The Clark Scenario, revisited

The pieces are starting to fall into place for my earlier scenario about how General Clark could actually use New Hampshire to get his campaign moving, and may not have to wait for South Carolina:

-- Gephardt seems to have regained his advantage in Iowa, which means Dean may not "run the table" of the first two contests. (The Des Moines Register poll, which gives Gephardt a 5 point advantage, is the reliable poll in Iowa, because they are the closest to figuring out who will actually participate in the caucuses. The Daily Kos defends a Surveys USA poll, even though it is based on automated telephone calls, on the grounds that "the last SUSA Iowa poll was a harbinger of Gep's Summer and Fall surge in Iowa." But all that means is that there were some other polls that showed Gephardt ahead also, not that the poll was confirmed by any actual caucus results, which are determined by the very complicated question of who is going to show up.)

-- There's no floor underneath John Kerry. There was never really any logic to his candidacy other than "he's electable because he served in Vietnam, and has a face for Mount Rushmore" and he hasn't found anything more than that yet. At 17%, he's got a lot of ground to make up in New Hampshire before he's even got a lock on second place. It shouldn't be impossible for Clark, having now figured out what goes into being a presidential candidate, to put together the campaign that reaches independents who vote Democratic, plus Democrats unpersuaded by Dean, to get past Kerry, or a close enough third that it will still be the big story of the day.

But in the circles I move in, I'm amazed by how quickly really negative attitudes about Clark have taken hold, almost as much as about Lieberman. He's the "candidate of the military-industrial complex" one person told me. "I'm afraid he's another Arianna," another said, meaning Arianna Huffington's switch from Gingrich-right to Beatty-left. (I don't know Clark, but I do know Arianna Huffington, and I think I can say with confidence that he's no Arianna, and not merely because there can only be one Arianna!)

There's a lot to be said about this, but the one point that liberals ought to remember when they buy into some story about Clark is that everything negative you read about him has been generated by the Bush White House. Period. Even if it's in the New Yorker. He's the only candidate Karl Rove has to bring down now, and he is doing it, using the military as necessary. Not that Clark's perfect, not that he hasn't said some awkward things and taken some surprising positions. But if people keep perspective, and separate out the real reasons to worry about his candidacy from the dirt coming from the White House, he remains a very interesting voice, with some good skills, a career of public service, and a persuasive clarity about what's gone wrong in this country, in both domestic and foreign policy, that doesn't come across as purely negative.