Another ground-breaking story from AP. People drink and take drugs. Sometimes they drive. Especially teens.

These just kill me.

If you're one of those horrible pre-morning person's, you might want to tune in to DraftWesleyClark.com first thing before the morning. At 6:30 a.m. eastern time, he's going to make a pre-announcement on the web, whatever that means.

If anybody watches, please give us a report in the comments. No way I'm getting up at 4:30.

"Can't write" may sound a bit strong. Strong if you mean, "can't construct a sentence." I mean "can't write a mildly compelling story."

It's amazing how many journalists can't write. Salon just excerpted Tucker Carlson's book, and despite being a lively commentator and a reasonable guy, especially for a conservative, he sure is a bore at the keyboard. Hard to imagine someone making a rape accusation from a mental patient that threatened to shatter his career dull, but he manages. And shows no sense for the language whatsoever in the process.

So much of that going around.

You can "meet" the group here. This year they added video profiles and the audition videos. If you want a real horror show, check out Jon's video profile. The most revolting man alive? Quite possibly.

So far, very little luck at the first two traditional Survivor games, Find the Hottie and Guess the Homo. Not much boyflesh to look at, except maybe--maybe--Burton. Maybe Ryan O. He's a bigger maybe. Shawn probably, but I dislike him a lot already. I hope it's not a season of assholes this time. They've done that occasionally, and it's no fun at all.

 And it could be another homoless season, though I haven't watched them all.

Update: Finally got Burton's video to run. I think I might like him. Maybe a lot. And he looks yummy too. The other ones I've seen make my skin crawl.

Update 2: I finally got the page created for recent Survivor posts. This is the only one so far, but soon there will be many, many more. For all my recent posts on Survivor going forward, click here, or generally wherever you see the word Survivor highlighted.

So if Clark catches fire--which may or may not happen, but I'm betting at least 70-30 that it will--who does it help, who does it hurt among the other nine?

I'm combing the web for analysis, and CBS News seems to be first out, with an extremely lightweight analysis, but at least it begins to pose some of the questions. Here are the only mildly interesting parts:

Political observers have speculated that Clark's candidacy could reduce the impact of Kerry's Vietnam veteran status, which he's touted as a key to handling national security issues. Gibbs said Kerry's military record combined with his legislative experience as a senator still makes him the most qualified candidate on national security. . . .

It's not just Kerry who could be hurt by Clark. Democrats say the entire field is vulnerable; in particular, Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose candidacy caught fire due, in part, on his opposition to the war against Iraq. But Clark, a retired four-star general and former NATO supreme commander, also opposed the war and has a sterling military record to go along with his opposition.

"He's like Howard Dean with credibility," said one senior Democratic strategist. "He's anti-war and a fresh face and, of course, his resume matches the post-9/11 world perfectly."

Surely not by coincidence, word of Clark's entry into the race crossed the wires just minutes before North Carolina Sen. John Edwards took the stage for his formal campaign announcement, and the news quickly sucked the oxygen out of the political world.

As one senior Democrat put it: "The theme of Edwards' campaign today is not being the son of a mill worker. … It's horrible, awful timing. First, his announcement is upstaged by a hurricane and then, again, by Clark."

Other, better stories will follow, and I'll try to post several.

I'll also add my own thoughts shortly.

Nice timing from Richard Goldstein. His Village Voice column on Clark--The Great Butch Hope--appeared within hours of the announcement of Clark's impending announcement.

And it's thoughtful and insightful as Richard generally is. A glimpse:

Gender is the great unspoken force in American politics. It's every bit as powerful as race and class, perhaps more so because it seldom gets addressed. The fear and loathing that feminism inspires in many men (most of whom won't admit their terror) have enabled the Republicans to adapt the racial strategy that won them the South to the contours of sexual politics. The result is a gender gap in which straight white men root for Republicans while women and minorities lean Democratic. This alignment is the reason why Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote. . . .

You can bet your brewski that Democratic strategists are searching for a candidate with the right kind of masculine presentation, one that seems nurturing to women and reassuring to men. This is where Clark comes in. If Clinton was a bottom-feeding Rhett Butler, Clark is Ashley Wilkes. And because he's struggled for his genteel bearing, the way folks who rise in the military often do, it looks much more accomplished than Bush's G.I. George act.

It surprises me that so few people are focusing on this gender/machismo angle. I think it's huge, and I addressed it a few weeks ago in a piece called Who really makes Karl Rove pull the covers up over his head?

I really like the way Richard concluded his piece. Why does the media always focus on relative trivialities prescription drug benefits, and lose sight of the real forces like this one?:

Maybe I'm fronting for my own retreat, but I've come to believe the revolution that endures is the one that happens slowly. And if Clark can make America see the difference between macho and masculinity—that is, between a defensive response to women and a confident one—he just might earn the ultimate star, as commander in chief.

Man, this is exciting. (Clark jumping in tomorrow--apparently.) 

Which will be stronger? The power of his appeal, or the logistical realities of the calendar? Can't wait to see it all play out.

And then there is the other question: Will a guy who seems so appealing on CNN and in the pages of a bestseller come off the same on the stump? And in the soundbites and the TV ads? Or will he just prove to be another John Edwards?

I think the answer to the second question will answer the first. If he really does work as a candidate, and really does set hearts ablaze, the rest will take care of itself.

It's really going to happen.

Just off the (AP) wire:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Sept. 16--Wesley Clark, the retired general with a four-star military resume but no political experience, decided Tuesday to become the 10th Democratic presidential candidate, officials close to him said.

He's made his decision and will announce it tomorrow in Little Rock, said Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for Clark. The announcement will be made at 1 p.m. ET Wednesday in Arkansas, sources said. . . .

Fabiani, who served as spokesman for former Vice President Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, is part of a cadre of former Gore and Bill Clinton advisers, who are now rallying behind Clark. In addition to Fabiani, among those attending the meeting were Ron Klain, a strategist in Al Gore’s 2000 campaign; Washington lawyer Bill Oldaker; Vanessa Weaver, a Clinton appointee; Skip Rutherford, a Clinton fund-raiser who lives here; George Bruno, a New Hampshire activist; and Peter Knight, a Washington lobbyist and longtime Gore fund-raiser. Bruce Lindsey, former White House aide and now an Arkansas lawyer, also backs Clark.

This should be fascinating to watch. Other than the conquering heros like Grant and Eisenhower, when was the last time a general made a series run at the white house? And when was the last time a general thought of running as a Dem?

And this guy is so wise, articulate, insightful and charismatic, he might have set the field on fire if he had spent a year kindling like Howard Dean did. But is there time left to raise the money, build the infrastructure and gain the momentum? Just as political spectator sport, it couldn't be more interesting a scenario to set up. Plus I really admire the guy. Buckle your seatbelts . . .

Update:

Very good discussion of the Clark candidacy going on at DailyKos, as always. A Steven J Berke there writes: "The Democrats last nominated a general in 1880--Winfield Scott Hancock, a heroic fighting (Union) Civil War General at Gettysburg and other battles. Lost to James Garfield by a few hundred popular and a few dozen electoral votes. . ." I'll take his word for it for now. Posters are pretty reliable there. I can't vouch for it yet, but it's the best info I have so far.

A top aide just baled. Don't you have to wonder how it feels to be in that campaign right now? Wondering if you really picked the right horse to ride in?

From AP:

     John Kerry's communications director has resigned over differences about the direction of the Democrat's presidential campaign.
    Chris Lehane's departure comes amid speculation of a wider shake-up in the Kerry campaign, which has been torn by internal fights and a lack of public support for the candidate.
    Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts senator once considered the leading contender in a nine-person field, has seen his campaign eclipsed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

And if you prefer a slightly duller account, check out NYT.

Tuesday afternoon update:

Finally some good news for Kerry Tuesday afternoon. The wonderful California Sen. Dianne Feinstein has managed to lose her head and endorse Kerry. She must really like the guy. Seems an odd time to be boarding this leaky boat.

From AP:

Feinstein is the state's senior senator and arguably the most popular politician in vote-rich California. She is one of only two senators to endorse Kerry's presidential bid so far the other being his Massachusetts colleague, Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Endorsements don't mean much anymore in obtaining boats, but they sure can help with credibility in a wobbly campaign. That's probably why she did it now--at some risk to her own political situation. Good for her. Now if the guy could just get his act together. He is really going to be in trouble with Clark stealing his war-hero thunder, the only thing he had working for him.

Announcement expected Wednesday or Thursday, but they're just ironing out the details now.

From Tuesday's W Post:

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark summoned a group of potential political, fundraising and legal advisers to Little Rock yesterday to discuss his possible run for the presidency, according to several people familiar with the meeting.

Clark, who has flirted with running for months, is highly likely to become the 10th Democrat to seek the nomination to challenge President Bush in 2004, his friends said. An announcement is expected Wednesday or Thursday, but Clark first wants to determine if he can put together a presidential-caliber team this late in the game, which is the purpose of today's meetings in Little Rock, his friends said.

AP went much further, with this line: "One of the invitees said he was told it was “a 99 percent certainty” that Clark would run, but he wanted to finalize plans at today’s session."

Had an incredible time. And a little bit of drama.

Will fill you in Tuesday in the p.m.