There was a specific day, about a month ago, when I believed that Wesley Clark may have been positioned just right to win the nomination. It was Jan. 15.
Iowa’s polls were fluctuating wildly, but there was overwhelming evidence that Dean was falling fast. Clark had focused all of his attention on New Hampshire and it appeared, for a while, like it was a successful strategy. Dean’s once-insurmountable lead was gone. On Jan. 15, ARG released a tracking poll showing Clark having caught up to Dean, while leading Kerry by a significant margin.
The scenario suddenly didn’t seem ridiculous. Dean would eke out a narrow win in Iowa, but his momentum would take a hit because he’d have performed “worse than expected.” Gephardt would be history, while Kerry and Edwards would be in trouble. Clark, meanwhile, was catapulting past Dean in New Hampshire, enjoyed surging fundraising, and led in several polls in post-NH states.
A come-from-behind victory in the Granite State would give Clark a tremendous boost, which he could then parlay into multiple Feb. 3 victories, and he’d be off to the races.
Of course, we now know things didn’t work out this way at all. Dean imploded in Iowa, Kerry surged in NH with a post-Iowa boost, and the rest was history.
Clark had a unique and specific role in this campaign since the moment he entered it: he was the perfect candidate to foil Howard Dean. In October and November, Dean was the presumptive nominee and many (in the party, media, and country) were looking for the “anti-Dean.” Clark had positioned himself to take full advantage of this clamoring. If you wanted a candidate with strong grassroots support, fundraising prowess, “outsider” status, and a progressive platform, you could choose between an angry Vermont governor and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.
Clark wanted — indeed, he expected — a one-on-one race with Dean, and he liked his chances. So did I.
It wasn’t to be. Dean’s campaign fell apart and Clark was poorly suited for the “anti-Kerry” role.
Now that Clark’s campaign is over, I feel a little guilty for dragging him into the race in the first place. Let’s not forget, Clark did not run for president because he was driven by personal ambition or ego; tens of thousands of us (yes, including me) participated in a Draft Clark movement to urge him to run. Before we started bothering him, Clark was enjoying his retirement, playing golf, and making lots of money. We told him to drop all of that for the mind-numbing rigors of the presidential campaign trail. The more he resisted, the more we pushed him to answer our call to duty.
I don’t regret for a second having supported Clark and my opinion of him hasn’t changed a bit. Clark, as far as I’m concerned, is an American hero to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude.
I even respect the way Clark is exiting the stage. He set reasonable expectations and said Tennessee was his “must-win” state. Things didn’t work out as Clark had hoped, so he’s doing the right thing, keeping his word, and stepping aside. I can think of at least one other candidate who should be following Clark’s example.
Clark is leaving the campaign in the same fashion he has lived his entire life: as a class act. His campaign may have faltered, but I still strongly believe that the country will benefit if Clark continues to play an active role in public affairs.
Post script: And let’s also remember that at 59, Clark is still a relatively young man. His presidential campaign was the first time he’s been a candidate for any public office ever. If he hasn’t been terribly disgusted by the last five months, Clark may still enjoy a bright future in national politics.