Gen. Wesley Clark-- A Time to Lead

I strongly suspect he is running partly based on his rhetoric and behavior (both of which are that of a candidate) and partly based on some semi-inside info I have heard. As of 2 months ago he was definitely gearing up to run.

Having said that, he seems to have quieted down, if anything, since then. Either he wants to be a late entry or he is having second thoughts...or is getting offers. My bet is if he DOESN'T get in (and maybe even if he does) and if Hillary wins the nomination, Clark will be VP. I think it far less likely he will be VP if any of the other candidates get the nomination.

Interestingly, way back when I blogged all of this some months ago (you might want to look back at what is already blogged before asking), I mentioned that he would compete most with Hillary and, because of that, boost Obama. People didn't like my saying that! If you are correct in your analysis that he is aiming at Hillary, my analysis is probably correct.

Personally I am not a big fan of Clark. I think, like Hillary, he would make a perfectly good president, but he would not be my first choice.

Wes Clark's great contribution to forward thinking in politics was in 04: "It was wrong then and it's wrong now." War, as we studied it in history books is past, in my judgment. It was, as soon as the world understood what VJ Day signified. Since then the US has had a number of excursions and two colossal mistakes. To quote a recent president: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The offspring of the Baby Boomers yielded too little influence to stop the train wreck. But they have been influenced by what is happening to the Third Rock from the Sun. I also remember telling you once that the reason Viet Nam could happen was because the returning GIs in 45 were so intent on nest building that they couldn't see the fallacies of government--McCarthy, Cold War rhetoric, etc.
The Boomers, divided in Dubya/Kerry fashion, still represent the nation in Congress. One of them is saying what is wrong. That's Al Gore who is not interested in running, I believe. He said at a book appearance that what the political conversation needs is a real dialogue, and then in his wonkish fashion he explained the hardware which will make that possible as mass media.
In a year when it is alleged that McCain is too old to run, and the use of YouTube has leapfrogged over yahoogroups of 04, it is obvious that the candidates dream of a huge youth turnout. Worried about the health of the Third Rock from the Sun, leaves that crowd with the desire to elect anyone willing to promise healthcare and tuition. Most will consider war to be a silly way to bring democracy, because if you kill people they can't vote. It's one of those Republican paradigms which gives Ron Paul traction. And for us Dems, we have to wonder what we would do if Obama hadn't come along.
I've just listed three also-rans. Clark, Gore and McCain. Hillary, if she wants two terms, must realize she has no time to waste.
It could be worse in Iran where there is such a preponderance of under-25.

Post script: In the US 20% of the population is over 85. I do not apologize for messing up the Social Security trust fund, but I do think that Youth have a different calculation of the budget when they see greatgrandmothers blogging for less war.

I have my doubts that the primary voters in the democratic party would ever nominate someone from, or who had been part of, the military leadership establishment. Too many democratic rank and file voters are highly suspicious of the military brass in this country, and would be likely to think that anybody who has spent that many years in the Pentagon couldn't be that progressive, nor could they possibly be as open to cutting military or defense spending in favor of social spending. Clark seems progressive, it may be who is, but he can't change what he is, and that is military.

Also I see it as very difficult for someone in Clark's position to win because unless you are billionaire and can buy support, you really need an electoral base. You've got to have supporters, base from which to start. Clark skipped Iowa four years ago I think in part because he had no base nor political history, and thus no network of elected officials and democratic party reps there to make winning caucuses feasible. He can't run in Iowa this time for the same reasons, and also because the voters there don't forget and won't forgive him for skipping out four years ago. If he can't compete in Iowa, he'll never win New Hampshire because voters there expect candidates to be paying their dues in both big early states. Without Iowa or New Hampshire, where does he start from, where does he get his momentum thus enabling him to raise money?

So I think you're right, he might be running to set himself up for a shot to be Hillary's (or Obama's) vice president. He petitioned Kerry four years ago for the job, he wants it. But what I've heard indicates he may not get it, as Mark Warner has skipped the race himself and turned down other offers to be available to be Hillary's #2 and Virginia is a more crucial state in the general election than Arkansas so it probably makes more sense.

They are friends and now that Hillary is the third leg of the stool, it makes sense to talk about DLC. Where is the strength in the spectrum from DLC to PDA?

Wesley Clark or Hillary Clinton would make a fine president. They both have EXPERIENCE and the correct MODERATE THINKING to run the United States of America. If Hillary wins the nomination, she should choose Clark as VP or Secretary of State.

Obama on the other hand is a joke and is merely too inxperienced and overrated to run the World's Superpower.

I lived in Chicago from the time of the first Mayor Daley in 55 to after he was dead. There are those who cite Chicago politics as ruthless and unsavory. No city was happier when JFK won, and JFK knew what he was referring to when he told us that his father said he would help pay for the presidency but not a landslide. There lingered stories of some ballots lost in Lake Michigan.
Be that as it may, Obama is stuck with a certain persona ala big city machine politics. It's therefore relevant that his start at the state level is attached to a developer in legal trouble. One thing is also relevant and that is Bobby Rush beat him out in his first big foray into politics. Then he took a new elocution lesson and learned how to be folksy. There is no way he could not know folk language after being a community activist in Chicago. And there is no way that he cannot recall the history of Jesse Jackson, Sr. and his contention for a presidential nomination. I don't compare the background of the two in any way, but many will. (Jess Jackson, Jr. seems to be more up-to-date and perhaps is doing a good job for his constituents.)
So how Obama relates to the rest of the country comes from three experiences: Harvard Law School, International upbringing and the small tussle he's had with opponents. He conceded that his route to the Senate was all but certain, because the Republicans couldn't even find a candidate who really was eager.
In the current environment, it appears to me that the "just folks" part of the country are not going to be swayed by old "base" arguments from either side. I guess I finally wonder whether Barack really understands that he has not lived in the "just folks" places. I give him credit working rural Iowa. But I doubt if that will make him a strong contender because his biography to date is shallow on achievement. He easily made it into politics and he seems to have a vision of what he thinks the country should be about, but he is so short on practical issues. What will he do when someone wants to eliminate a military base in Illinois? What will he say when there is a direct question about reshaping the military? Yes, I think he's a little short on understanding what a president is up against.
Now take Hillary. She lived politics as a teenager, cheerleading for Goldwater. Then she arrived at Nixonian realities and is a Democrat by all measures. But she is also the triangulating kind. Playing it safe is the opposite of Obama. My question for her is "Where is the vision?" As for Clark, we know we have a man who wants to have a tidy military which can arise to any occasion, but not limited to hot wars. I suppose he knows how hard it would be to close bases. He is not a serious contender in my view, but will surely help out where needed. He soldiers on and should be thanked for setting a different tone in 2004.
When all is said and done, I don't really know who should be president. But I do know that this year the Democrats in Congress should think of how much liex ahead to be done just to correct some colossal mistakes made in this century.

If you look at the latest ARG numbers for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, which they update every month and tend to be fairly accurate, you can see a few things.

First off, in Iowa, Obama is weak at the moment. He is polling at 13%, to Hillary's 32% and Edwards 29%. He is much weaker in Iowa than in the other states. The reason seems to stem from the fact that in Iowa independents can't vote in the caucuses, so the "likely caucus goer" sample they call are all democrats, most party regulars who always caucus. Obama is doing much MUCH better in New Hampshire, where independents can vote in the democratic primary, with 25% (to Hillary's 34% and Edwards 11%) and South Carolina (21% to 37% for Hillary and 22% for Edwards)

This seems to indicate that Obama's strength is in independent voters and non-party regular democrats, the kind who don't vote in every election but will come out if they are super-charged about a candidate. This strength is made clear from the fact that Obama is in first place in fundraising. He seems to be raising a lot more money outside the democratic party, outside the establishment, than Hillary or Edwards. The kind of money Obama has raised will keep him a major player for a long time. He's got the money to play the Caucus game full throttle in Iowa, bringing in people from neighboring Illinois to the eastern part of the state in droves no doubt on caucus day. The problem is that Hillary's vote is solid in Iowa. Six months ago in the ARG poll sample, she was at 31%, in the latest sample taken June 30th, she is at 32%. Her numbers aren't changing. If the Clintons' party establishment creds and connections are guaranteeing them more a third of the caucus vote, as these samples suggest (assuming she gets even a point or two from the 14% still listing as undecided), then she isn't going to lose a three-way race there. She could lose Iowa in a two way race, if Edwards dropped out, or conversely, if Obama dropped out. But otherwise, with no independents voting in Iowa only party regulars, she's going to win.

Given that Obama probably has to win New Hampshire. He is doing well there too, gained ten points from May's poll (from 15% to 25%), showing that he must have scored points in the debate there. The problem again is that Hillary's numbers are solid, she had 27% in the first survey in December and has 34% now, her numbers haven't really wavered. That is probably again the party loyalist vote. But in New Hampshire, the independent vote is there to be had, and Edwards is weak in NH, at 11%, suggesting the possibility of a two person race there if he doesn't win Iowa and get momentum, and Obama can beat Hillary in a two person race in NH.

Hillary is also well ahead in SC, but the same dynamic holds that she wins a three-way race but could easily lose a two-way where the independent vote and anti-hillary party vote combine.

Obama absolutely still has a chance, but I think he needs to take out Edwards in Iowa. He doesn't need to win Iowa, he needs to finish ahead of Edwards, force him out, and get Hillary in a one-on-one contest in the other states.

Shapiro figures that Florida's coming in early puts all contenders in a different agenda. Any thoughts? If you don't subscribe, you can watch ads and read this short article.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/02/primaries/print.html

Florida election mayhem for 2008

How the home of hanging chads, Katherine Harris and butterfly ballots is shaking up the Democratic primary.

By Walter Shapiro

when he is confident that his support is ample to enable him to make a good run; he said so much on Charlie Rose.

Let him know of your support.

The book will be out in September. General Clark will discuss and autograph his MEMOIR, "A TIME TO LEAD" at 7 PM on September 19, 2007

Barnes and Nobel, Lincoln Center @ 1972 Broadway (66th Street on the #1 Subway