MyDD :: Schweitzer won't run, but Clark probably will

Schweitzer won't run, but Clark probably will

by Chris Bowers, Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:42:52 PM EST

Schweitzer doesn't exactly sound enthused about running for President:

Gov. Brian Schweitzer sits in his Capitol office, scanning a recent Roll Call article in which pundits float his name as a possible presidential contender. They say the ``rancher-politician from Big Sky Country'' might be the Democrats' ``best shot to take back the White House.''

Schweitzer tosses the article aside. ``These people are kooky,'' he says.

The attraction to Schweitzer is obvious to me, but the desire many have to immediately see him run for President actually baffles me somewhat. Are we so eager to empty out our bench that we want to have a guy run when he hasn't even had a chance to actually govern his state yet? It is much better for Democrats, for Montana, and for Schweitzer to let him govern for a full-term and run for re-election than it would be to just throw him on our ticket.

Now, I know that those still interested in supporting Schweitzer will try to start a draft movement, and they will point to Clark as an example of how it could work. However, keep in mind that Clark was not holding office when the draft movement was on, and thus he did not arguably do a lot for the party unless he ran. Second, remember that Clark's late entry into the race forced him to more or less abandon Iowa, and left him way behind in New Hampshire. He also was releasing major policy proposals, such as his tax plan, in January for crying out loud, which did not exactly give his ideas a lot of time to enter the political discourse.

One thing Clark's run in 2003-4 did do, however, is make him a much better potential candidate for 2008. Now he has an established national and party presence, and he certainly seems like he is gearing up for another run in 2008, if you ask me.

Schweitzer, however, does not need to run for President in 2008 in order to be a better prospect down the road. He needs to remain the Governor of Montana to be a better prospect down the road. While we are trying to rebuild the party, Schweitzer is an excellent stone to already have in place. I'd rather not remove it now.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment

Agreed . . . (none / 0)

. . . though I certianly understand why he's attracting so much attention.

I like Feingold. He's nobody's toady, and his mid-western populism should play well in the south.

I like Clark, too. I even like Hillary (who is one of my senators), though I'm not so sure she can win in the general election.

I also think the emergence of a dark-horse should never be discounted.

The Democratic Party is still shaking off the DLC detritus. It'll take a little while before we have a deep bench.

Oh, and ABB (anyone but Biden).

by Tod Westlake on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 06:59:37 PM EST

Re: Agreed . . . (none / 0)

ABB= Anyone but Biden or Bayh

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 11:51:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"These people are kooky." (none / 0)

I have to agree. Though the article doesn't elaborate much on what he meant by this, calling anybody the Dem's "best shot to take back the White House" in fricking 2005 is either goofy hyperbolic rhetoric or a symptom of some sort of neurological dysfunction.

We only have the vaguest, broad-strokes idea of how the next few years will play out, and next year's elections are very likely to shift the dynamic dramatically. Why the heck would any sane individual want to telegraph their 2008 ambitions so far ahead of time that their rivals have an election cycle and a half to destroy them?

WTF?

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 07:17:51 PM EST

yup (none / 0)

I'm with you there. I really like Schweitzer and he has been a "hmmm what if?" candidate for me so far, but yeah, much better to build his cred as governor for a FULL term.

by descolada99 on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 07:30:36 PM EST

Clark $$ (none / 0)

Does anyone have any idea if Clark is actually raising money right now? Or is he still pursuing his parttime career of TV commentator?

by blueflorida on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:16:36 PM EST

Re: Clark $$ (none / 0)

Good question.

by Tod Westlake on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark $$ (3.00 / 1)

Clark has a PAC: www.securingamerica.com

I wouldn't call him a "parttime commentator." He's on Fox so that he can bring our side of the story to Fox's viewers who rarely hear anything but O'Rielly and Hannity crap. It seems to be working very well. More and more we're hearing moderates say how they like hearing what Clark has to say.

Furthermore, Clark is in the group that's working to reform the UN and he's on the global climate change committee of the Clinton Foundation. He's also Vice Chairman of James Lee Witt Associates: http://www.wittassociates.com/1205.xml

Frankly, I don't know when the man sleeps!

by ICantBelieve on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark $$ (none / 0)

Him on Fox may be one of the most brilliant campaign moves in recent history. It elevates his profile, lets him work on his speaking ability, allows him to mix it up a little, and exposes him to many people by being on the most popular (but definately worst) cable news network. I will definately have to give him a look if Russ decides not to run at all (which would be a shame!)

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 11:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark is an empty vessel (none / 0)

Clark is working for Fox now. Hired about two months ago. Clark is an empty vessel. He has no idea where he stands on anything and I think the Democratic party likes him because he has military experience and that makes them look tougher on terrorism and strong on defense. I think he is one of the worst candidates we could put up.

by Chris1458 on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:48:42 PM EST

Re: Clark is an empty vessel (none / 0)

What FACTS are you referring to? You've made sweeping generalizations without any data.

by ICantBelieve on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark is an empty vessel (none / 0)

As if the others actually have their own ship. Besides, he ain't sailing to Iraq... mostly dirt there. And in the States,... you get around better with foot soldiers, like the 160 supporters who went to Little Rock this weekend, ...voluntarily, ... to support WesPAC's mission and the values of the Democratic Party.

http://knightrider.forclark.com/story/2005/7/20/191126/108

by KnightRider on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark is an empty vessel (none / 0)

LOL!! In Buddhism, the realization of emptiness equates to the experience of nirvana and therefore the cessation of suffering.

While I don't imagine you meant it this way it was an interesting choice of words.

If you're interested, I could provide you with some reading material that would blow you away with Clark's intelligence and you would see he is working by example to bring our country to the point where we are all working for the common good.

by jen on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 09:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whaaaa?!!! (none / 0)

The attraction to Schweitzer is obvious to me, but the desire many have to immediately see him run for President actually baffles me somewhat. Are we so eager to empty out our bench that we want to have a guy run when he hasn't even had a chance to actually govern his state yet? It is much better for Democrats, for Montana, and for Schweitzer to let him govern for a full-term and run for re-election than it would be to just throw him on our ticket.
Now, I know that those still interested in supporting Schweitzer will try to start a draft movement, and they will point to Clark as an example of how it could work. However, keep in mind that Clark was not holding office when the draft movement was on, and thus he did not arguably do a lot for the party unless he ran. Second, remember that Clark's late entry into the race forced him to more or less abandon Iowa, and left him way behind in New Hampshire. He also was releasing major policy proposals, such as his tax plan, in January for crying out loud, which did not exactly give his ideas a lot of time to enter the political discourse.
One thing Clark's run in 2003-4 did do, however, is make him a much better potential candidate for 2008. Now he has an established national and party presence, and he certainly seems like he is gearing up for another run in 2008, if you ask me.

So let me get this straight:

Schweitzer (D-elected governor of a deep red states) needs more experience.

Clark (D-never elected to anything and no expereince in politics at all...though we keep hearing how he is (dear god please no) electable)...has just the right experience.

Ummm....yeah, ok.

by Nazgul35 on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 09:18:42 AM EST

Re: Whaaaa?!!! (3.00 / 1)

Clark was a 4 star general. In terms of experience that is easily the same as being a multi-term governor or senator... Clark obviously knows the political side of the military if he made it that far.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whaaaa?!!! (3.00 / 1)

Not just any four-star general but commander of NATO forces. If Iraq/terrorism are issues in 2008 (duh!), Clark's experience will give him a lot more credibility on those issues than would the experience of a plains state governor.

Others with some sort of salient foreign policy credentials include Bill Richardson (former ambassador to UN), Joe Biden (Senate Foreign Relations committee), and, let's see...there's someone else...oh, yeah, Hillary Clinton, Senate Armed Services committee. (HC's appointment to the Armed Services committee, virtually unheard of for a freshman Senator, was the first building block of her campaign.)

I really liked John Edwards as our Veep in 2004. But his lack of defense/foreign policy/terrorism chops was a detriment in that all the water had to be carried by Kerry. On that suite of issues, Edwards did not do so well vs. Cheney in the vice presidential debate, either.

by InigoMontoya on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 02:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2008 is too soon for Schweitzer (none / 0)

I like Schweitzer. He and Obama are this year's star rookies, and two of the reasons why I think the future looks good for the Dems.

I think it's also one cycle too early for Mark Warner. One term as governor of Virginia just isn't enough to base a Presidential run on. Who is he kidding? Mark, buddy, take on George Allen in 2006; the polls say he can be taken down, and you can do it.

It's likely that Clinton, Clark, and Edwards will all run in 2008; that's a pretty crowded field right there.

In short, we've got a strong field of potential Presidential candidates, now and into the future. And it's time to put in a good word for Al Gore, who was wise enough to skip 2004 and let a new generation of candidates develop. I'd welcome him back in 2008, though, if he continues to speak as freely as he has in the recent past.

by RT on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 04:06:21 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.