The Clark Scenario, revisited

11/24/2003

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.

Posted by Mark Schmitt on 11/24/2003 at 10:47 AM in 2004 elections, Decembrist archives | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You seem to have your heart sent on Clark. Don't you think if Clark's the nominee, Rove will line up a string of retired military guys--at least one a week, maybe one a day--who have some gripe against Clark and will say "I've known Wes since West Point and always had doubts about hisjudgement. He is impulsive and does not have the qualities we need in a commander in chief," and that will completely undermine his whole military leader schtick? You would think the "I'm not going to start World War III for you" comment alone would be enough to fuel endless attack ads. Am I missing something? Or do you just think Clark's so charismatic he could beat this?

By the way, what's up with those promised econ policy posts? Was that just a teaser to keep me checking back?

Posted by: Ali G | 11/24/2003 at 05:39 PM

I think we can be fairly sure that there will be attacks on Clark--just like every other candidate, just like in any other race.

The point that Mark makes is a good one. Clark is an extremely difficult candidate for W to run against. Let me give you an example of why..Even though W's popularity has fallen, there is one point that still nets him 65+% of the population--the concept of 'strong leader'..dont ask me why, dont ask me when, dont ask me how..this is the nation's view. We need to run a candidate against W who comes across as, at the very least, equally as strong. This is Clark's 'supreme advantage' over all the other candidates..As NATO supreme leader, as 4-star general, as a 34-yr stand-and-fight type of man in the army, he is absolutely the GOP's worse nightmare--the most difficult man for W to run against.

A W-vs.Clark race makes null all of W's 'patriotic capital' [if one can call it that] and makes W have to stand and run this race on what he's done...

without Clark, it doesnt matter how bad the deficit is, how many jobs are lost, how poorly iraq is going, what types of environmental destructions were done and will continue, it doesnt matter how much religion enters into government and how little liberty is left in our lives..

W will just say--hey, be happy you're alive...without me--a man who loves America--terror would have engulfed the land by now.

We are extradinarily fortunate that Clark decided to enter the race..b/c as powerful as the above my same--it is completely obliterated with breatheless brevity, by the Supreme Leader himself..

Posted by: none | 12/02/2003 at 03:38 PM