1

Rather than Clark being like Clinton, Clark is far closer to Dean. The man is (at least politically) insane. What serious candidate engages in that display of belittling Kerry's Vietnam heroism by pointing to rank?

I suggest looking at how Clinton campaigned to get the nomination, versus Clark. Start with abortion. Remember "legal, safe and rare" compared to Clark's anytime until birth (which goes beyond even Roe v Wade)..

Clark (like Dean) is popular because nobody has actually voted yet. He will be a memory soon enough.

2

Steve,

You make some good points. But when it comes down to the wire the only question that will matter to Democrats is, "Who can beat Bush?" Kerry? Edwards? Dean? None of them have a prayer. Clark, assuming he doesn't implode, will be the only viable option.

Besides, when Clinton campaigned he showed that even his wife couldn't trust him and he still won the nomination.

3

Clark probably already has imploded and will further do so..

I doubt anyone can beat Bush, but Kerry and his war heroism, or Edwards and his Southern roots are both reasonable alternatives for someone looking for a way to beat Bush..

As to Clinton..you forget the campaign saving, gift-wrapped, present from 60 Minutes..THE interview with Hillary and Bill..side by side, hand in hand..It did more to remove Bill's "baggage" with the electorate than anything else.

But as I often say..the 1992 election can't be compared to the 2004. Nothing is even close. With the world scene, economy, 3rd party, primary challenges, promise-breaking Bush Sr., etc. etc.

George W. will not look at his watch during a debate or be amazed at supermarket checkout scanners either..

4

Steve,

I always complain when people compare the latest military expedition to Vietnam so I probably shouldn't commit the same fallacy by comparing election histories.

You're right, I did forget about the 60 Minutes interview. What is shows, in my opinion, is that there is not mistake in a campaign that a contrite apology won't atone for.

George W. isn't his daddy and Clark is only a carbon copy of Clinton rather than the real thing. No Democrat will beat Bush which is another reason I think Clark will be the nominee. Like I claimed before, Clark is simply the trial baloon for a future Hillary campaign.

5

Bush can be beaten, despite high approval ratings in January of an election year. Ask his dad.

Of all the candidates, Edwards makes me the most nervous. Southern, handsome, former lawyer, and can lie with a smile. Remind you of anyone?

Keep your powder dry.

6

The day a personal injury lawyer becomes President of the United States is the day I move to new Zealand.

7

I'm with Kevin -- Edwards is the stealth threat. As for Clark, I think the only reason he's still considered a contender is that Dean's gaffes and weirdnesses have sucked up all the oxygen. Clark is every bit as removed from reality as Dean is. He's also got that blatent contradiction in his testimony before Congress in 2002 and his current opposition to the Iraq War.

Any way it goes, it's getting interesting. And probably tougher for Bush.

8

Don't forget that while all the others were yellin' and screamin' in Iowa, Clark has been quietly going about business in Iowa.

9

While what you say may be true from a tactical point of view, all we need is another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas with an (ahem) extreme thirst for the spotlight and admiration.

10

I'm not ready to hand 2004 to Bush just yet. A potted plant could have defeated Al Gore, and yet George W needed the Supreme Court's help to do so. And that was before the USA PATRIOT and Iraq baggage.

Unlike Joe, I think Clark has the worst shot at beating Bush. And despite the Iowa setback, I think Dean has the best shot at Bush in a general election (although I'm not sure he can win the nomination). Most of the "knocks" on Dean's personal demeanor are very similar to those about Bush when he ran in 2000. And look what happened when people "misunderestimated" Bush.

Personally, I can live with Dean, Kerry or Edwards. On policy, I'd take them in that order. Clark is too much of a question mark, and frankly, too close to Bush on policy to adequately distinguish himself.

However, according to SelectSmart, I should support Dean (88%), Clark (83%), Edwards (75%), and Kerry (70%), in that order. I did not specify importances, I should go back and do that again to see what changes it makes.

11

See, this is why the leftists will lost... obsession over the Florida thing. Yes, Bush needed "help" to win the election... because the FL supreme court tried to pull a fast one, overriding the Secretary of State and Legislature, the entities in charge of the election... all in the name of "every vote must be counted!" Except military absentee ballots, of course.

12

Now that some of the dust has settled, Wesley Clark actually was a loser in Iowa.

Wesley Clark and Howard Dean are the extreme anti-war candidates for the Democrats. They are the most confused, with the most ambiguous answers on the subject. They represent the hate-Bush crowd. And Dean got massacred. His numbers will continue falling. As Steyn put it, Clark and Dean went all the way out on the hate-Bush branch, and it got sawed off on Monday night.

I say again: look out for Edwards. After he gets out of the cold (Iowa and New Hampshire), he's on familiar turf. Need I remind anyone where the only two Democratic presidents of the last 40 years have come from?

13

Clark is finished. If he stays in the race after NH, it will be only his hubris talking. He has no chance for the nomination, and neither does Dean.

Again, look out for (1) Edwards, and (2) Kerry. And Sharpton's candidacy will make the Southern races interesting.