And Joe Biden recieved rave reviews for his performance at the AFSCME forum, even by those who normally can't stand him.

I've never seen any indication that Biden is concerned about things like the shrinking middle class, outsourcing, and other  income inequality issues dear to the hearts of progressives.  He's a strong voice against the war, but that's about it.

He's not even in the race, has no operation, and his public profiles is fading as the rest of the field takes center stage. This is the last time I include him in either the straw poll or cattle call unless he announces. He's bleeding support in the Daily Kos straw poll as people lose interest and move to other candidates. Given that his big mistake in 2003 was wait too long before entering the race, it's crazy to think that he's going to make the same mistake again (and the race is definitely accelerated this year). So I'm starting to assume he's not going to run.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Kos' analysis on this.

As people get to know Hillary, Barack, and the rest of the Dem candidates, they will cast a roving eye.  And then there is the WAR.  Iraq is going to get extra ugly soon - the U.S. just put more targets in the kill zone.  The snow will be melting in the high passes into Pakistan within weeks.  America will see what incompetent management of a war looks like.  And General Wesley Clark is going to start sounding like a guy with some answers and the resume to back them up.

Kos is wrong. Clark has spent the last 3 years on the talking head circuit.  Americans know him.  He is wise to keep his powder dry and let the other contenders beat one another to a pulp.

The next President will be former military leader. Why?  Because America is at War, and is currently being led by an incompetent civilian leadership. The solution will require a sharp military /diplomatic strategy.  The next President will need to have an understanding of the limits of military force, and clarity about where the fight is.  Wes Clark.

Clark is the real deal.  America knows we are in a tight place.  We are losing a war we should have won - Afghanistan, while fighting a war we should not have been in - Iraq (and losing that too).  But for now, we would rather watch the Hillary, Barack, Brittany, and Anna show.  It is way easier than counting the bodies, amputees, and rape trials.

In a few weeks the war(s)will be trending even worse, America will sober up, and take a hard look.  They will begin looking for someone that might have a clue as to how real war-fighting gets done.  Wes Clark will be there. My Uncle Earl will sit up on the couch, burp, slap his forehead, and say - "shazam!...that boy is just what we need".  Earl doesn't mull things over much, and neither do the majority of Americans.

Please contact me at cycle12atadelphiadotnet.

Thanks!

Steve

If the Iran situation goes more sour, or that idiot Bush launches an attack of some sort, this will serve to make Clark's profile much higher as the only one out of the entire field who is so heavily focused on Iran. 

In March 2006 when I stumbled onto news of Jim Webb's campaign literally by driving past his Jeep parked and painted with his motto on Clarendon Boulevard, all I knew about him was my recollection that he was Reagan's Navy Secretary and an author of books I'd never read and the producer of a movie I'd never seen.  Almost no one I knew even remembered that much about him.  I didn't start paying attention to the race until June or July.  I didn't realize what we had in him as a candidate until the end of July.  And I'm someone who pays attention to politics.  For everyone else he came out of the blue around October. 

People who pay attention to politics know that Clark's out there.  It's his failure to announce which causes his name not to come up much when discussing the candidates; however, he and Gore are the only unannounced yet potential candidates receiving any notice whatsoever.  Get him in there as a candidate and start explaining his positions to people, and see how many who think Hillary is too obnoxious and Obama too liberal and Edwards too opportunistic start getting interested.  Watch the disgusted moderate Republicans who are being asked to choose between either Giuliani, McCain, or Romney start considering a switch to someone who walks enough of their walk to make them think he's not a bad alternative. 

I think Clark is a viable contender if he declares his intentions soon.  The longer he waits, the weaker his chances become.

I would like to see Edwards garner some of the attention.  At this point, I wonder if he is better off letting Hillary and Obama tear each other apart - or if he should get a piece.

From a strategic standpoint, it would make sense for Edwards to go after Hillary on her positions.  I think in an Edwards vs Obama race he would win.  I think Hillary and Edwards are splitting votes. 

Unfortunately, he voted in support of the war so he will need to distinguish himself in another way.  I think he could easily go after her positions regarding economic fairness.

Clark's biggest hurdles would be overcoming his substantial financial deficit, something which I think can be done with a very aggressive grassroots/netroots funding campaign, and the problem with name recognition at the caucuses.  The caucuses of course bring out only the most devout and most committed, which tends to skew results somewhat toward the party favorites, which is where the three leaders are likely to land.  Of course, the disadvantage to these frontrunners may be that enough of the pool of devout and committed voters would be split to allow a darkhorse candidate like Clark to sneak through if there is enough of a turnout by those who are tired of the frontrunners and want someone new or different.  You may say that Obama is different, but the downside of being the party rockstar is that after some time on the scene he'll start looking less different and more like a party regular.  I think it likely that Hillary's campaign will continue to attack him for lack of substance and there will be damage on both sides.  In the end Hillary, Obama, Biden, and Dodd will all come across as typical Northeastern liberals.  Edwards is already under attack for his blogger problem and his humongous estate and status as a very wealthy trial lawyer.  He may talk like a populist, but he looks like a really rich guy. 

Richardson, too, may benefit from such a split, which means that Clark's biggest problem could end up being how to get past Richardson.  If the military situation really sucks by then Clark will have an advantage because he is the only one of the entire pool of candidates who can speak with genuine military authority while possessing strong diplomatic skills on a level similar to Richardson's. 

Another month will be too late.

Thanks!

Steve

Clark's support among the netroots is only fading because he has not yet announced.  I think he would have no trouble rebuilding that support with those who want an alternative to the media-designated lead candidates.  The centrists and Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans are all screaming for an alternative to the current field on both sides of the aisle.  Hillary is strong, but she voted for the war, excites great hostility in some and appears very packaged.  Obama is exciting, but he hasn't got much of a resume.  He leans far more to the left than Clark and may flame out at some point as his political positions become clearer.  Edwards is already making some missteps in his campaign which are likely to haunt him. Dodd is as you say, another Northeast liberal.  Not very exciting, and no real foreign policy chops. 

I really hope also that Clark will run. 

Ed Rollins was on Lou Dobbs a few weeks ago talking about this. He said that the primary season has started way to soon, and that the smart candidate should be laying low right now; everything will be turning into a sideshow fed by 24 hour cable news. (He said this before the Geffin/Hillary/Obama altercation).

Jerry Brown, former California Governor, has also spoken of candidate fatigue. He predicted that by fall, people would become sick and tired of seeing the faces of the front-runners; because the primary  season will have lasted too long.

I think Richardson will be a serious candidate soon.  He's the only Governor in the race, and when his record gets out there, people will admire all the things he's done.  Maybe Chris Dodd.

I have to agree with the recent analysis: Clark will not be seriously competetive with Clinton in the race.  They share the same "support groups" and donors.  Clark even getting in this race only slows down Hillary a bit and maybe gives Obama, Edwards, or Richardson a better shot at the nomination.

I agree with the latest ranking from MSNBC:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Bill Richardson
5. Christopher Dodd

Wes Clark is rated at a whopping number 8.

Clinton and Clark may have shared donors and groups in 2004, but it seems to me there's been plenty of divergence since then.  Even Clinton doesn't have all her supporters from years ago, as witnessed by the whole Geffen foofaraw. Clinton voted for the war and remained a strong supporter until fairly recently.  She will not apologize for her support.  Contrast to Clark, who was against both the Iraq war and is frantically trying to get the country to pay attention to Iran.  Clinton also carries with her certain baggage, such as her support for NAFTA, which Clark does not.  Clinton has the best name recognition and has been running for years.  I don't see her support increasing that much.  It will either remain fairly close to static or start to decrease because most people have heard of her and have already developed an opinion.  And when the opinion is poor, it's VERY poor.  She hasn't really got a lot of new ground to plow.

Sorry, not going to happen. He's a great diplomat and has a great resume but 3 friends of mine have told me things he's done to them personally.

Frankly, after years of a guy who compromised his own chance for greatness through a venal need for self-gratification and another guy who believes he's touched by God and is single-handedly running this country's military into the ground I want someone of unimpeachable character and ability.  Clark is that man. 

He was the subject of some vile attacks in 2004.  I read every attack on him I could find, and then the responses.  So far I have seen nothing of substance calling into question either Clark's character or his abilities.  Almost all the attacks came from one general who had an obvious axe to grind and who REFUSED to provide any details for his opinion, and from those who felt Clark acted too aggressively in Kosovo.  They should tell that to the Armenians he saved from Serb aggression.  Clark got into some trouble for arguing for an intervention to stop the Rwandan genocide.  All that does is raise him in my estimation.  What I see in Clark is a man with a conscience,  who is usually the smartest guy in any given room yet still willing to listen to other voices than his own, and who has not lost touch with the common people.  Born with looks, athletic ability, and brains, he still seems quite approachable and vested in helping others.  Does he know he's the smartest guy in the room?  Sure.  So what?  It doesn't seem to interfere with his essential purpose any more than Webb's knowledge that he's usually the smartest guy in the room interferes with his.

I'm tired of self-absorbed and self-destructive smart guys like Clinton and self-absorbed and outright delusional idiots like Bush.  Give me a smart guy with real passion for duty and service to others, combined with an ability to think independently about how best to achieve his purposes,  and he's got my full support.

This New York Times article discloses what I guessed might be happening within the Christian Right.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 - A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group's influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, despite his efforts to make amends for having once denounced Christian conservative leaders as "agents of intolerance," and to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights and his three marriages.

Many were also suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; the council has been distributing to its members a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. (Mr. Romney has worked to convince conservatives that his views have changed.)

And some members of the council have raised doubts about lesser known candidates - Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, who were invited to Amelia Island to address an elite audience of about 60 of its members, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who spoke to the full council at its previous meeting, in October in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Although each of the three had supporters, many conservatives expressed concerns about whether any of the candidates could unify their movement or raise enough money to overtake the front-runners, several participants in the meetings said.

Finally, in a measure of their dissatisfaction, a delegation of prominent conservatives at Amelia Island tried to enlist as a candidate Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a guest speaker at the event. A charismatic politician with a clear conservative record, Mr. Sanford is almost unknown outside his home state and has done nothing to prepare for a presidential run. He firmly declined the group's entreaties, people involved in the recruiting effort said.

Bwah-hahahahaha

If Clark was in the race right now he would be my top pick, although there are a few others that I could support with some degree of enthusiasm (Obama, Richardson in particular).