 28-31, 2004. N=420 Democratic voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.8.

.

"Now I'm going to name seven Democrats running for president this year. After I read all seven names, tell me which one you would most like to see the Democrats nominate for president this year. Here are the choices . . . ."

1/28-31 1/21-25 12/4-8 10/23-27
% % % %
John Kerry 42 30 8 10
Howard Dean 11 17 22 13
John Edwards 10 14 5 8
Wesley Clark 10 14 12 17
Joe Lieberman 6 8 13 13
Al Sharpton 5 4 8 5
Dennis Kucinich 1 1 2 3
Don't know 14 12 18 17
Dick Gephardt n/a n/a 9 12
Carol Moseley Braun n/a n/a 3 3
.

9/11-15 7/17-22 6/4-9 .

% % % .

John Kerry 13 13 15
Howard Dean 14 10 5
John Edwards 7 4 5
Joe Lieberman 14 21 22
Al Sharpton 4 6 5
Dennis Kucinich 2 2 1
Don't know 21 21 21
Dick Gephardt 13 16 17
Carol Moseley Braun 7 4 4

% % % % %
Howard Dean 24 25 29 15 17
Wesley Clark 19 11 10 17 16
Joe Lieberman 12 9 7 11 16
Richard Gephardt 11 11 12 12 8
John Kerry 7 5 6 11 11
John Edwards 5 3 5 5 4
Al Sharpton 5 2 6 4 3
Carol Moseley Braun 3 2 3 3 1
Dennis Kucinich 2 4 2 3 2
None (vol.) 3 5 4 6 4
Other (vol.) 1 1 - 1 1
Not sure 9 21 16 12 14
Bob Graham n/a n/a n/a n/a 2
.


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. First let me clear up some confusion, lol

I knew that you were referring to Ross Perot. So was I when I used the term "jug ears". One thing Wes Clark never has to worry about as a candidate is his physical appearance, aside from not being 6 feet tall virtually everyone would consider it a huge plus for him.

Second, when I mentioned September 2001 as a baseline for comparison, it was only indirectly related to Wes Clark. But where I just realized that I really blew it is that I meant to type September 2003, not September 2001! No wonder I confused you! My point was that your Ross Perot analogy concerned when Ross Perot reentered the actual race for the Presidency against Bill Clinton, the General Election in other words, not when he re-entered or entered (whatever the better hypopthetical analogy might be) the race to become the nominee. My intended point was that when Ross Perot re-entered the Presidential race against Clinton in 1992, it was just 3 months before the final big enchilada election, when everyone and their dead grandmother were already fully engaged in the race up to their necks. You were recalling the emotional fall out his announcement in that atmosphere solicited, among those then supporting another candidate, specifically Bill Clinton.

I was saying that I did not think that was an apt analogy. I think the passion felt for all the the candidates was much stronger in September 1992, 2 months before a General Election, than it was in September 2003, 4 months before the first Presidential Primary in a different Presidential cycle. That is the only reason why I mentioned September 2001 (mistakenly, since I was really thinking of September 2003). At the similar point in Bill Clinton's election cycle, which would have been September of 1991, only a few percent of Democrats were actively backing Bill Clinton for President. Those numbers obviously grew, and the depth of feeling behind them also, by the time we reached September of 1992, the point at which Ross Perot re-entered the Presidential race as you noted in your post.

Sorry for the Confusion! Now I'll reread your whole post.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Again, apologies for my confusing use of the wrong date earlier

So what I meant to state was that Clark entering by September of 2007 this time is the functional equivalent, IMO, of if he had entered the 2004 race in May or June of 2003 (NOT 2001, lol) rather than waiting to September 17, 2003, because of how ill prepared he was to run in 2003 compared to now.

And we have an ongoing disagreement about Iran which resurfaces from time to time. First, I think the threat that the U.S. would plan to attack Iran this Spring was much more serious prior to the November 2006 Election results, than do you, had Republican maintained control of both houses of Congress. Subsequently I think the risk of an attack this Spring dropped sharply, but the risk of an attack at some later date has not fallen nearly as sharply as the immediate threat. At this point I don't think Cheney is as influential a threat to trigger off military action against Iran, but the overall support in both parties for taking a hard line against Iran that leads us down the path toward military action against that nation remains far too high for my comfort level. I believe that Clark sincerely believes that preventive diplomacy work best if it is not put off until actual conflict is already virtually upon us. Hence he continues his attempt to pursue diplomatic remedies to the issues that divide the U.S. from Iran, focused on looking holistically at the interplay between complex issues involving the Middle East.

So I think StopIranWar.com is a valid initiative pursued for the reasons presented by it. That does not mean however that it may not have served a secondary function in providing focus for Clark's support base during the months of uncertainty his not having announced for President has left us with. And it increased Clark's baseline legitimacy in the war weary activist base of the Democratic Party, which certainly won't hurt him if he still decides to run for President.

Finally, I think it much more likely that there is coordination between Gore and Clark over who will run for President again than that there is coordination between them over how to help Hillary Clinton run for President, period. As to Hillary's front runner status and what could challenge that, I just wrote about that in a recent post to this thread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. A few more thoughts...

You said: "What sounds like mild critique from a Clinton supporter to an Obama supporter to the objective ear today will seem like vicious smears four months from now." Actually that sounds about right to me. Four months from now will be October 8th. That's roughly a month after Labor Day, the traditional marking point for the end of Summer and the kick off of full speed ahead political campaign season. Under no circumstances other than implausible scenarios can I see another candidate (except maybe, maybe Al Gore) enter the field after Labor Day this year. Even among the netroots, I think that the majority of those who now say they support one candidate over another will not have their support turn to cement before a final look around the block at Summer's end, though of course even now there are some who would not be budged by an H bomb.

In my opinion Clark starting his 2008 campaign in August of 2007 would put him in the functional equivalent of where he would have been at had he started his 2008 run in May or June of 2003 rather than the mid September launch that actually happened. Clark was a complete political novice in 2003. Then he had no political staff who had been with him for years, unlike now. Then he did not have national contacts at every level of the Democratic Party, unlike now. Then he did not have a full set of positions clearly articulated on a wide range of issues facing America, unlike now. Then he did not have an extensive email list of prior campaign volunteers and donors, unlike now. Then he didn't already have hundreds of campaign speeches and media appearances under his belt to sharpen his delivery, unlike now. Then he didn't have thousands of Democratic activists who have already done their homework and know why and how to defend Clark against the false character smears and disinformation campaign that was used against him immediately after he announced for President. Clark has a strong AND EXPERIENCED grassroots network of supporters already in place now ready to be activated. We are a densely woven web of interpersonal contacts who already know how to work together on an important common objective.

Democratic activist perceptions about career military men and women running for office have evolved greatly since 2003 also. Eric Massa has strong national netroots support as a Congressional Candidate, embraced by Kos, embraced by Democracy for America, and others. James Webb became a netroots hero in the years since 2003 even though he once served in Reagan's Administration. I am not saying that all grassroots skepticism toward electing a General President has dissolved since 2003, but the challenge Clark has to win people over in that regard is far far simpler now than it was when he was newly introduced onto the political scene in September of 2003. So in that regard too Wes Clark will start out way ahead of the game in 2008 compared to 2008, should he announce for President by Labor Day.

[Bucky]

36. If he whistles I'll gladly drop my pants. But most voters aren't as easy to seduce as me.

The other dynamic to consider is that Clark would be just another voice and campaign competing for a dwindling, if still majority, pool of non-Clinton votes. The only way to come in at this point is (1) come in big and (2) be positioned to take votes from Senator Clinton, not from other candidates. The biggest barrier to any candidate right now is Clinton's aura of inevitability (and the fear that anyone who doesn't sign on with her now can expect a certain level of lock-out once she's safely in the White House).

Unless someone can shatter than inevitability, I think she wins.
.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. A premise I work on is this...

...I know some supporters of other candidates obviously disagree, but such is life: A good amount of Clinton's current support is a reflection of doubts about the rest of the Democratic field. I'm not saying most necessarily, but much. Hillary Clinton comes off as competent, polished, and experienced. She looks and sounds like a real Pro. She looks and sounds seasoned. She has a top notch staff gathered around her which further intensifies that aura, which of course has it's strongest roots in the fact that Hillary Clinton has already occupied the White House for 8 years. On top of that she already has spent two more years in the United States than did John Edwards, and four more years in the United States Senate than has Barack Obama. Unlike John Edwards and Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton is willing to place her experience front and center as a reason for voters to support her. Edwards and Obama don't really try to match her on that, except in minimal obligatory ways meant to blunt experience as an advantage that Clinton has over them, they instead rely on questioning her judgment on issues, which of course is always fair game in politics. And they try to outshine her in charisma.


There are other "seasoned and experienced" candidates in the race of course, but they are not current favorites, and the point has been reached, IMO, when after 6 full months spent campaigning, having so little to show for it risks cementing in place the aura of second class status for men like Richardson, Dodd, and Biden. A Wes Clark or Al Gore entering the race this summer would not be saddled by that record of recent under-achievement, they would be "new" additions to this race. Right now Democrats who might be uneasy supporting for President anyone who does not have significant experience, for their tastes, in global issues of war and peace are left with either Hillary Clinton or perceived unexciting and unlikely to win second tier candidates to support. Some of those I believe are currently backing Hillary Clinton, but not with great conviction.

Furthermore, those Democrats who are uncomfortable with backing someone who overtly represents a strongly left of center political agenda (which is how John Edwards has positioned himself for this race) are left having to back either a current second tier candidates, or the man with the least national experience of everyone running; Barack Obama. Given that choice, here too I think some are backing Hillary Clinton virtually by default. Here too I think Wes Clark and/or Al Gore would give some of Hillary's current soft supporters someone else to consider

I can make an argument that given Wes Clark's own unique gifts, he might have had a better shot at the nomination had he entered by February, but I can make an argument against that also. Having said that, and given that he did not enter by February, I firmly believe that Clark is better off for not having entered later in the Spring, but rather waiting until this Summer for a second window of opportunity to run to open, as I think it is opening now. I think after Wes Clark or Al Gore gets onto a debate stage with Hillary Clinton, either man would begin to steal some of her current political thunder.

[lyonn]

42. Hey, I was a big time Dean supporter as he spoke my language

Then Clark entered the race, then Dean started falling in the primaries and my next favorite was Clark. Not all voters are hard core. Let the games begin!!! Let the top 3 prove themselves. That is what most of us expect. Speak to us like we are adults and cut the political gaming crap. It's the weekend, I'm venting.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Exactly

It is far too early for anyone to assert that voters preferences are now carved in stome. Heck why bother to even have a campaign continue then? Let's just commission a large sample scientific poll with a very low margin of error and nominate whoever is ahead now if it is so unlikely people haven't made up their minds yet or will not change them even if they do have a current favorte. Think of all the money that could be saved to use for the General Election. Think of all those nights we can spend going out dancing rather than watching an extended series of Democratic debates with candidates blabbing away at an audiance of people who already have their minds made up?

[lyonn]

44. Right, for instance:

While Bernstein makes his rounds with his book discussing Hillary and the more that it is pointed out by the Left that most his shocking news is old news it makes Hillary look better, more human. Hillary apparently has admitted that her life was not perfect. While reading Hillary's book when it came out I was impressed with her grasp of the world. Now, with the campaign in full swing, I am not that impressed with her???? Must go back and read her book. Maybe it is because it might look to the world that America can't get off the Bush, Clinton, Bush and possibly another Clinton path. Mostly I want someone that understands world politics And the delima of middle America. Obama hasn't been seasoned yet in the workings of the government and could get smacked by some appointees he may make. Just my observation at this time. Edwards seems to have learned from his previous presidential run and is making real progress in learning and informing. Clark still looks like someone that can scoop up some in the middle of the road. He seems informed about the needs of most Americans. For sure he understands how the world works!

[BikeWriter]

15. K&R

[Eurobabe]

18. Another weird coincidence that I never knew about:

Wes was recouperating at Valley Forge Military Hospital in Phoenixville PA, ironically both of my daughters were born just down the road from there (about 11 years after his stay). Kind of a strange coincidence for a Clark04 person to ponder.

I really honestly don't think he is going to run, and if he does, it will be to pick up the VP slot on Hillary's ticket.

I can't believe I said that. But I did.

[Apollo11]

21. The choice of title is ... hmmm ... interesting to say the least

I would have to say that Wes Clark is planning to enter the race sometime around the start of September.

Otherwise - why go to all the trouble of writing and bringing out a book entitled "A Time To Lead"?

The fact that Wes put his photo on the front of the book reinforces the impression that this is his personal platform for the primaries. Everyone will want their copy signed by the General!

I just watched Al Gore's latest interview on Charlie Rose. It's very difficult to say, but I think he is being honest when he says that right now he has no plans to be a candidate. One reason is that people keep bringing up what happened in Florida in 2000. Al Gore knows that a Presidential campaign has to be focused on the future.

While my personal preference is still for Al Gore, I could definitely support Wes Clark.

I would guess that Wes is the one Democrat that the GOP is most afraid of. So that has to count for something! :)

[Apollo11]

22. This is so all about 2008

Check-out these quotes about the book on amazon.com

"Four-star General Wesley Clark is a true-blue American hero and natural-born military strategist. In his thoughtful new book, A Time to Lead, Clark combines personal anecdote with sharp policy ideas to issue a sensible and uplifting blueprint for our nation's future. A real gem of a book." -- Douglas Brinkley, Professor of History, The Baker Institute; Fellow, Rice University and author of The Great Deluge and The Reagan Diaries

"General Clark has produced a clear and compelling description of what we need to do to defeat terrorism, rebuild our economy and restore our global leadership role. In so doing, this war hero, successful diplomat and brilliant Rhodes Scholar demonstrates exactly the kind of skills, experience and leadership we need to show us the way." -- Mario Cuomo, former Governor of New York

D'ya think maybe Cuomo knows something about Clark's intentions? ;-)

[ArkySue]

23. Re: Mario Cuomo

I don't know if Mario knows anything, but he said this about Clark in 03.

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

[Apollo11]

24. Wes is so going to run

If Al Gore refuses to change his mind about running, I wish for a CLARK-OBAMA ticket in 2008!

I would think that this would be talking point number one here on GD: Politics today.

Or is it that everyone already knew about this book - and I am the last to find out?

But definitely a K&R from me for this huge news which will shake up the race for 2008. :)

:kick:

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Apollo11, this will be underplayed by most

...hard core supporters of other candidates here on GD Politics. Most of them honestly don't want any dynamic new candidates entering the Democratic field because that would only complicate matters for whoever it is that they currently support. For them, the Conventional Wisdom that "it is too late for anyone new to enter the race" works to their advantage.

Virtually all of the current candidates have something to be concerned about if Wes Clark or Al Gore should enter the race. Of the current top tier candidates, Hillary Clinton is the one coming closest to offering "seasoned leadership", and Clark or Gore would challange that head on. Both Obama and Edwards are counting on activist support and hoping that their relative lack of "seasoned leadership" will be forgiven by voters who want someone more progressive than Hillary. Gore or Clark entering scrambles that picture for either Edwards or Obama. Biden Richardson and Dodd are trying to somehow break into the first tier of candidates because they can offer "seasoned leadership". If Gore or Clark enter that hope for them will virtually die in my opinion. Kucinich and Gravel are running campaigns to raise issues, so they might acutally welcome strong new voices like Clark's and Gore's in the Democratic debate

[Apollo11]

27. Maybe it's too early for some folks?

Between now and the primaries we can expect that some candidates will drop out and others will enter the race.

Here is where you can watch the recent Charlie Rose interview with Al Gore:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-836879575340595191

My feeling is that Al Gore does not have all that much of an appetite for entering the race.

He is enjoying the freedom he has to call things how he sees them, without worrying about the polls.

For my own personal taste, Clark is maybe too much of a military kinda guy in some of his statements.

But I know that this is exactly what will flip red states and enable us to win back the Whitehouse.

Clark clearly agrees with the current Whitehouse Chief of Staff Andrew Card:
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

I just had a look at Clark's website: www.securingamerica.com

It looks a lot like he is already a candidate for 2008! :)

On May 26th he said that the Iowa caucuses will be even more important this time around.

If Al Gore stays out of this race, I will get behind Wes Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I would be shocked in Gore and Clark don't keep an open line

They share so many views in common about the threats facing America and the world and the best ways to face them. Both men say that they regularly consult with other leading Democrats on issues, it isn't much of a stretch to presume they consult with each other. I am not trying to read more into the following comment other than the logic that leads me to make it but I can't see them BOTH running for President in 2008 AND I can't see NEITHER of them running for President in 2008. For our individual reasons you prefer Al Gore to Wes Clark, while I prefer them in the opposite order, but I would be thrilled to have the opportunity to support either man for President in 2008.

I can understand Al Gore's ambivalecne about running again given that he already has a critical role to play vs the uncertainties of a time consuming Presidential run. Frankly I could understand his decision either way. My stand is: "Draft a Real Leader for President 2008". I think supporters of Al Gore and Wes Clark and maybe some John Kerry supporters also who are not satisfied with the depth of experience presented in the current field of candidates (at least by those who are running as progressives with a chance to win) can agree on something like that. I think John Kerry, bless his heart, needs to spend the required 6 years out of the Presidential spotlight that recyles failed Presidential nominees and prepares the public to reembrace them (like Gore, but something like that worked for Nixon too). In my opinion that only leaves Al Gore and Wes Clark available for the role.

So I encourage both Gore and Clark to enter the race. We will be lucky if we get one, and if we get both I think we can worry about sorting out our differences between supporting one over the other honorably at a later time. That is the type problem I would love to have.

By the way, I believe Clark is being strategic sometimes in his use of military type language. His actual political agenda is probably furthest away from being military of any of our candidates this side of Kucinich. Back in 2004 Clark proposed something very similar to Kucinich's Department of Peace, and Clark is a militant (interesting word, eh?) advocate of diplomacy and international cooperation, including strong support for international institutions. Clark's political anaylisis is that Republicans have succeeded in stealing (likely literally unfortunately) victory from the jaws of defeat in national and individual Congressional elections by playing the fear card associated with "national security" against Democrats. So Clark expanded the definition of national security to include Global Warming, pandemic diseases, political and environmental events like mass starvations and genocides that force large groups of people to seek to migrate from their current homes, etc as national security issues. Clark literally makes the case that fighting A.I.D.'s in Africa has a national security payoff for America. I think it is brilliant personally.

[Apollo11]

30. I can imagine Gore endorsing Clark

Clark is an experienced leader who has consistenly opposed the Bu$h-Cheney administration - including the invasion of Iraq.

I find it difficult to imagine Gore jumping in after Clark. They would be chasing after the same supporters.

I could imagine Gore advising Clark on climate issues, energy and the environment.

Not necessarily in an official (cabinet) capacity. Maybe just as an informal advisor.

As for John Kerry - I think he knows that 2004 was his one shot at the Whitehouse.

There are various reasons why Kerry will never run again for President. His age is one of them.

But a CLARK-OBAMA ticket could hopefully set us up for the next 16 years! :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. This is just my own opinion

I have nothing to support it with other than my imagination, but I suspect that one reason why Wes Clark did not declare earlier for President was to leave time to see if Al Gore would. Clark, like Gore, has an ambition to be President, you can't run for the job without that, but for both men it is not a fiercely burning ambition. Clark's burning ambition, like Al Gore's, is to see effective solutions implemented for the major problems facing our nation and the world. I think if Wes Clark knew that an experienced leader with a sound wholistic progressive vision for America was positioned to run for and win the Presidency, he would not feel a strong need to run himself. Like Al Gore, there are always doors open for Wes Clark to provide important counsel to Democratic leaders on the issues that he is most expert on.

That is why I say that I doubt both men will run but I also doubt that neither man will run. I think Clark looked at the political lay of the land and decided that there would be two windows open for a serious candidate to run for President. The first window closed in February, if he wasn't going to enter by then there was no real point in entering later in the Spring. After February passed, the next window is this Summer, starting in July and running till Labor Day. Clark's positioning suggests that he is eying that window seriously.

A Clark-Obama ticket would be fantastic in my opinion. It would set us up for 16 years of excellent leadership. The only real weakness Obama has is his relative inexperience on the international stage, which would be totally reversed by 8 years as Vice President. Also that ugly little flea of racism that may nip at Obama this time while he is still an untested national leader will also be castrated when even soft racist American whites get 8 years to accustom themselves to a Black American as their leader. I think Obama will be unbeatable if he serves a stint as VP first, which is not to say that I don't think he could win now also if he becomes our nominee, it just would be tougher for him to do so.

[TeamJordan23]

33. Would love to see Obama/Clark ticket. nt

[Apollo11]

34. Sorry - but it would have to be CLARK - OBAMA

That is unless you know of some reason why Barack Obama is not capable of serving 8 years as VP, then 8 years as President, which would take him all the way up until January of 2025 (when he will still be "only" 63 years old).

[joanski0]

45. Thanks. Hurried over to Amazon

and pre-ordered it. I really like the General!

[Apollo11]

46. 4 to 5 months is a very long time in politics

I have been reading some of the more recent posts on this thread.

It is clearly nonsense to say that the start of September is too late for someone like Al Gore or Wes Clark to enter the race and then go on to win the nomination. Both men are already well-known by grassroots democrats. They have nation-wide name recognition, high and rising favorable ratings -- plus low (Clark) or falling (Gore) negatives.

In September, people will be asking themselves some serious questions, like who has the best shot at winning against Rudy Giuliani (for example)? How can Democrats win people's trust on national security issues?

Where was Bill Clinton in September 1991? He hadn't even announced his candidacy yet!

Where was John Kerry in September 2003? He was certainly not leading the field.

If Clark was looking to be Vice-President, why would he title his book "A TIME TO LEAD"?

Wes Clark is ready to run for President in 2008. He will be 63 (64 by the time of the inauguration).

Right now age is not an issue for him. But he cannot wait until 2016.

I honestly believe that if we pick Hillary or Obama, we could end up with Giuliani.

We need a serious, seasoned and experienced candidate who is ready for the Presidency.

We need a candidate who the Republicans cannot paint as weak on defense or soft on terror.

If Gore remains unwilling to run, then we could do a lot worse than Wes Clark.