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.

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.