|
Edited on Mon May-07-07 03:40 PM by Ignacio Upton
All of this hoopla over Thompson - an apparent "dark horse" who has the potential to be another Reagan, according to the kool-aid drinkers, is based on the idea that none of the current candidates are satisfying, and that the GOP is doomed in '08 if it doesn't find an alternative.
Sound familiar? In 2003, we were having a similar problem. While Dean became a phenomenon (but not until late on in the year, and rarely with more than roughly the same percentage of support that Hillary has now in polls), the field was otherwise seen as milquetoast at the time. Thus was the beginning of the "Draft Clark" movement, which ran ads and raised money for a possible Wesley Clark candidacy. Clark was branded as someone who could unite the various Democratic factions during the primaries, and who could defy the conventional wisdom (of the beltway_ that Bush was favored to win in 2004.
Unfortunately, Clark made mistakes, which became apparent once he got in. By waiting until September, he deprived himself of time in which to raise cash and hire staff. Despite going on to raise the second-most amount of money after Dean by the end of 2003, Clark still didn't have enough time to mobilize effectively, and had to skip Iowa as a result. While the right may be unsatisfied with Rudy McRomney, Thompson will have the same problem as Clark did four years ago: will a late candidacy hamper him? Also, will he being able to run a smooth campaign once he gets into the field? Personally, I think that the former will be trouble for him (and with recovering from cancer posing as an addition problem), while the later may not, as he does have political experience, while Clark was still a novice in 2003.
|