Dave Cullen: clarkstoryoftheday

Clark's surging poll numbers

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:52:45 GMT

We may be getting a two-man race after all.

While Dean looks more and more inevitable under most reasonable scenarios, Wes Clark is finally making his moves in the polls--nationally, and in New Hampshire.

The latest national poll showing striking gains comes from Rasmussen (via Kos -- Kos has everything politico). Dean is still ahead, but not by much. In the past week, Clark has gained four points--from 13-17--but it's mostly been at Dean's expense. They've gone from a 10-point gap to just 4.

And Clark is definitely solidifying his position as The Dean Alternative. A week ago he was just a point ahead of two rivals, now he's virtually double the closest competitor (other than Dean).

In New Hampshire, Clark is way, way further behind, but gaining much faster. The ARG tracking poll shows him gaining 8 points in the past week, from 12% to 20%. A bit of that has come from Dean, who dropped from 39% to 35%. Dean still holds an extraordinary margin of nearly two-to-one, but that's a lot better for Clark than more than three-to-one.

Perhaps more importantly, he has also emerged as the clear Dean Alternative in New Hampshire. He finally passed quasi-favorite-son Kerry for second place in the past week, and already commands double his support (20% to 10%). Voters there seem to be giving up on Kerry, and flocking to Clark.

You can see the latest numbers and a little analysis from ARG here, or the day-by-day movement here.

Why the sudden surge? I can't explain the timing, but I've always thought Wes Clark was a force to be reckoned with, and perhaps he finally got his pitch right and started connecting. (Or maybe it's those new sweaters that so much of the media seems to be mesmerized by. They made the front page of the Times last week.)

It probably also has something to do with all the flack Dean has been taking. The competition finally circled him this month and trained all the ammo they had on the same guy. And maybe supporters of the other guys have finally realized how hopeless their candidacies are and moved on to someone with a plausible chance to beat Dean--or Bush. Or was it the Madona endorsement?

In New Hampshire, Kos has been offering another reason the past several days: aside from the impotent force of Joe Lieberman, Clark has the whole state to himself. The rest of the pack is battling it out in Iowa, and those two skipped the state to focus on New Hampshire. Sounds reasonable. Doesn't account for his entire pickup--especially since everyone is still running TV ads--but some of it.

But one week from today, Iowa could change everything. If Dean can upset Gep on his home turf, he'll get a huge boost going into New Hampshire, and may well stop Clark's rise dead in its tracks. If he fails, the Stop Dean idea could gain momentum. He'll suddenly look much less invincible.

Either way, Clark will be frozen out of the media coverage, unless the press decides to run with the Dean Is Crumbling storyline, and chooses Clark as his potential vanquisher.

Every day the picture changes, but every day it leads more to the same conclusion: everything could hinge on Iowa.

Which leads me to one more plug for joining me in Iowa to make sure Dean wins. I had not intended to do it in this post, but since I ended up here:

Go here to sign up to join the Iowa assault, whether or not you want to be part of my (gay) subgroup. Then, if you want to join our big gay army (for dean), use our GROUP ID NUMBER is 1121 and our GROUP NAME RAINBOW STORM. Or read my pitch on why I'm going here.)

___

Note: Edwards has also surged out of obscurity in the national, NH and Iowa polls the past week, but he's still far behind a shitload of others. Way too little, too late for him.

Update:

Kos just added new poll numbers from SUSA adding more confirmation to Clark's rise.

They show Clark leaping ahead by seven points in Arizona--a key primary the week after New Hampshire--and a much tighter race than the other polls in New Hampshire. There they have Dean falling ten points since Dec 14-16, and Clark rising 15 in the same time. SUSA's latest NH results (previous results in parenthesis:

Dean 35 (45)

Clark 26 (11)

Kerry 13 (15)

Bad timing for Wes Clark

Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:08:01 GMT

Wesley Clark didn't ask to testify at Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial, he was called by the prosecution. But he will be the most senior U.S. official to testify, and it did offer a nice boost for his campaign--well beyond the price of losing a few days during a crucial month.

From an AP story just posted about his first day of testimony:

"The fact that Wesley Clark is going to testify in the middle of the primaries is fairly amazing," said professor Michael Scharf, the author of several books on the tribunal.

"Clark is gambling that this will give him national and international press attention just at the time he needs it for the primaries. It will enable him to look very patriotic, very presidential," he said in a telephone interview.

But timing is everything. A week ago, it might have grabbed major press attention. The morning after Saddam's capture, a footnote.

Major bummer for him. But the story is kind of interesting, by AP standards. (It's mostly about the trial, not the campaign). You might have a look.

Clark says Dean can't win

Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:38:04 GMT

Mildly disturbing/annoying Salon cover story today, titled:

Clark: Howard Dean can't win

Key quote:

"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president."

I don't think that's going to help us beat Bush, but I guess he's gotta do what he's gotta do. The electability issue is about the only card Wes Clark seems to have at the moment. Not a strong card, but maybe a card.

New ads for Wes Clark, big push on Feb 3 strategy

Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:41:42 GMT

Wesley Clark is really counting on winning a bunch of the Feb. 3 primaries. Big new ad-buy continues to indicate that strategy.

He must be praying Gephardt will deprive Howard Dean of a one-two Iowa-New Hampshire punch, or at least that he doesn't use it to roll over the next round. It could get really interesting if Dean wins the first two, but then Clark wins several the next week.

Of course the problem of that scenario is this is such a momentum game, it's going to be very hard for Clark to pull that off if Dean gets both the first two. Maybe he thinks that if he goes into NH night leading enough in following-week states, the press won't write him off and his lead won't crumble.

Risky strategy, but all he's got at this point.

Highlights from AP:

Clark's campaign is spending about $200,000 in each state -- South Carolina and Oklahoma beginning Tuesday and Arizona later this week -- to run his 60-second biographical ad that highlights his military career. . .

Campaign advisers say internal polling shows Clark either tied with or leading candidates at the top of polls in those states, and the ads are meant to boost voter knowledge of Clark, who entered the campaign Sept. 17.

Clark opts in to public financing

Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:18:23 GMT

Well, that's the end of his chances against Shrub.

Maybe not, but that definitely tips the balance toward Howard Dean as the stronger competitor to Bush. Dean would be able to spend all spring and summer, Wes Clark would not.

But it will help Clark get through the primaries, assuming voters don't chose on that basis--and I doubt many will, but Dean has been expert before at making powerful issues out of important issues most people never paid attention to.

From AP:

Clark Opts Into Presidential Public Financing System
Kerry Close to Decision on Opting Out

... The decision announced Thursday means Clark will be limited to $45 million in overall primary spending and face state-by-state spending caps. He will be eligible for up to about $19 million in government funding, money that would have been hard to make up given his late fund-raising start.

"It's a pragmatic decision at this point," Clark said Friday morning in Concord, N.H., where he officially filed for the Jan. 27 primary. "Maybe if lightning strikes, I'd have to reconsider." . . .

Clark has been seeking to capitalize on Dean's decision to opt out of the post-Watergate system. Clark campaign chairman Eli Segal sent a donor appeal Thursday noting Dean's recent decision and the possibility that Kerry will follow.

That's crappy: give someone more chance to beat Dean for the nom--I see him as the only real threat to Dean--but then weaker to knock off the real enemy if he does. Wes Clark needs to reconsider.

Good story on the state of Wes Clark's campaign

Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:18:41 GMT

Lengthy piece by Joanna Weiss in today's Boston Globe:

Late entry, strong start, long haul

Clark searching for momentum

It's thoughtful, insightful and nicely balanced. The good news for Wes Clark:

Events of the past week present an opportunity for Clark. As Dean consolidates support, his opponents within the party leadership might be moved to settle on an alternative they deem more electable. And as Senator John F. Kerry's campaign struggles to find a footing, Clark, with his southern roots and foreign policy background, could be in a position to fill that role.

Yup. That's definitely his opening. And that's why I've been so gleeful about Kerry's fade. I'm a big Howard Dean supporter as you probably noticed by now, but the guy needs to be tested, needs to be toughened up as much as possible. The last year and a half of campaigning have made him so much stronger than he started out, but he's going to need all he can get going up against Karl Rove.

And I love Wesley Clark, too, and I'd like to see the two go head to head, and may the strongest challenger win. All those other guys I've had a look at: they're way too weak to take on an incumbent. So let's duke it out boys, let's get those dwarves out of the way so Dean and Clark can mix it up one on one.

Back to the Globe piece: Nice capsule of the current strategy, which you're probably aware of:

Aides hope to finish third or a close fourth in New Hampshire, where they will start running their first television ads within weeks. But they see their make-or-break day a week later, on Feb. 3, when seven states will hold primaries. Some of Clark's staffers are dispersing to the states he mentioned, hoping to establish him as an alternative to Dean, whose Yankee demeanor could play poorly in the South and West.

The problem with the strategy:

But some political analysts say the Feb. 3 strategy is a gamble, because the primary process relies on momentum: Strong finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire could propel Dean toward success down the line.

The real challenge:

The rigors of a three-decade Army career might color Clark's public persona, as well. He's no firebrand on the stump. His debate performances have been cautious. By nature, he is inclined to long answers instead of digestible soundbites. Aides have dubbed his town hall meetings "Conversations with Clark," but they can be one-sided; at a Georgia event last week, Clark talked for so long that there was time for only two questions from the audience.

And some Clark supporters say they ache to see more personality and humor in Clark's earnest public appearances.

"I just think he's so cerebral that it's hard for him," said Ostroy, the Manhattan supporter. "Sometimes people like that, they never turn it off. They're always being that bright guy, and they never just get down and dirty and yuk it up. . . . You just want to put your arm around him and say, `Wesley! Lighten up, dude!' "

That's what it's all about. All the damn beltway boys always get so damn bogged down in the process. All that takes care of itself if somebody really sparks the public imaginaton. Or it can.

Frank Rich nails the press and the pres on Iraq

Sun, 09 Nov 2003 15:38:59 GMT

Really nice column this morning from Frank Rich, as usual. He returned to the NYT's Sunday Arts section earlier this year, where he has been even better than he was on the op-ed page. If you have not been reading his column, you're missing out. You can find it on the paper copy, or free online for a week. Every Sunday.

(And I have a special link to him in the left column. It's a dynamic search which always brings up his most recent work, latest on top.)

The title of today's piece--Pfc. Jessica Lynch Isn't Rambo Anymore--thoroughly turned me off. I have seen and read far too much about that bit player already. But of course he transcended 99% of what had been written before, and used the coverage of her story to tell a much broader tale.

My favorite moment, concerning the suprisingly accurate documdrama NBC is airing tonight:

What does it say that "Saving Jessica Lynch" is more candid than much of the reportage on the war?

And the reason comes just a few lines later:

The movie even pays a dramatic price for its integrity; a reasonable approximation of the truth is less exciting than the bogus reports of Lynch-as-John Wayne.

He's just as powerful when he widens his scope to bring in the Bush Administration's attempts to choreograph this quagmire of a war:

In broadcasting the first reports of "Chinook Down" last Sunday morning, the normally unflappable Bob Schieffer of CBS News raised his voice as he said, "If this is winning, you have to ask the question: How much more of this winning can we stand?" Later that day, on ABC's "World News Tonight," the correspondent John Berman captured a "M*A*S*H" moment when a military medic attending the American wounded looked directly at the camera and said, " `All major combat operations have ceased' " — after which he winked and, with a roll of his eyes, added a sarcastic, "Right!"

And he ends on his usual trenchant note:

Two weeks ago, after spending the day visiting the wounded at Walter Reed, the same hospital where Private Lynch recuperated upon returning to the United States, Cher, of all people, crystallized the game plan. She called into C-Span to tell of her experience talking with "a boy about 19 or 20 who had lost both his arms" and then asked: "Why are none of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bremer, the president — why aren't they taking pictures with all these guys? Because I don't understand why these guys are so hidden and why there aren't pictures of them."

The answer is clear enough: the fewer of these images we see, someone hopes, the less likely we'll realize the story that goes with them. Certainly the new plot they tell is simple enough: what began as a war at a time of our choosing has become a war at the time of the enemy's choosing. It may be asking too much of even a patriot like Private Lynch to pretty up this picture as she takes her show on the road.

I'll be back on Nov 7--Till then, I'll post away in the comments to this post

Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:56:29 GMT

I'm about to leave for Chicago until Friday, Nov 7.

Hopefully I'll get Radio's stupid remote-access working by then, but so far I can't so I may be MIA until then.

But I can always add to the comments, so check in to the comments from this post from time to time. I'll use it as a really shitty blog till then. Feel free to jump in.

The one topic I'll keep separate is Survivor--since we already have a group commenting there each week. I have a separate post set up for that right after this one.

And if the remote access works, I'll update this post to let you know, and never mind.

Either way I'll be incredibly busy and can't keep up to my regular blogging schedule, but will come by when I can. Look for me especially this coming weekend.

I'll miss you.

Deaniacs & Clark fanatics

Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:06:38 GMT

Really nice piece about in Salon this week about the growing army of Wes Clark fanatics. (All they lack now is a catchy name--what's the holdup on that?):

The general and his ground troops

A few glimpses:

Many of Clark's followers say that while Dean speaks to their rage, Clark, four-star general, intellectual, humanitarian and war hero, speaks to their longing for something higher. . . . "Dean makes me angry about the present," [a struggling mom] writes in an e-mail. "Clark, on the other hand, gives me HOPE for the future. Hope feels better than anger." . . .

After a month in the Democratic primary race, Clark's professional campaign, based in Little Rock, Ark., is just starting to coalesce, but his grass-roots movement, tens of thousands of ardent supporters and volunteers nationwide, is already large and expanding rapidly. Numerically, Clark's ground troops are not yet any match for Dean's, but if his momentum continues, they may be soon. In May, there were only a few hundred people registered to attend Clark events through the Internet organizing site MeetUp.com. Now he's second only to Howard Dean on the site, with 40,100 people registered. (Dean, who pioneered the use of MeetUp as a campaign tool, has 124,800 people signed up.) And even if his followers are fewer than Dean's, they're just as fanatical. Clark is igniting a desperate hope in supporters, something they describe in the language of love and religion. He can save us, they say. Over and over, they use the same phrase: "He's the one."

From Donna Brazile:

". . . because the race is wide open, having a movement will be an asset. Right now, the only two campaigns that exhibit that are the Dean campaign and the Clark campaign. Dean created a movement, Clark was started by one."

Here's a surprise: Great writing on the presidential race out of St. Louis

Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:17:00 GMT

So much pathetic political journalism out there, and then fresh out of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, comes a relentlessly insightful piece about the nature of the upcoming primary season today.

The highlight was a lengthy analysis of the impact of Wes Clark and Joe Lieberman pulling out of Iowa, and how much Iowa really matters. One fragment of that:

"Momentum is being redefined this year," said George Bruno, a former Democratic party chair in New Hampshire and a Clark supporter. "There will be no regrouping period and . . . each state will probably have to fall or stand on the groundwork laid (by the campaigns) long before Iowa or New Hampshire."

Despite the new dynamic, some think skipping Iowa will hurt Clark and Lieberman, who are already struggling to overcome weaknesses in their campaigns.

"If they go into January with no fire, they will flame out," said Donna Brazile, who was the campaign manager for Al Gore in the 2000 election. "That's a risky strategy." . . .

She and others also noted that Clark and Lieberman will likely face a news blackout in the crucial weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses, as the political and media world turns its attention to that state's contest. And their absence in Iowa will set up big expectations for their showings in New Hampshire, where they will be competing for a third or fourth place finish.

It suggests the bigger impact may come to Howard Dean and pals in New Hampshire, which the other two will be flooding with twice the resources originally planned.

And I have been reading about the historical unimportance of Iowa (which became a force for the first time in 1976, for Jimmy Carter), but this fills in some of the blanks:

William Mayer, a political science professor at Northeastern University and an expert on the nominating process . . . pointed to a recent study he did on the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire, in which he concluded that Iowa has had little affect on a candidate's eventual prospects.

"Winning or coming in second in New Hampshire adds a great deal to your likely total vote in the primaries," he said. "By contrast, the results in Iowa have almost no long term affect on the race."

He examined primary contests dating back to 1980, the election after Jimmy Carter's Iowa victory put him and the Iowa caucus on the political map. Since then, Mayer said, only Gary Hart in 1984 has been able to translate an Iowa win into real political momentum.

Lieberman, Clark Say They Will Skip Iowa Caucuses

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:18:45 GMT

Stories from AP, NYT and Reuters.

The Times opening:

Two prominent Democratic presidential candidates, Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have decided to bypass Iowa's presidential caucuses, angering some party leaders there and signaling what could be a very different nomination battle next year.

Mr. Lieberman's advisers said on Sunday that they would pull out all but one of his 17 staff members in Iowa and send them to states considered more receptive to his appeal, like Arizona. General Clark's aides said he would maintain a minimal presence in the state, which has the nation's earliest presidential selection contest. Last week, the general hired the former Iowa coordinator for Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who quit the race two weeks ago, and dispatched her to other states.

General Clark's advisers said they concluded last week that his late-starting candidacy had left him unable to assemble the intricate organization needed to win the Iowa race, which puts a premium on drawing voters to some 2,000 precinct caucuses. Most of the state's experienced organizers have signed with other candidates.

Notice they continue to lie and call Iowa the first contest, when DC now is. Reuters gets around it by referring to Iowa this way: ". . . the traditional opening battle in the presidential nominating process."

A better indicator than the polls

Thu, 09 Oct 2003 22:04:34 GMT

I've been sitting on this Washington Post story for a week, but I'm going to post it anyway, cause I just love it.

Perhaps the single best indicator of Kerry's sagging support shows up in the number of people willing to gather each month to support him.

Here's my favorite passage of the story (immediately after the weak lead):

Trying to emulate Howard Dean's vast success on the Internet, Kerry's campaign in June entered into a partnership with Meetup.com, the Web site Dean has used to assemble and organize thousands of people around the country. But it has not gone well in cyberspace.

Heeheehee. I'll say:

In July, about 3,000 Kerry fans attended 125 Meetup events across the country, while 352 were canceled. In August, about 2,100 fans attended 114 events, while 300 were canceled. And in September, only about 1,500 attended 89 events, while a whopping 481 were canceled because fewer than five people had confirmed their attendance.

Man, what a slide. Half the people fled in two months and more than 4 out of 5 getting cancelled. Meanwhile:

The Dean numbers show the opposite. In July, about 25,000 people attended 315 events, with 213 canceled. In August, 33,000 appeared at 384 events, with 222 canceled. And in September, fully 40,000 attended 664 events; 205 were canceled.

It's funny, the Beltway Boys never seem to notice this stuff. (This is one of the few places I've seen it reported, and it was a mere six paragraphs in a general politics roundup piece on page five.)

They lavish all that attention on the polls, when this is really illuminating what's going on. I would call this a leading indicator, polls a lagging indicator. If volunteers and supporters are deserting the Kerry campaign, he's due for a bigger drop in the polls. If you want to see who will be surging a month or two from now, look at who's got a few hundred thousand volunteers mobilizing.

And imagine yourself as one of those Kerry supporters: each month you see way fewer and fewer people at the meetups--or your previous meetup gets cancelled--while you keep hearing about Dean sessions risking fire code violations. This stuff is cumulative. It will only spiral down further.

But why is it so invisible to the Beltway Boys?

(And why didn't they include Clark numbers, the big dummies. Those are dramatically on the upswing as well.)

Howard Dean holds 10-point lead in NH; Clark inching up

Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:25:13 GMT

New New Hampshire poll out from American Research Group.

Almost no changes from last month, except Wes Clark, who inched or leapt up from 2 to 5%, depending whether you count percentage gain. It's great percentage gain, but he'll have to move up faster than that if he wants to catch the leaders

Howard Dean maintains his lead of exactly ten points on Kerry (the only place in the world Kerry has some strength). They each slipped slightly. The numbers (with September/August in parenthesis):

Dean 29 (31/28)
Kerry 19 (21/21)
Lieberman 6 (5/4)
Gephardt 6 (8/10)
Clark 5 (2/1)
Edwards 3 (2/2)

The most interesting finding (directly from the ARG site):

Awareness of Wesley Clark has increased to 90% from 47% in August, but over half of likely Democratic primary voters aware of Clark say they do not know enough about him to form an opinion.

Seems like a direct communique to Clark, though he doesn't appear to be recieving that message.

Major props to the Dean campaign for reporting those results on their blog without a whiff of spin. Matter of fact, nearly their entire post came verbatim off the ARG site, including the good and the (arguably) bad. Those guys can be so damn refreshing sometimes. No wonder they're so far out in front.

And compare their approach to the propoganda from hell on the new Bush blog. (See the next post for the latest distortions.)

Update: AP now has a story up on this here.

Unless the Clark camp is REALLY wily . . .

Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:04:11 GMT

I do have this one nagging suspicion about Wesley Clark's unorthodox campaign strategy (from the previous post and the W Post piece).

What if his team is bluffing (faking us out)?

The press always makes these damn things into expectation games, so if Howard Dean remains ten points ahead in New Hampshire for the next three months, they'll kinda right his win off as a non-event.

They really love the story of the Comeback Kid, or the Come From Behind Kid, or especially the From Out of Nowhere Kid.

Those are the stories they really grab hold of and plaster all over the airwaves. That's the kindo f story that lands you on the covers of Time and Newsweek.

I will actually lay money now that if Dean maintains his current big lead in NH right up through the primary, he will not make either cover the next week. The only way he could would be with a headline like "Unstoppable?"--which would then focus on his weaknesses (in the south?) and how he could be beaten in the coming weeks.

But if he's looking strong, looking strong, looking strong for months, and then somebody rushes in and grabs it, that person will make both covers.

That's just how the press plays the game. They need drama, so drama gets you coverage, gets you all the fuel you desperately need.

Perhaps the Clark team is just being coy about trying to win those states, stating their non-contention early, but then maybe they'll quietly devote more resources than they're letting on anyway. And then in the last two weeks they'll go great guns and hope for an upset or even a strong #2 showing and then announce that as a great victory.

I can actually see the latter being their strategy: that's really achievable, and the press will actually run with that. I can actually see the coverage election night, "Howard Dean won the New Hampshire primary easily tonight, but the real winner may be Wesley Clark, who didn't even compete here until the last two weeks and came out of nowhere to finish a strong #2. He now looks forward to strong support on his home turf in the south . . ."

Hmmmm. I would not be surprised at all. And the pipe dream would be if they're surging then, they might actually beat Dean in NH, and then they would have the deliriously powerful Upset, which would cause the press to prematurely pronounce Dean dead.

Hmmmm. Who knows what they're doing. I sure hope they have some strategy other than waiting in the tall grass until Dean whips everybody's butts in the two big contests that matter most.

Of course my dream would be that all the other goofs drop out and these two great candidates (Clark and Dean, if you've never been here before) just debate each other to death on national TV, come up with their strongest TV ads and do all the rest head to head so we can really choose the best man to take on the shrub. But it doesn't work that way, does it.

Wes Clark's wierd (stupid) strategy

Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:43:42 GMT

I may eat that those stupid words, but it sure looks dumb right now.

Really stunning analysis story in today's Washington Post:

For Clark, Late Start Means Unusual Approach

Wesley K. Clark, trying to portray himself as the Democrats' best hope of defeating President Bush, is taking an unorthodox approach to winning his party's presidential nomination.

Clark, the newest presidential candidate, is calculating that it is too late to focus the bulk of his resources in Iowa and in New Hampshire, the two key early testing grounds where his rivals have been camped out for nearly a year, according to a top strategist. Historically, the Democratic nominee usually wins by chalking up a big victory or strong showings in one of both of those states, feeding off the momentum and rolling through the stack of primaries from there.

Instead, Clark has adopted a more national campaign for the nomination, focusing on a variety of other states, including Oklahoma and New Mexico, that will vote in February. Clark's advisers think it would be hard, if not impossible, to win in Iowa or New Hampshire, but they predict he will fare better in the South and other states, such as Florida, that remain wide open.

Huh. Adopting the Lieberman strategy, apparently. God save me from quoting Beltway Boys, but the pundits pretty much laughed off the chances of it working for Lieb a few months ago and I wholeheartedly agreed. (And not just because Lieb is/was doomed anyway.)

I particularly remember one major mainstream political reporter saying that people who come in third or lower in Iowa and New Hampshire remind him of Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense. They're invisible, but they're they only one who doesn't know they're invisible.

So maybe he's hoping for second in one or both of those, but from the rest of the piece, it doesn't look like he's devoting the resources even to accomplish that.

I know I dish the beltway boys all the time for focusing so much on historical patterns, but my point there is that things can change--that when Dean, for instance, is doing a lot of things differently, which is affecting the race in very different ways, they need to get wise to that fast and not stick to the old model. But that doesn't mean the old models aren't still important when someone has not turned them on their heads. And aside from the new D.C. primary that Clark has made no sign of plunging into, I see nothing on the horizon to reverse the impact of NH and IA. You'll notice that despite a lot of novel campaign strategies--nearly all of which have blossomed--the Dean camp is focused razor sharp on those two traditional states.

Have the Clark people not seen this play out before? It doesn't matter how strong you look beforehand, or how high your national poll rankings, those are just polls. The first actual elections occur in IA and NH (and DC if anyone besides Dean and the marginals compete). Start losing those, and everything else tanks very quickly.

Who knows. Maybe the accelarated calendar makes it different this year. Or maybe the Stop Dean backlash will be strong enough that if Dean pulls the first two (three if he takes DC), great throngs will turn to Clark, and a good showing in the south will turn it around.

Maybe, but it seems like wishful thinking. Everybody always thinks that. Once a frontrunner gets a big head of steam, they're pretty damn hard to stop.

Clark can definitely sit out one of the first two, and he can easily afford to lose one, especially if he can do well the next week in the south. But both? I doubt it.

And I don't get the logic that he has to. Plenty of candidates come out of nowhere and rocket up in the polls in NH in the last one to two weeks before the primary. He's got plenty of time. It's way too early to be writing off the big prizes.

(And yes that gives me pause that I have written off Edwards, Kerry, Lieb and the late Bob Graham in those places. But that's based on the facts that 1) Kerry and Lieb were much higher in those polls and steadily dropped--people got a look at them and disliked what they saw 2) I have also seen all of them, and yes, I'm making the prediction that three of them never stand a chance of breaking out of any race. Edwards theoretically could, but he has totally failed to hit the right notes, and the electorate has been incredibly cold to him. And I'm leaving out Gephardt, because he's a special case.)

Bottom line. If Clark keeps up this strategy, he's either going to shock us all with a new route to the White House, or he's going to hand it to Dean early. That's sad, because as much as I love/support Dean, I was really looking forward to two strong candidates battling it out on equal footing and the strongest contender emerging to face Bush.

The virtues and (supposed) shortcomings of Wes Clark's earnestness

Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:39:49 GMT

I'm not sure what to make of Slate's chief political correspondent, William Saletan. Sometimes he's right on the mark in his analysis, sometimes right out of left field. Today he manages both in the space of one piece:

The virtues and shortcomings of Wes Clark's earnestness.

Great job capturing the essence of Clark's persona:

I've seen a few Clark speeches and a town hall meeting, but this event clarified where he fits into the Democratic field: He's the earnest guy.

Two weeks ago, at the only debate he's attended so far, Clark was full of canned answers. His performance was good but not distinctive from the career politicians onstage. Maybe debates aren't his strong suit, or maybe he should just can the canned stuff. Either way, in a town hall format, he's much more appealing. The reason is that he doesn't have to put on a show. He can just be what he is: bland and sincere. . . .

It's hard to convey the artlessness of his responses. You don't see his eyes, jaws, or hands working over the question, probing for threats and opportunities, the way John Kerry or John Edwards does. One hand grips the mike; the other hangs in his pocket. He stares at the questioner, unblinking. His eyebrows never rise. Neither does his voice.

But he's at his best when he cites a long Clark passage and then explains how it differs from his competitors:

[Clark speaking here:] They do things backward. They have some preconceived solutions, and then they look for circumstances that they can use to excuse putting those solutions in place. They had a tax cut plan. Well, first it was, "The government had too much of our money," so they were gonna give our money back. And then it was, "We were in a recession." But it wasn't exactly like the tax cut was designed to pull us out of the recession. Most of the cuts were way out in the future. … It was a solution looking for a problem. Same thing happened with Iraq. These guys were talking about going into Iraq back before the election. … They used 9/11 as the pretext to take us into that war, I think under false pretenses.

[Saletan analyzing here:] This critique lacks the moral edge of Dean's attack on Bush's divisiveness or Edwards' attack on Bush's elitism. But it has greater truth and, I suspect, broader resonance with public opinion. It doesn't demand that you think Bush is a bad guy or the Republican Party is evil. It only demands that you to look at the facts and put them together to form a relatively charitable, though fatal, conclusion: Bush lacks the temperament to adapt and solve problems as a president must. Gephardt calls Bush a failure and posits that the failure would continue in a second term, but he doesn't explain why. Clark explains why.

Stunning passage from Clark. Just that one paragraph and I remember why I'm in love with the guy. And Saletan pretty much reads it right out of my mind.

Great job so far Mr. Saletan. And then he sails right off a cliff:

But the real peril of earnestness isn't that it's boring as a campaign theme. The real peril is that it's insufficient as a governing philosophy.

What? He provides one dopey example and I guess that's supposed to illustrate a point maybe he thinks we agree with intuitively. Or something. (And in my mind, the example illustrates the opposite, but journos can usually be counted on as short-term thinkers.)

I think he's a little out of his mind. I have been praying for an earnest president, a wise man like Clark with (generally) the courage of his convictions, who governs according to true convictions instead of polling data and and long-range thinking instead of short-term political expediency.

I could use a little more excitement out of the guy, but he makes up for it with admiration. That is, every time I see him, I'm not so much electrified as mesmerized: finally, the real deal. A wise, honest and candid man, not (yet) beholden to a bunch of special interests.

Aside from the excitement, everything Saletan has described here--especially the passage directly from Clark--makes me believe he would be an incredible president.

Wesley Clark's Campaign Manager Quits

Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:41:00 GMT

From AP, within the hour:

Wesley Clark 's campaign manager quit Tuesday in a dispute over the direction of the Democratic presidential bid, exposing a rift between the former general's Washington-based advisers and his 3-week-old Arkansas campaign team.

Donnie Fowler told associates he was leaving over widespread concerns that supporters who used the Internet to draft Clark into the race are not being taken seriously by top campaign advisers. Fowler also complained that the campaign's message and methods are focused too much on Washington, not key states, said two associates who spoke on condition of anonymity. . . .

Fowler has been at odds with communications adviser Mark Fabiani of California and policy adviser Ron Klain of Washington. All three are veterans of Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign . . .

From the start, there has been tension between the campaign's political professionals and the draft-Clark supporters, many of whom consider computer-savvy Fowler their ally.

Fowler has complained that while the Internet-based draft-Clark supporters have been integrated into the campaign, their views are not taken seriously by Fabiani, Klain and other top advisers, many of them based in Washington. He has warned Clark's team that the campaign is being driven from Washington, a charge leveled against Gore's campaign in 2000 even though its headquarters were in Tennessee. Clark's headquarters are in Little Rock, Ark.

Yow. So much there that is so scary.

For starters, it's always a bad sign to see so much dissent so early in a campaign.

More unnerving to see the same guys that lost the election Gore should have won easily winning out in a battle that from my perspective they surely should have lost. (More on that below.)

And all the worse to see them falling into the same trap that helped do them in last time. In 2000, they responded to charges that they were beltway insiders out of touch with the country by moving the HQ to Nashville--which as far as anyone could tell did nothing but change their scenery.

The best thing Clark had going for him was that he had an organization already in place, set up all across the country. Granted I have only seen the operations in one mid-sized state (I'm in Denver, if you've never noticed the logo at the top of this page), but it was pretty impressive. I have been assuming it was all the stronger in the larger states.

Effectively throwing that away by centralizing everything and not taking those people seriously--God, it sounds like the same old Washington insider/assholes.

I would have thought they would have learned a thing or two from the Dean campaign. It has been the model of combining centralization and decentralization. All the strategy, all the scheduling, all the big decisions come out of Burlington, but the 400,000 volunteers who have signed up really have been encouraged to run around out there and start their own initiatives. Just look at the huge blogroll down the side of Dean's blog: each one of those represent a different initiative somebody out there in the field started, rarely at the behest of anyone in the campaign.

But apparently Clark has turned to a bunch of old-school advisers who surely know a lot about campaigning, but not enough to get Gore into the White House, and not enough to learn a damn thing from the way the Dean campaign has been revolutionizing the process.

That's very depressing news.

Depressing because I thought we were going to have two great candidates battling it out in the primaries. We still may, but this is not a good sign at all for Wesley Clark.

---

Thanks to Instapundit for the link, via Dave Winer, though the former doesn't seem to have read the story closely, because he mischaracterizes the central dispute. (Kinda surprising.)

Update:

Reuters just posted its version six minutes ago. They say he quit "after being asked to take a reduced role in the fledgling operation, two Clark campaign sources said." That may or may not just be their spin on the mess as the mopped the blood up off the floor.

Otherwise, their version is basically the same.

Bush's tipping point?

Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:48:48 GMT

Eric Boehlert just posted an interesting piece at Salon suggesting George Bush's $87 billion-speech one month ago today may have been the tipping point in his presidency:

Pollster Stan Greenberg told the Wall Street Journal he couldn't "find a parallel moment" in history when a president's approval rating dropped so dramatically following a nationally televised debate.

The gist of the argument is that the public was getting more and more worried about Iraq, it was a crucial moment he needed to win them over, and instead he convinced them we were out of control:

Instead, over the next few days there seemed to be a collective "holy shit" moment for an awful lot of Americans contemplating the cost of the war and the occupation's duration. . . .

"It was the moment when White House spin collided with the public's appreciation [of] reality," says Joseph Cirincione, author or "Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction." "It tipped the scale and made people realize we were in Iraq too deep. Nothing the president said gave public hope we'd soon get out of this."

Why? Because he's dishing out the same old crap he hoodwinked the country with before, and it's just sounding ridiculous in light of how his plans are panning out:

More important, though, was the content of the speech. Despite steady reports all summer about attacks on U.S. soldiers, terrorists pouring into Iraq from other countries and simmering discontent among Iraqis over the American occupation, Bush refused to adjust his spin, and clung to the same rhetoric the White House had been using since the spring. That meant saying that "Iraq is now the central front" in the war on terrorism, while comparing the rebuilding there to the Marshall Plan in Europe following World War II.

"I didn't see the speech itself as having huge defects," says Dan McGroarty, a former speechwriter for the first President Bush. "But maybe there was a benefit to being more candid."

"It wasn't a compelling case," adds Edwards. "He said, 'We've got a plan, it's working well.' That's not credible to the American public. The whole reason for the speech was to give Republicans cover so they could vote for the $87 billion, but he didn’t do that."

There's a lot of other fluff in the piece that just gets in the way, but I think Boehlert nails those key points. I think he's on to something here.

After a long, steady decline, Bush's numbers went in to freefall (the piece says even Fox showed an 8-point decline over two weeks, "the biggest survey-to-survey decline recorded by Fox since Bush took office.") This paints a very plausible picture about why.

(Note: If you don't subscribe to Salon, click on the Free Day Pass option when you follow the link.)

D.C. struggles to get attention for its pre-NH primary

Tue, 07 Oct 2003 07:56:40 GMT

As you hopefully know by now, the first contest this primary season will not be Iowa or New Hampshire. It will be the Washington D.C. primary on January 13.

I am all for this change, but the party is desperately trying to discourage candidates from attending, and most are buckling under, fearing backlashes from Iowa and New Hampshire voters.

The one major candidate bucking the trend is Howard Dean, who wants to show his appeal beyond white liberals.

(I don't know why Clark hasn't jumped in as well. He's way behind in Iowa and NH, but could make a legitmate stand here.)

DC is responding with a new tactic. From Tuesday's Washington Post:

D.C. officials disappointed by the amount of attention generated so far by the city's presidential primary are pushing legislation to put all 10 Democratic candidates on the Jan. 13 ballot -- whether they campaign here or not.

Despite a spate of stories in the national media noting that the District is having the nation's first presidential vote, only former Vermont governor Howard Dean has spent significant time campaigning in Washington. . . .

"They've written us off," said council member Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4).

To turn up the pressure, council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) is drafting a bill to be submitted as soon as today that would put all of the Democratic candidates on the ballot for the city's nonbinding primary. Others could be added by submitting paperwork by a specified date, and those on the ballot could opt out by sending a letter to elections officials.

Evans said that even candidates who may have decided to pay no attention to the District primary may reconsider when faced with the prospect of coming in ninth or 10th just weeks before Iowa and New Hampshire. . .

I don't know how much good it will do, but I sure hope it helps.

What they really need is for one more major candidate to start campaigning there, to make it into a real race. If Wesley Clark, especially jumped in, that would make it the first test of Dean vs. Clark--who are looking more and more like a 2-man race--and suddenly it would be extremely important. But will Clark go for it?

Wesley Clark in Iowa

Mon, 06 Oct 2003 03:55:59 GMT

Pretty good AP analysis of the difficulties Clark will face in Iowa, which requires retail politics. (And presumably a similar story is playing out in New Hampshire.)

Clark Trails Dem Rivals in Crucial Iowa

DES MOINES, Iowa - For all his high-wattage candidacy, Wesley Clark lags far behind his Democratic presidential rivals in the months of organizing and hours of handshaking that it takes to win the Iowa caucuses.

The state's Jan. 19 caucuses, the first test for Democrats in the hunt for the nomination, present a formidable challenge for any candidate, let alone a political neophyte such as Clark who entered the race only last month.

[I can't believe AP is still getting this wrong. I thought they issued a correction before and had stopped. Iowa is NOT the first test: The new Washington D.C. primary is. Those beltway boys are really something, aren't they? Just can't accept change. A more conservative--small c conservative--group you'll never find. And the arrogance. Well, we've gotten used to it this way with Iowa first, then New Hampshire, we think we understand it, and we like analyzing it this way. So if the world changes . . . by God, we'll just keep right on pretending it's still the old way. Jackasses.]

Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, has campaigned in the state for more than a year. He has more than 100 field staffers on the ground and an organization in each of the state's 99 counties. . . .

Democrats in Iowa say it probably is too late for Clark to assemble a full-fledged field operation. Most talented organizers have signed on with other campaigns.

"In Iowa it's difficult because you have to have qualified staff who understand the caucus process," said Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is neutral in the race so far.

In Clark's favor, his early fund raising has been strong, making it possible for him to survive even if he trails in Iowa. Other Democrats argue that activists who attend the sessions are motivated by the overriding goal of ousting President Bush, and that works in Clark's favor.

Clark definitely has his work cut out for him. He will never catch up in organization. The question is--if he surges nationally, will the wave of momentum overcome the traditional factors?

If he doesn't surge nationally, then none of this really matters, does it?

Leading the list of war crimes: FoxNews

Sun, 05 Oct 2003 19:38:45 GMT

Finally, clear documentation on just how evil FoxNews is as a propaganda machine. (Actually, it was clear on Thursday, but better late than never.)

From Knight Ridder--and this is one case I strongly, strongly urge you read the whole thing:

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

Good lord. It's hard to be shocked when so much has been reported about these misconceptions, but for God's sake. You would think at least the reporting about the misconceptions would help a little (though the press has been irresponsible on that, too--see below). Just what is it going to take?

(And in case it is not completely clear: all three perceptions are completely wrong.)

Now, on to FauxNews' culpability--as if you didn't know already:

The analysis released Thursday also correlated the misperceptions with the primary news source of the mistaken respondents. For example, 80 percent of those who said they relied on Fox News and 71 percent of those who said they relied on CBS believed at least one of the three misperceptions.

The comparable figures were 47 percent for those who said they relied most on newspapers and magazines and 23 percent for those who said they relied on PBS or National Public Radio.

The story also includes a graphic breaking out primary news source for the WMD misconception and the al-Qaida, with all the nets shown. FauxNews is out in front in both, with CBS second.

The really dramatic difference comes on al-Qaida, where 67% of FauxNews viewers believed it, and even 40% of print readers did--with everybody else bunched in the middle except one. But only 16% of NPR listeners did. That's pretty incredible. And it shows how persistent, honest reporting can be effective. Even with all that other media out there leading them astray, NPR was able to get the message to them not to believe it.

And/or NPR listeners are also bright, skeptical people who are not swallowing everything whole. And/or they're the type of people also reading other non-mainstream sources like Salon, Slate, The Nation . . . which are setting them straight. I will bet all three of those factors are playing a role.

But clearly, the media can correct its mistakes if it wants to.

But it really never wants to:

Kull cited instances in which TV and newspapers gave prominent coverage to reports that banned weapons might have been found in Iraq, but only modest coverage when those reports turned out to be wrong.

This is one perhaps the biggest single flaw I see with our media today. I witnessed it firsthand reporting on Columbine: the press rushed in and got most of the story wrong, beat the myths into the ground with blistering 24/7 coverage for days on end, then quietly buried what passed for corrections months later. It's disgraceful. And they do it every time.

And the source of the original bad reporting on the Iraq story? You know the answer to that, of course:

The Bush administration has also been a factor in persistent confusion.

Last month, for example, Bush said there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attack after Vice President Dick Cheney suggested a link. Cheney, in a "Meet the Press" interview, had described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And the response of our watchdog press?

Susan Moeller, a University of Maryland professor, said that much reporting had consisted of "stenographic coverage of government statements," with less attention to whether the government's statements were accurate.

And the final piece of evidence to indict FauxNews of a different kind of war crime: yes, as expected, the false information they're churning out led the public to support the war:

The study found that belief in inaccurate information often persisted, and that misconceptions were much more likely among backers of the war. . . . Among those with one of the three misconceptions, 53 percent supported the war. Among those with two, 78 percent supported it. Among those with three, 86 percent backed it. By contrast, less than a quarter of those polled who had none of the misconceptions backed the war.

Bush never would have had the guts to get us in there with less than 25% of the public backing it. We are mired in what will probably prove to be our worst imperialist blunder since (before?) Vietnam because of grossly irresponsible media. Led by FauxNews.

Graham staying in, but "rethinking"

Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:40:45 GMT

Oh just let it go.

From AP this morning:

Oct. 5, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Bob Graham, still pledging to the party faithful that he will be the next president, said he is rethinking his strategy for doing it.

"We are looking at strategies to be the next president of the United States of America," was his response Saturday to repeated questions outside a meeting of the Democratic National Committee whether he might end his campaign.

Graham told reporters he would decide in the next few days what course to pursue. . . .

Advisers said Graham was trying to decide whether to drop out of the race or dramatically cut his staff and focus on fewer states.

Yeah, that's going to work.

I guess you have to be delusional to go for the job in the first place.

Wes Clark Raises More Than $3.5M in Two Weeks

Sun, 05 Oct 2003 09:21:33 GMT

Interesting picture on fundraising. Wesley Clark raised nearly as much in two weeks as most of the field did in the whole quarter.

But that was dwarfed by Howard Dean, who raised $5 million during an even shorter window, and three times as much as his closest competitor for the quarter.

Estimates for the quarter from AP tonight:

Howard Dean: nearly $15 million
John Kerry: between $4.5 million to $5 million
Dick Gephardt: around $4 million
Joe Lieberman: around $4 million
Wesley Clark: more then $3.5 million (all in the last 2 weeks)
John Edwards: $2.5 million to $3 million
Bob Graham: around $2 million

Edwards and Graham: It's over boys.

Gephardt and Kerry: It's getting close.

Lieb: It was a fantasy from the start.

Of course they're all dwarfed by Shrub, who's got the bluebloods working furiously to keep their lease on the white house. From the AP story:

The president is aiming for $150 million to $170 million for the primary season and is already roughly halfway to that goal.

Clearing away the (presidential) underbrush

Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:27:26 GMT

AP has a completely unfocused story sort of centered on the fall DNC meeting starting Thursday, but it has a few good nuggets in it:

Most DNC members said they believe Dean's fund-raising success makes him a sure bet to survive the first few primary rounds, and the only question now is who emerges as the alternative. Some are anxious to get on with it.

"The fact that these candidates haven't caught fire, haven't raised any money, can't campaign in every state and won't even qualify for Secret Service protection in January tells me it's time for them to go," said Donna Brazile, manager of Vice President Al Gore's 2000 campaign.

That first part is interesting, and follows what I have suggested, that the press will turn it in to Howard Dean vs. The Alternative.

If Wes Clark gets over his early jitters it looks like that spot is his to lose. Nobody else has looked viable for months.

And it would be nice to get some of the underbrush out of the way. It's hard for two--or even three--serious guys to debate with all those other guys (and one woman) on the stage. Most of them are just getting in the way.

I guess if I were Kerry or Gephardt I'd stick in there, because any thing can happen. Dean and Clark could both self destruct still. That's about the only hope for those two, and hope is down to just about zero for anyone else.

All that hullaballoo over Clark's party affiliation

Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:07:35 GMT

All the sniping from the other Dems camps the past week or two has been unseemly. (Including quite a bit from Howard Dean supporters, I'm embarassed to say.) One of the silliest charges has concerned Wes Clark's loyalty, with some even suggesting he might swap parties.

As usual, it was built around the barest little factoids, like the fact that he had not declared an affiliation until just before announcing. (That was an indication that he might have been fence-sitting before, but I hardly think he could have more assertively cast his lot with one party than by declaring a run for its presidential nomination.)

And it has taken awhile, but finally some journalist at AP revealed just how silly it was. Check this out:

Clark's Party Views Typical in Arkansas

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Wesley Clark is typical of many voters in Arkansas. When he registered to vote, he declared no party affiliation.

. . . Only 4.4 percent of Arkansas' 1.5 million voters have declared any political party, said Janet Miller, the secretary of state's deputy for elections.

"Voter registration by party affiliation is an optional choice, and we have found that a very, very small number of registered voters declare," Miller said. "And if you do declare, it isn't binding. They just ask you which ballot you want when you show up at the polls."

Arkansans couldn't even declare party affiliation until 1996, after changes in 1995 to a state constitutional amendment added an optional party information box to registration forms.

Arkansas permits voters to request a specific party ballot when they walk into the polls on Election Day or when they request an absentee ballot.

"If you vote in a primary, you are declaring that you want a Republican or Democratic ballot for that year's elections, that's it," said Carolyn Staley, the clerk in Pulaski County where Clark is registered. "If you come back for a primary two years later, you can choose to vote in the other party if you wish."

Pulaski County records show that Clark registered to vote in 2002, casting a ballot in the Democratic primary and then voted in the general election.