Kerry has been my fallback candidate for months now, but I haven't watched a whole lot of him lately, because I'm hoping not to fall back.

But I just watched the last hour of the Philly debate. (CSPAN said they would rebroadcast it at approximately 10:45 PM EDT (7:45PM PDT). If you're interested in these in the future, the Dean blog is always posting about when they're coming up, and provides a link to watch the CSPAN web broadcast. I couldn't find it on my cable, but got it easily that way.) I hope he (Kerry) was having an off night. Sure struck me like a pompous windbag. Didn't come across as someone telling me what he thinks so much as a bad actor trying to deliver hokum he thinks will sound presidential.

Blech!

The others sounded real, aside from Gephardt, of course (and Edwards was missing).

Maybe it was just a bad night. Many of the Deaniacs commenting on the Dean blog thought the doctor was a bit tired and subpar as well. Maybe. I guess I'll have to start watching more TV. Is that possible?

What was the appeal of this Kerry guy again? He fought in Vietnam, that's great. What was the rest?

Yes, that header is a gross overstatement, but no sooner did Biden bow out than the blogs started crackling with conjecture about the last big open question that we know of: Will General Wesley Clark run?

And if he does, will it tear the Democratic race wide open, or is he too unknown, too inexperienced arriving way too late in the race?

DailyKos posed the Clark question and a fascinating discussion erupted in the comments section. Check them out.

My two cents:

I continue to believe that Clark may or may be arriving too late to win, but he is the one person with a legitimate chance to blow things open and/or seriously challenge Dean. (Though Dean could still self-destruct.)

Clark does excite people, breed true believers, much like Dean. They're the only two people the electorate has any chance of falling in love with, so they are the two best challengers for Bush. And the two most likely to get the nom.

Like Dean, his appeal is not based on a perfect fit on the issues. Dean is a moderate who has attracted hordes of liberals--and moderates and some conservatives--because they respond to his candor, directness, charisma, wisdom, enthusiasm and courage in boldly calling Bush on his failings, as opposed to the simpering Dem response we've seen for years. Those are exactly the same qualities that have attracted Clark's evangelical following.

A lot of liberal Dems--including me--were fawning all over John McCain four years ago because he had those qualities, even though he has an extremely conservative voting record. After the jerks we've had, honesty, integrity, wisdom and candor trump everything else.

I'm pretty damn confident Gep and Lieb aren't suddenly going to raise an army. No one will EVER get excited about them. Kerry and Edwards, maybe. I doubt it, but maybe. But I don't see any of them exploding like Clark could.
But . . .

Clark is about a year late in building a small band of evangelists into a mass army. But you never know. At least it's plausible. I just can't see Lieb or Gephardt ever winning much of the public over under any scenario.

I guess it comes down to this: Clark could either erupt or fail to erupt. At least eruption is a possibility. The Eight Dwarves are never going to ignite anything: all they can hope for is for Dean to fail, so we have to get stuck with one of them.

(Note: This post belongs a few lower down, introducing the others on Clark, but I managed to delete it, so now it's here.)

Jonathan Alter reported a week ago in Newsweek that Biden and Clark were leaning toward running for pres. Biden just announced he would not: NYT, AP.

"At this late date, everything would have to fall perfectly into place and I would have to put on hold what influence I have in the United States Senate in pursuit of what is now too much of a long shot," Biden said in a prepared statement.

Can you hear the squeals of joy rattling out of Burlington and especially Boston? I think Dean would have ultimately beaten back Biden, but he sure could have thrown a wrench in. I think Biden would have been his strongest challenger by far.

And his entrance might have been the death-knell to Kerry: splitting the same group of supporters looking for a mainstream candidate with Senate stature and roughly similar persona. Kerry has had trouble generating excitement, and the people who have backed him as most electable may well have bolted.

Now the big question remains Clark. Hard to say what this will do to his entry. It's one fewer big-name competitor sharing the field and the new-entrant press, which could be a big deal. (Either one entering would hope to generate a lot of media interest as the late-arrival suddenly stirring up the race. With Biden in, he would have to split that attention in half.)

And with eight candidates so far failing to arouse the public, a new guy could try (over time) to fashion it into a two-man contest: Dean and him, the two guys who had proven able to rally supporters. (That would work only if Clark managed to do so, of course; but if he fails to, he's dead, so it doesn't matter who is in the race.) I could really see that playing out, potentially. I could see either Biden and or Clark possibly arousing a base of support, in sharp contrast to the eight dwarves. But both of them together, plus Dean, plus the dwarves, that's mighty crowded.

The flipside, though, is how this might effect Clark's personal thinking. Say he was leaning toward the plunge, and then Biden comes out and says it's too late, and a total longshot. Hmmmmm. This from a ranking Senator with relatively high name recognition and proven money-raising ability. Makes his left-field attempt look even more like windmills.

But then again, Biden has more to lose. He's risking his senate career, or at least risking tarnishing it, especially when those ugly reports that forced him out in 1988 resurface. (AP's story refers to "allegations," but they were well-documented: "Biden entered the 1988 presidential race, but quit in September 1987 after his campaign was rocked by allegations of plagiarism in some of his speeches and false claims about his academic achievements.") As far as I know, Wes Clark is unemployed, isn't he?

I sure hope Clark jumps in. I would love to see what he can do. And it might also increase his chances for a Dean/Clark ticket, particularly if Clark demonstrates a strong following of his own, an ability to raise money, etc. And it would give him the experience campaigning, and make him appear like a more realistic pres-replacement, having run personally. Run General, run!