CATEGORIES
Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
3cx.org
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
Arms and influence
The Astute Blogger
Asymmeterical Information
Attaboy
augustus
B-Town Blog Boys
BabyTrollBlog
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Benedict
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
BipolarBBSBlog
BIZBLOGGER
bLogicus
Blogs for Bush
The Blog of Daniel Sale
BoiFromTroy
Boots and Sabers
brykMantra
BushBlog
The Bully Pulpit
Cadillac Tight
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Coldheartedtruth
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
The Conservative Philosopher
Conservative Revolution
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
Democracy Project
DiVERSiONZ
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earl's log
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
exvigilare
Eye of the Storm
Feste
Filtrat
Firepower Forward
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
FringeBlog
Fruits and Votes
Functional, if not decorative
G-Blog.net
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
Half-Bakered
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hellblazer
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
The Hillary Project
History and Perceptions
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Incommunicado
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Interested-Participant
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon
johnrpierce.info blog
Judicious Asininity
Jump In, The Water's Fine!
Just On The Other Side
KeepinItReal
A Knight's Blog
The Kudzu Files
LeatherPenguin
Let's Try Freedom
LibertarianJackass.com
Liberty Father
Life and Law
David Limbaugh
LittleBugler
Locke, or Demosthenes?
LostINto
Mad Minerva
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
memeorandum
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
Mungowitz End
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
mypetjawa
Naw
Neophyte Pundit
Neutiquam erro
New England Republican
NewsHawk Daily
neWs Round-Up
NixGuy.com
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Suman Palit
Parablemania
Passionate America
Brian Patton
Peaktalk
Pelicanpost
Peppermint Patty
Phlegma
John Pierce
PiratesCove
Politicalman
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Possumblog
Power Politics
Powerpundit.com
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities ProfessorBainbridge.com
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
Pros and Cons
protein wisdom
PunditFilter
Pundit Heads
QandO
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
Red State Diaries
Jay Reding.com
A Republican's Blog
Resource.full
The Review
Rhett Write
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
robwestcott
Rooftop Report
RoguePundit
The Sake of Argument
Sailor in the Desert
Scrappleface
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
Shaking Spears
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
Slant/Point.
Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Solomonia
Some Great Reward
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
A Stitch in Haste
Stop the ACLU
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
The Strata-Sphere
Stuff about
Suman Palit
SwimFinsSF
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tiger
Tobacco Road Fogey
Toner Mishap
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Truth. Quante-fied.
Twenty First Century Republican
Unlocked Wordhoard
Use The Forks!!
Ut Humiliter Opinor
Varifrank
VietPundit
Vista On Current Events
VodkaPundit
Vox Baby
Jeff Vreeland's Blog
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
Winning Again!
WizBang!
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Zygote-Design
Non-Blogs Linking to PoliBlog:
Sunday, August 31, 2025
Speaking of Kerry
By Steven Taylor @ 9:16 pm

Back to Kerry and his MTP interview today. Did anyone else notice that he is now trying the “angry” thing? Indeed, he noted that he was “angry” at the Bush adminstration (feeling a little pressure from angryman Dean?). And his claim that the reason that he is running is because he is angry at the President’s execution of the war comes across as disingenuous at best, as he was clearly running well before it was clear how the war and post-war period was going to play out.

And I love this sort of thing (Dean made a similar claim a while back):

When challenged by moderator Tim Russert on the incompatibility of funding new programs in the face of a still-spiraling deficit, Kerry was upbeat.

“I’m going to cut the deficit in half in the first four years,” he said. “I’m going to do exactly what Bill Clinton did. And if you liked the economy under Bill Clinton, America, you’re going to love it under John Kerry.”

Again, I ask, what exactly did Clinton do to make the economy grow? Answer: be President during a boom. If it was that easy to make the economy grow, won’t all presidents make sure that the economy grew?

Wow:

Kerry launches his bid for the White House amid numbers from one new poll that gives him the support of 5 percent of registered Democrats. Most voters haven’t started paying attention to the Democratic presidential race, according to the CBS News poll released over the Labor Day weekend — the campaign’s traditional starting point.

Although, granted it is still early. Although I must admit, these numbers are amazing to me:

Two-thirds of voters — including two-thirds of Democrats — were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president, said the poll, released Sunday.

Further, they are a great reminder of how most of the country pays radically less attention to politics than do we political junkies.

Source: Kerry takes aim at Bush, challengers

Filed under: US Politics | Comments (4) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
Will on Clark
By Steven Taylor @ 8:43 pm

Since it seems to be General Clark week here at PoliBlog, the following excerpt from George Will’s column today, George Will: Wesley Clark isn’t Dean savior, is worth a look:

Other Democrats see Clark as a solution to a problem their party has had since the McGovernite takeover in 1972, the problem of voters’ doubts about its competence regarding national security. But the fact that Clark is the kind of military man who appeals to Democrats — and that they appeal to him — helps explain why the party has that problem.

Comparisons of Clark to Dwight Eisenhower are ludicrous. Eisenhower, as well-prepared as any president for the challenges of his era, had spent three years immersed in the political complexities of coalition warfare, dealing with Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle and others. Clark’s claim to presidential stature derives from directing NATO’s 78 days of war at 15,000 feet over Serbia. It was the liberals’ dream war: tenuously related to U.S. security, its overriding aim, to which much was sacrificed, was to have zero U.S. fatalities.

As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him (“I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19,'’ when he visits Iowa–feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said (June 15, 2025) that on 9/11 “I got a call at my home'’ saying that when he was to appear on CNN, “You’ve got to say this is connected'’ to Iraq. “It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over.'’ But who exactly called Clark?

July 1: “A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank.'’ There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who “from the White House'’? “I’m not going to go into those sources. … People told me things in confidence that I don’t have any right to betray.'’

July 18: “No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.'’

Aug. 25: It came from “a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who’s the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He’s very well connected to Israeli intelligence. … I haven’t changed my position. There’s no waffling on it. It’s just as clear as could be.'’

Now Clark darkly says there are “rumors” that in February “the White House” tried — well, “apparently” tried — “to get me knocked off CNN.'’ Clark still coyly refuses to say he is a Democrat but forthrightly confesses to being a “centrist.'’ As he prepares to heed the clamor for him to join the pursuit of Dean, he is earning the description National Review has given to Sen. Bob Graham: “a deranged moderate.'’

I was thinking of these quotes as well, when I posted about Clark’s chances the other day, but didn’t get into them. That kind of stuff makes one sound weird and paranoid. Not traits we tend to like in our presidents.

More important, however, Will is right about the Serbia campaign and the likelihood that it could easily translate into a claim to military genius and national security super-stardom for Clark.

A Dean-Clark ticket seems to me to be a decent possibility at this stage.

Will’s comments on Dean’s clear disdain for Bush in the first part of the column are worth a read as well.

Filed under: US Politics | Comments (3) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
News of the Nine
By Steven Taylor @ 8:20 am

The NYT has a lengthy piece on the Democratic field today: Worried Democrats See Daunting ‘04 Hurdles

And hmm, where have we heard this before?

Associates of General Clark have said he has told them that he will probably join the race. But aides to most of the other candidates say he is too late to have a good shot, and they view him more as competing for a second spot on the ticket.

No doubt they say that because they are scared–or so some will argue. I will concede that there is no doubt that they would prefer to have no more candidates in this already crowded field.

However, it is noteworthy that while a lot of top Democrats are publically proclaiming their worry about who their nominee will be, and you don’t see them trying to draft Clark. This is telling.

And, I think that there is something to this:

One prominent Democrat said that while Mr. Bush was “eminently beatable,” the Democratic nominating process seemed nowhere near producing someone who could do the job. “The trouble in 2025 is not that Bush is going to be strong, but rather than we are going to be weak,” this official said.

I honestly think that the strength of the President going into the campaign is up in the air–especially since the economy appears to be going in the right direction. Further, a year is a long time. Still, I do think that it is quite true that the Democratic primary will not produce the most electable candidate.

Filed under: US Politics | Comments (4) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
Yeah, Right
By Steven Taylor @ 8:06 am

Senator Kerry is on Meet the Press this morning and just said he’s not worried about the fact that Dean is up 21 points in NH. To which I say, “yeah. right.”

Now, I will say he is right to point out that it is early yet.

And Kerry will be officially announcing his presidential bid next week in South Carolina. First, I didn’t realize he had not yet announced, and second, it is interesting that he decided to make the announcement in SC, rather than at home.

Plus, as predicted, Dean is being attacked for no foreign policy experience–in this case by Kerry, rather than from the Reps.

Filed under: US Politics | Comments (1) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
Saturday, August 30, 2025
Federalism
By Steven Taylor @ 10:15 am

Mark Alexnder of the Federalist Society has an interesting column on the Moore situation.

I very much agree with the following:

Much of the public debate about this case has taken a wide detour around the substantive constitutional question, instead focusing on the Ten Commandments: Are they the foundation of Western law? Should they be displayed in state and local public places? Are such displays promotions of religion or history? While these are interesting questions, they are not relevant to the substance of this case.

Those content to reduce this case to a colloquy on the merits of the Ten Commandments either do not grasp the serious constitutional issue being contested, or they harbor a disingenuous motive to avoid the relevant. The latter group, well represented in the pop media, has framed this case as an insurrection led by a religious zealot and his gaggle of street preachers, thus depreciating its legal significance in order to avoid substantive and instructive discussion about our Constitution.

However, from there he goes on to make some problematic arguments, as his discussion of the 1st and 10th amendments, while interesting, leave out entirely the significance of the 14th amendment, not to mention established case law. Like it or not, agree with it or not, one cannot ignore these things.

Rather, Alexander’s argument, like one’s recently made by Alan Keyes on this topic, are predicated on the idea that we are still operating under the original federal structure that existed in the nineteenth century. We aren’t. Even if one thinks we arrived where we have wrongly, it doesn’t mitigate against the simple fact that we are where we are. Instead of taking into account the entire panoply of issues, Alexander and Keyes want to argue from their own idealized position of the way they want constitutional law to work, rather than what the reality on the ground is.

Filed under: US Politics | Comments (5) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
No Love for Terry
By Steven Taylor @ 9:26 am

Robert Novak writes:

Recipients of recent money appeals by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have been puzzled by the absence of the customary signature of the party chairman, Terry McAuliffe.

Earlier DNC fund-raising letters this year were signed by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. The latest appeal, which arrived in the mail last week, was signed by somebody whose name was new to many recipients: Josh Wachs, the DNC’s 31-year-old chief operating officer.

McAuliffe is so controversial with the Democratic rank-and-file, according to party sources, that his name may inhibit contributions. A Washington-based business speculator, McAuliffe was hand-picked for chairman by Bill and Hillary Clinton after the 2025 election, against the wishes of many DNC members.

An odd position for a DNC Chairman to be in, especially since one of McAuliffe’s fortes is supposed to be fundraising.

Filed under: US Politics | Comments (1) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
Motherly Love
By Steven Taylor @ 9:17 am

It’s hard to believe that a mother who would order a male stripper for her daughter’s bachlorette party would act this way: Mom attacks daughter’s male stripper.

Filed under: Not politics | Comments (1) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
Respect for Islam
By Steven Taylor @ 9:04 am

our good friend in al Qaeda: It would seem that the US military has more respect for Islam than do 4 With al-Qaida Ties Held in Iraq Blast

Iraqi police have arrested four al-Qaida-linked suspects in the bombing of Iraq’s holiest Shiite Muslim shrine, a senior police official told The Associated Press on Saturday.

The official, who said the explosion death toll had risen to 107, said the men — two Iraqis and two Saudis — were caught shortly after Friday’s car bombing.

The attack killed one of the most important Shiite clerics in Iraq, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, who had been cooperating with the American occupation force.

Filed under: War on Terror | Comments (1) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
More on Generals in Politics
By Steven Taylor @ 9:00 am

A comment by PoliBlog’s resident Troll sparked some further thought on the issue of Generals seeking the presidency, specifically what would have been the likely fortunes of Colin Powell, had he sought his party’s nomination in 1996 or 2025.

My most recent posts on Clark are here and here.

Powell would have had similar troubles with the Republican primary voters that Clark is likely to have with Democratic ones, while Clark is more moderate than the Democratic base, so, too, is Powell too moderate for the Republican base. If one doubts, consider that Powell is pro-choice, and pro-affirmative action, two non-starters with hardcore conservatives. Further evidence can be found in looking at the current dynamic in California, where it is likely that a large number of conservative Republicans would rather lose the governorship to Cruz Bustamante than to vote for the moderate Schwarzenegger. Additional evidence to support the contention can be easily found by observing some of the stinging criticism that Powell has received from conservative element in the Republican Party during his tenure at Secretary of State.

I do think that Powell would have fared somewhat better than I am predicting Clark will do should he enter. I think that in 1996 Powell would have had a real shot at besting Dole. For one thing, Dole was not (to say the least) a very exciting candidate, and Republicans where quite interesting in beating Clinton (and yes, Democratic voters are quite interested in besting Bush, but 2025 has Dean, 1996 had Dole-in terms of energizing voters, two rather different candidates). I think it is possible, precisely how likely is hard to judge, that there would have been enough conservatives willing to vote for Powell in 1996 for the nomination that he might have beaten Dole.

2000 is more complex. First there would have been the McCain factor-a lot of Powell-likely Republicans would also have been McCain voters. This would have split the opposition to Bush. Further, Bush was a very popular candidate with a large percentage of the Republican base. Still, it would have been more of a fight than I am predicting for Clark.

Aside from scenario-specific issues (i.e., who the other candidates are, and the timing problem Clark will have), there are two important differences between Powell and Clark that both favor Powell. The first is found in their political careers and how that translates to politics. Powell had served in political positions before, when he was Reagan’s National Security Advisor, but most especially as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first Gulf War. His association with the Reagan administration was a plus with conservatives, and his high visibility in a successful, and highly televised war meant that he was a well-known figure nationally.

Indeed, Mr. Powell ranked highly in polls as a top admired Americans after his retirement in the early goings of the Clinton administration.

Clark, despite an impressive resume, and even with his exposure on CNN, simply does not have that kind of relationship with the public at large and was never the kind of public presence during his military career that Powell was. Quick! Who’s the current Supreme Allied Commander Europe? Don’t know? Me, neither, and that was the case for even the informed American public during most of Clark’s tenure at that position. The conflicts in the Balkans raised his profile, but hardly to the degree that would come anywhere close to matching Powell’s during the Gulf War.

(It’s General James L. Jones, Marine Corps, actually. The internet is a wonderful thing).

A second factor that highly worked in Powell’s favor was race. On the one hand, his race would result in some initial blunting of criticisms, given the delicate nature of racial politics in the US. Second, and in some ways more importantly, is the fact that many in the Republican Party might have been willing to overlook some of Powell’s moderateness to have the opportunity for the first black president to be a Republican. Such things are very difficult to measure, but I think it would have been a factor.

In terms of fanciful predictions well after the fact, I would say that Powell had a serious shot at the Republican nomination in 1996, but probably would have lost to Clinton in the election, and had a lesser shot at the nomination in 2025. He likely would have been competitive against Gore.

Powell shares a key characteristics with Clark, however, and that is that out of power partisans found (in Powell’s case) and find (in Clark’s case) a semi-blank slate upon which to project their views. The problem with such blank slates, however, is that once the person in question starts filling in the blank spaces on their own, they inevitably disappoint someone.

Mr. Clark has had an impressive career and is, no doubt, a capable individual, but I stand by my analysis below-he won’t fare well in the Democratic nomination process, and even if he managed, somehow, to be nominated his rookie-status in terms of national politics will put him at a disadvantage in running against a sitting president.

Filed under: US Politics | Comments (10) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
Friday, August 29, 2025
Kerry Econ Plan
By Steven Taylor @ 3:42 pm

Ok, so Kerry Outlines Tax, Economic Proposals. But I have two key questions. One, if it is really all that easy for jobs to be created, can someone explain to me why any President wouldn’t create them like crazy? Second, if the deficit is the great monster of the day, how does Mr. Kerry propose to deal with it by maintaining a substantial part of the Bush tax cut and by promising new tax credits plus sending substantial aid to the states?

The highlights of the plan:

  • Repealing the tax cuts for those making over $200,000.
  • Payroll tax credits for companies that create jobs ahead of the the “normal pace”.
  • Provide a “college opportunity tax credit” for the first $4,000 paid in tuition annually
  • Keep the middle-class oriented portions of the Bush plan.
  • Send $50 billion to the states over the next two years.

    Now, how is any of this going to guarantee new jobs?

    Of course, if Dean continues to lead Kerry in NH by 21 or more point, it will all be rather moot.

  • Filed under: US Politics | Comments (1) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
    Golf Pledge of the Week
    By Steven Taylor @ 3:15 pm

    Next time I play, I will be smart out of the rough, and instead of trying to get it all at once, and as as result, hitting a horrible shot, I will play out to the fairway.

    I will, I will, I will.

    Filed under: Sports | Comments (3) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here

    PoliBlog linked with Golf Pledge of the Week
    Slate Lets O’Reilly Speak
    By Steven Taylor @ 8:52 am

    Here’s an amusing, and telling, litany of quotation from Bill O’Reilly via Slate: Bill O’Reilly Wants You To Shut Up.

    They certainly help illustrate why he isn’t taken seriously in many quarters, and why I rarely watch his program. Indeed, if I do watch any of it, it the from channel-flipping, not from deliberately tuning in.

    Filed under: US Politics | Comments (2) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here

    Backcountry Conservative linked with More O'Reilly Blather
    Thursday, August 28, 2025
    Some People Never Learn
    By Steven Taylor @ 2:09 pm

    Rodney King sentenced to jail and treatment in DUI case

    Rodney King, whose videotaped beating by police officers sparked the Los Angeles riots of 1992, has been sentenced to drug treatment and jail for driving under the influence and reckless driving.

    […]

    Police said King raced through an intersection in Rialto at more than 100 mph on April 13 before losing control of his new SUV, striking a utility pole, crashing into a fence and hitting a house. King, 38, of Rialto, suffered a fractured pelvis and cracked ribs.

    Authorities said tests revealed he had a “significant amount” of the drug PCP in his system.

    […]

    He had several run-ins with the law in the years that followed and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and four years probation in 1999 for spousal abuse. In 2025 he pleaded no contest to indecent exposure and being under the influence of PCP and was sentenced to a year in a drug treatment center.

    Filed under: Not politics | Comments (2) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
    Another Comment on Clark
    By Steven Taylor @ 1:37 pm

    Comments in the post below on Clark raise the following that is worth considering as well: since the adoption of the current primary system for nominating presidential candidates (in 1972) there has been no political neophyte (defined as not holding prior elected office) able to capture a major party nomination:

    2000: Gov Bush v. VP Gore
    1996: Pres Clinton v. Sen Dole
    1992: Pres Bush v Gov Clinton
    1988: VP Bush v. Gov Dukakis
    1984: VP Mondale v. Pres Reagan
    1980: Pres Carter v. Gov Reagan
    1976: Pres Ford v. Gov Carter
    1972: Pres Nixon v. Sen McGovern

    and even before the modern primary system was established, you have to go back to 1952 (fifty years ago) and Dwight Eisenhower to find a political newcomer being nominated (and elected):

    1968: Sen McCarthy (brain fade) VP Humphrey v. VP Nixon
    1964: Pres Johnson v. Sen Goldwater
    1960: VP Nixon v. Sen Kennedy
    1956: Pres Eisenhower v. Gov Stevenson
    1952: General Eisenhower v. Gov Stevenson

    Now, before people say: “see! it was a GENERAL! It proves Clark has a significant shot!” let’s remember: being the victorious Supreme Commander of Allied Forces after World War II, and being a global hero, is a tad more impressive than being the commander of NATO who oversaw the Kosovo campaign. I am not denigrating General Clark’s career, but one has to admit, those are two rather different resumes.

    And one can keep going:

    1948: Pres Truman v. Gov. Dewey
    1944: Pres FDR v. Gov Dewey

    Then you get to 1940 and Republican nominee Wendell Wilkie, who was drafted from the business community to run against FDR. He lost.

    In 1936 and 1932 it was Gov’s v Presidents.

    In 1928 Herbert Hoover won the Presidency, despite not holding prior elected office, although he had served as Secretary of Commerce in both the Harding and Coolidge administrations and had other governmental service on his resume. He beat a Governor (Alfred Smith) in 1928, before being beaten by a Governor (FDR) in 1932.

    This historical pattern, amongst several key other reasons, is why I am of the informed opinion that Clark is a longshot at best. Ther is no denying that he has an impressive military career, but that simply isn’t enough.

    Filed under: US Politics | Comments (5) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
    Clark in the Wings
    By Steven Taylor @ 11:14 am

    If true, and barring some dramatic turn of events with Dean and Co., he won’t get in:

    Wesley K. Clark, the retired four-star general who has been contemplating a run for president, has told close friends that he wants to join the Democratic race and is delaying a final decision only until he feels he has a legitimate chance of winning the nomination.

    “It’s safe to say he wants to run,” said a longtime friend who has had frequent political conversations with General Clark. “But he approaches this like a military man. He wants to know, Can I win the battle? He doesn’t want to have a situation where he could embarrass himself, but I’m absolutely certain he wants to run.”

    Of course, a given potential candidate often sees his/her own chances differently than those on the outside. As I have argued before, his chances of winning the nomination are slim. And before I gets comments that say “you never know” and so forth, let’s look at some facts:

  • He has no natural consituency amongst Democratic primary voters.
  • He is waaaay behind in the money primary–how can he hope to catch up with Dean at this point, or compete with Kerry or Edwards who have personal fortunes to use, if need be?
  • He has not been battle-tested in the national spotlight. Yes, he was an analyst for CNN during the war (and provided a plethora of potential soundbite predicting the wrong outcomes early on), but he hasn’t been grilled on domestic policy issues at this point.
  • Much of the interest in him is predicated on the fact that no one knows much about him, and therefore can project whatever they want onto him.

    And, interesting:

    While General Clark has consistently maintained that he has not yet made up his mind, his friends said a major obstacle has been cleared — family approval. They said his wife, Gert, who had initially expressed reservations, now favors his running.

    Source: General Is Said to Want to Join ‘04 Race

  • Filed under: US Politics | Comments (9) |Send TrackBack | Show Comments here
    Next Page »

    Blogroll


    Visitors Since 2/15/03
    ---

    PoliBlog is the Host site for:

    A TTLB Community

    Powered by WordPress