I take Clark's committment to working with the Democratic majority in Congress to head off a widening conflict in the Middle East very seriously, and almost 10% of our Democratic Senators are now running for President, needing to suck up as much media coverage of themselves and their own positions as possible. Factor in that many other Senators are closely alligned with one of the Democratic Senators who is running, and it is easy to see how much more complicated it will be for Wes Clark to stay out of their limelight while working with Congress to find solutions once he is a declared candidate.
Clark is walking a tightrope on his timing for entering. By the calender, it still is very early for the Presidential field to finalize, with the first contest over 11 months away. When Clark entered in September of 2003 he had no organization whatsoever in place, and he knew relatively few Democratic officials and office holders at any level. All of that is different now, even Clark's grassroots supporter network is highly seasoned for this time around. So in a concrete sense, I think it makes little difference if Clark declares in one week or four weeks, and the differenece between one and four weeks could be Clark having three more effective weeks working with the new Democratic majority on some critically important issues. That is a big deal to him.
On the other hand there are perceptions, and perceptions drive reality some times. If too many people conclude that Clark is not going to run, or that it is too late for him if he does run, that will set Clark back in initial support, and all things being equal, no set backs are good. If all Clark cared about was how best to ace his chances to become President, I think deciding sooner rather than later, meaning within one week rather than within five weeks, though I know some Clarkies feel otherwise (for reasons like let the other "guys" beat each other up for awhile- and other arguments). But I also know that his personal ambitions run a distant second to his desire to do what is best for the nation, which is a large part of why I am such a strong Clark supporter. For me it is a complete no brainer, I will wait for Clark to declare one way or the other and I will support him if he runs.
I think if Clark makes that Nevada event you can take it to the bank that he is running for President, no if's ands or buts. If he doesn't, it doesn't mean the opposite but it obviously allows the uncertainty to continue. Clark got one free pass from the Democratic Party and the rest of the field by being allowed to speak at the DNC Winter Meeting even though he had not declared his intentions. Probably because Dean pushed for allowing him in for any number of reasons that I can only guess at, and because it really was such a unique opportunity for candidates to address the entire Democratic Party. The event in Nevada is not at that level, it is one of many such candidate forums that will be happening non stop from now on. I doubt any of the other candidates would stand for Clark attending it if he has not already laid his cards on the table.
Regarding needing to assemble staff and a fear that all the best staff will be gone, funny how that is not a fear expressed about Al Gore should he later enter the race. There are many good staffers potentially still out there, though not all of them already have a strong national reputation. Kerry got the pick of the litter when he was the Democratic candidate for President and he might have been better off with a runt. Here is the big difference for Clark this year compared to 2004. Clark knows what he wants and needs in a campaign staff now, having been through this once before, but he didn't in 2004.
In 2004 Clark had to quickly sift through the list of remaining possible staff with previously established national reputations, who were still available, there was no other pool that Clark then had access to and/or was equipped to look through. Think back to 1992. For the most part Bill Clinton didn't have a campaign staff made up of high profile Democratic operatives then, he came to the game with his own Little Rock mafia staff, and the beltway pundits didn't hold them in the highest respect. George Stephanopoulos, Clinton's deputy campaing manager, was a young very new kid on the block back then. And what about James Carville? Wikipedia says this about the ragin' cajun":
"James Carville (born October 25, 1944), is an American political consultant, commentator, and pundit. Also known as the "Ragin' Cajun" or "Corporal Cueball", Carville gained national attention for his work as the strategist of the successful 1992 presidential campaign of then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. (David Wilhelm was the campaign manager.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_CarvilleIn other words, James Carville at this point prior to the 1992 Presidential Election was virtually an unknown political operative. And read this about Mickey Cantor (written after Clinton became our nominee):
"Mickey Kantor, the savvy Westside politico-lawyer who is serving as the Arkansas governor's overall campaign manager...
... On the campaign side, Kantor chaired the drive that first put Alan Cranston in the U.S. Senate, ran the unsuccessful presidential bid of ex-California Gov. Edmund "Jerry" Brown Jr. in 1976 and spearheaded the failed Golden State White House drives of both Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale."
http://chipjacobs.com/a_ifclintonwins.html Back then, but even more so before Clinton actually won the Democratic nomination, Kantor wasn't exactly seen as a winning political dynamo. For example there was this story in the Newe York Times about him:
THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Campaign Staff; A Veteran Insider in Clinton's Camp
By RICHARD L. BERKE
June 7, 1992
Gov. Bill Clinton's campaign chairman is a prominent lawyer-lobbyist here who is best known for his first-hand and repeated experience at running failed Democratic races for the White House. The losing streak of the chairman, Mickey Kantor, began in 1976, when he headed the Presidential campaign of Edmund G. Brown Jr., then Governor of California. Four years later, as state chairman for President Jimmy Carter's re-election effort, he watched the White House slip from Democratic control."
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/mickey_kantor/index.html?s=oldest&But here is the key that worked for Bill Clinton in 1992, and will work for Wes Clark in 2008. Clinton was able to identify a group of campaign staff who understood his strengths as a candidate, and who Clinton in turn knew and understood back. Clinton brought a team into the game that he was comfortable working with, something Wes Clark was unable to do in 2004. It didn't matter to Clinton whether or not the beltway pundits were impressed with his staff yet, what mattered to Clinton was that he was impressed with his staff, and that they knew how to work together well. If Clark runs in 2008 I am quite confident that he will assemble a superb staff for his campaign, and if those that don't have big positive national reputations now, will sure as hell have them after Clark's campaign really starts rolling.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
-- the FOUNDER of the original Draft Clark is now working with the Obama team.
