I don't think he's running.

He'll look for an openiing- but if Richardson - with his pluses of having been a Governor, UN Ambassador, etc. is gaining no traction- Clark probably sees the writing on the wall.

He'll get in in October if it looks like Hillary is by herself or if the frontrunner is faltering- kind of a poor man's Gore.

It's too damned early. If everyone else was jumping off a cliff, would you do it, too?

You know what might be neat is a primary challenge to Pryor in Arkansas...

I don't know if Clark has access to any good political advisers for 2008 like he did in 2004 (most of them are with Clinton now) but I just don't see any way that a strategy of waiting has any kind of benefit for him.

Clinton and Obama have staked out their base and their poll numbers will solidify as time goes on. Edwards is trying to find a way to get his campaign into play and Richardson is making some inroads toward getting out of the second tier.

Most of the best staff have already been hired and the big 3 are raising money and getting financial commitments and endorsements. There will be a lot of Democratic donors who hedge their bets and will contribute to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Money is already a huge factor and will be an even more difficult if not impossible one by June.        

Look at this new poll:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2521 81,00.html

The Clarkies come out whenever they hear his name.

Clark may feel he can be more effective in halting a war with Iran if he is not a candidate.

I think this was his non-announcement announcement that he's not going to run.  

If he enters the race in June or later, that's two quarters of fundraising he'll miss out on.  Obama, Clinton and Edwards will each have raised over $40Million by that point.  There will be few experienced staffers left to work his campaign.  He will be 6 months or more behind in ground organization.

There is nothing to be gained by waiting.

clark as of the end of 2006 only had 130k net left in his campaign account

I dunno if the report is accurate or not, but I don't expect Biden and Dodd to last the summer. Richardson may not either.

You're kidding if you think all the 'good' advisors are spoken for, BTW.   Campaign gypsies (those who migrate from campaign to campaign) will ALWAYS be available.  There are some very good folks who haven't signed on with anyone.  There are also a few who are occupying themselves in the interim with other things.

I really have to laugh that anyone thinks there is a shortage of political consultants.

He's a dark horse and does not have the big money, such as AIPAC or the celebrity of the three Dems who have been designated by the media and the party as the real candidates. So if he enters, he has to see how the field develops and if the right circumstances appear that would enable him to step in at the most opportune moment strategically. Despite his passionate commitment, he is very grown-up and patient, qualities that his supporters need to have too, even when we feel desperate for change.

And he may right about being more effective as a non-candidate at this point. He really, really wants a change in Iraq policy and wants limits placed on Bush/Cheney asap.

this does not bode well.
We are in a situation where time is most definitely of the essence. I know why he is doing it, but this is bad...

-C.

Al Gore wants to stop global warming.  Wes Clark wants to stop war with Iran.  Both of these are pretty important.

Both of them apparently make the same judgment, that succeeding at their chosen goals is more important for the country (and the world) than incrementally increasing their chances of being elected President by declaring early.

I don't know why both of them get GRIEF for this position, for goodness sake.  It all seems pretty f'in noble to me.

I'm a Clarkie but it strikes me as fair to take his name off straw polls & such.  It does seem clear that he is not running anytime soon.  Given the very early start to the race there is going to be a different dynamic this cycle.  The conventional wisdom, entirely logical, is that the early birds are the whole ballgame.  Under that view a certain amount of money by this quarter or that quarter is a prerequsite to be ing taken seriously.  I don't disagree but my mind id open.

In particular, I think Hillary Clinton may just have gotten in too early. I don't think the prospect of the longest campaign ever helps her at all -- but that is done, still I think it would be to her asdvantage to turn down the volume just a little.  

I'd be surprised if there are not major shakeups before the end of 2007, like an early demise of one of the major candidates and a wild card or two getting in, riding some wave of publicity or issues.  Some of the current candidates might be overspending at this point and may be miscalculating about campaigning all out so early.  An unexpected health situation could come into play.  The possibilities are endless and with extra time the chances are greater for an off-the-wall scenario.  

Clark does have a book in the works.  His work with the new generation of veterans and www.StopIranWar.com is important.  Let's just see what happens and work on the Presidential campaign, movement building and issues like showing the administration that we won't blindly fall behind them if they blunder into war with Iran.  

I've long gotten used to people dismissing Wes Clark's chances for 2008, it has been like that as long as horse race mentality has predominated discussion of electing our next President, and horse race mentality has predominated for over a year now.  Remember the days when Warner was the anti-Hillary?

So either folks will get to be proved right about Clark, or maybe not if and when the public is ready for some serious discussion of how to keep America out of a generation long war triggered off by an expansion of conflict into Iran.

What I have not gotten used to is how so many supposed grassroots/netroots leaders and activists have dismissed (through neglect) the initiative that Wes Clark is pursuing instead of campaigning for President right now: Stopping War with Iran.  Clark is working to prevent war with Iran on several fronts, some of them private; like his quiet discussions with members of Congress and his meetings with Middle East leaders while he was in Saudi Arabia a little over a week ago.  In fact it is the private channels that Clark is working to prevent war with Iran that would most be disrupted by his becoming an announced candidate for President.

But Wes Clark and VoteVets.org have a very public channel working to stop war with Iran also:
http://www.stopiranwar.com/

Already there are over 27,000 signers with letters to editors of papers around the country being generated daily.  And stopIranWar.com will not go down as a one time splash, the public pressure efforts being coordinated from there are just beginning.

So why is it that the stopIranWar.com campaign is a less worthy subject for front page commentary on MyDD than continuing endless 2008 Presidential horse race speculation?  From what I can tell, given current indications, war with Iran is likely to begin before the first Presidential Primaries.  StopIranWar.com is certainly a grassroots/netroots movement, it's not like stopping a war is an obscure topic for discussion, and the movement continues to spread across the nation without much in the way of media coverage; mainstream or alternative.

The mainstream media has it's Ann Nicole Smiths to cover, the mainstream alternative blogs have their 2008 horse race to cover, but the grassroots will carry on with or without attention being paid to us from above on this one.  Preventing a war with Iran is too important to put on the back burner because politics is more juicy to talk about.  Wes Clark I think gets that.  I hope more people will get that soon also, whether or not he ever becomes a candidate for President again.

Please look at the issues General Clark discussed in New Hampshire last week. In my opinion his  approach to this administration's 'policy,' China, international matters, and the environment, are ideal,  AND it looks like a campaign speech to me.

I believe that he will run, and that those who have supported him should encourage others to follow his activities; he's been very busy during the past years.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/03032 007/nhnews-ph-p-clark.html

Clark isnt announcing for another three months because he isnt running. If he says he's not running now though, it takes his name out of discussions- so he's keeping himself relevent. This is important to stay on people's minds as a VP candidate- particularly Barack who needs some foreign policy credentials on the ticket as well as, frankly, someone white.

I just got off the phone with Gene Caulfield who is Wes Clark's brother-in-law and who was also present at that house meeting in New Hampshire.  He doesn't recall any discussion of a fixed timeline that Wes Clark spoke of regarding when he was likely to either announce or not announce his Presidential intentions.

Gene Caulfield said the thrust of the conversation was about the crisis facing the nation now with tensions building toward war with Iran, and with the stresses being placed on our voluntary military in Iraq and Afghanistan. In was in that context, according to Mr. Caulfield, that Clark reaffirmed the reasons why he believes being an announced candidate now would limit his effectiveness at dealing with the immediate crisis facing America. The conversation stressed Clark's committment to stay focused on that work for now, rather than Presidential politics.

The conversation Gene Caulfield recalled never got specific about dates for decision making about a Presidential run. The entire political aspect of a potential presidential run was very much secondary to the topic of the threats facing our nation, and what Clark is engaged in now attempting to deal with those threats, and what needed to be done in those areas.

Time 6:35 PM EST

"I'm sitting with General Clark right now.

He never said he's not going to run and he's not going to commit to a timeline on when he has to announce.  The early campaign season is good for two groups of people - the fundraisers and the consultants.  The average citizen won't make up their mind until much later in the game"

Are you just spreading rumors or did you do your homework?

Looks like the former....and somehow, I thought we were better than that. Should have called Clark before going out on a limb.

From the comments at dkos

[new] Another person who was there

said that the '3 month' statement never happened.

Didn't think it sounded correct.

Join Wes Clark and VoteVets.Org to stop the Iran War

by kathygo on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:56:48 PM PST

[ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll ]

snip

* [new] I believe she must have mis-heard the answer (0 / 0)

Nothing wrong or problematic with that.  

What is wrong is for Kos to take a single statement from a single supporter (who's comments are contradicted by others who were there) as some sort of 'truth'.

Join Wes Clark and VoteVets.Org to stop the Iran War

by kathygo on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 02:33:00 PM PST

[ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll ]

snip    

[new] Not everyone lives at CCN (0 / 0)

Some didn't even know it was a topic of discussion till this popped up. Gene Caulfield and Bernie Quigley neither one heard the 3 month comment.

  1. I believe them and 2) I believe they both have sufficient powers of comprehension to have understood the comment if they'd heard it so

  3. it's possible that what the poster thought she 'heard' isn't what was said.

I'll repeat.  There's nothing wrong with the CCN poster saying that's what she heard (if she thinks she did) BUT it is wrong for Kos to take a single statement from a single individual  in a roomful of other individuals who may or may not have heard what she thought she did.  Particularly when other accounts are contradictory.

Join Wes Clark and VoteVets.Org to stop the Iran War

by kathygo on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:00:46 PM PST,

For the record there were no media at this event for Carol. They were at an earlier press avail at Jeanette Hopkins house which was closed to all. I have not spoken to any media about the blog entry I made last Friday night nor is it my place to do so. They seem to have lifted the entry without asking questions.

Since Wes had just stated "I'm not a candidate for President, but I haven't said I won't run", he then asked for questions. Since it was obvious he had been saying the same thing since December, I decided in my question to offer a broader timeline. I was tempted to ask him if he was going to be at the NH Debate in early April, but felt that was too close in proximity to the present. I decided to ask him, "Wes is there any chance during the next 3 months you will declare your candidacy?" My voice was clear; there were chuckles after I said it because the activists in the room knew I had been a Clark supporter in the last election and knew I was trying to draw out some sort of timeline. His answer back did not mention "3 months". It just said no and here's why as he outlined his need to be heard not as a political platform but as a policy platform. I was just 10 feet away when I asked him.

If Wes did not hear the 3 months, I had no way to know that. I was close enough to be heard. My intent was not to force him to declare but to try to find out what timeframe he might be looking at as so many people are waiting patiently.

I went into the event an undeclared activist and came out committed once again to Wes Clark. I was excited to outline the story of why he was so brilliant at the event. What a mistake it was to ever post something.

I also talked to Gene yesterday (Monday) and told him again what I had said. He was a few feet behind me and I'm unsure if he was talking to somebody else when I asked my question or if he had even heard my question in the first place.

I'm tired of being maligned by people who question my first-hand report, whether I exaggerated, lied or otherwise. I know what I said. There is no doubt. I have no way of knowing, however, if Wes heard my question correctly. Judging from Wes Jr.'s comments, he did not hear my question in it's entirety.

This is a great example of why I rarely post on blogs much. It also demonstrates why the media should ask questions first before jumping to conclusions.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1132 6