He wasn’t that bad a candidate

December 5, 2006

I should probably make one thing clear about the 2008 race and The Carpetbagger Report: I plan to remain neutral, at least as far as the Democratic primary race goes. I like several of the major candidates, but won’t officially take sides. Readers can expect me to say supportive and derogatory things about each of them. An official endorsement, however, will not be forthcoming.

With that out of the way, something caught my eye in yesterday’s NYT about two possible candidates, both of whom I like.

For all the excitement Mr. Obama’s potential candidacy has stirred, he remains a 45-year-old first-term senator who is largely untested in national politics. Yes, Mr. Obama is unusually talented, Democrats and Republicans alike say, but the history of presidential campaigns is filled with examples of celebrity candidates like Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004 who burst onto the political stage but eventually sputtered as they struggled to master the difficulties of running for president.

The comparison doesn’t work for me. Clark was running for public office for the first time; Obama has run two congressional campaigns and several state legislative campaigns. For that matter, the NYT seems to be confusing “talented” candidates with “celebrity” candidates. As Noam Scheiber said, “When you parse what the writer is saying here, it amounts to: Yes, Mr. Obama is unusually talented … but the history of presidential campaigns is filled with examples of untalented candidates sputtering.” It’s as if an editor wasn’t paying very close attention.

But I think it’s worth noting that Clark never really got his due as a candidate. The Times said he “struggled to master the difficulties” of being a presidential candidate, while Scheiber said Clark failed because he “turned out to be a pretty lousy politician.”

I followed Clark’s campaign pretty closely in 2004 and I remember things slightly differently.

Indeed, looking back, I think the conventional wisdom is that John Edwards excelled as a candidate, while Clark never really caught on with voters. That’s not quite what happened.

After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates — Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards — met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.

In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests.

In fact, in those first eight post-Iowa primaries, if we look only at top-two finishes (candidates who came in either first or second), Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one.

But the media was unimpressed. A day after Clark and Edwards each won their first primaries, and Clark outperformed Edwards in a majority of the mini-Super Tuesday contests, news outlets praised Edwards and dismissed Clark. Salon, for example, ran a major feature, taking a look at the race for the nomination. The headline: “And then there were two.” A big picture accompanied the article with Kerry and Edwards. The article said Clark “posted disappointing numbers in the seven-state primary” and “may not be long for the game.” Again, this was a day after Clark actually did slightly better than Edwards.

I also recall that Clark delivered a pretty solid speech at the DNC that year, widely considered one of the better speeches of the convention.

Clark got into 2004 very late, had very little money, a small staff, and no experience to speak of. But he still managed to do surprisingly well. He “turned out to be a pretty lousy politician”? That’s not how I remember it.

Clark certainly started out as an inexperienced politician, but he also probably began with a higher name recog than Edwards due to his work on CNN. I think it’s fair to say that Clark was an akward campaigner early on. By the time he found his legs, the race was pretty much decided. I think he’d make a very strong candidate in ’08.
FWIW, I still like both of them.

  • I was an early “Clarkist” and think he did a pretty good job for a man who had never held public office. I’m glad he’s stayed active in Democratic politics and hope to see him make another try at national office. He has a lot to offer; he’s a good man, and a thoughtful one.

  • Clark got into 2004 very late, had very little money, a small staff, and no experience to speak of. But he still managed to do surprisingly well. He “turned out to be a pretty lousy politician”? That’s not how I remember it.

    EXACTLY.

  • I’d be a big fan of Clark as Veep.

    Of course, I wanted Feingold to at least run for Prez, so my dream Feingold/Clark ticket is shot.

    It’ll be interesting to see how Clark does this time around — I get the feeling he’ll surprise a large number of people.

  • The “sputtering” image comes from one, and only one, incident. He got in late and hadn’t gotten his feet on the ground yet.

    In the very first week, he stumbled over a question from the pack of journalists, and jokingly called out to an aide “Mary, help!”

    The press immediately tagged him as “weak” and moved on. Idiots.

    Barring a Gore entry, Clark has my vote already for 2008. If Big Ed Rendell moves the primary earlier in Pennsylvania, my opinion might even matter.

    Clark’s the strongest candidate. I think Obama is very promising — for the *FUTURE* — and it’s too early. I’ve never much wanted Hilary and get annoyed when everyone writes stories assuming she’s got it sewn up. Clark has the military and foreign policy credentials our next President has to have to start cleaning up this mess…….

    (And if McCain does get the GOP nod, all the better to neutralize the “military glow”)

  • Clark is the most likely “surprise” strong contender…that is, if somebody in the field comes out of “nowhere” (i.e. in beltway pundits minds) exceeds expectations, it could be him. He already has an activist base, and he’s got many remarkable personal qualities.

  • Clark will work for me.

    In fact I should probably go out and work for Clark. 😉

    Time to step up and win back America.

  • largely untested in national politics

    Hmmmm reminds me of some Chimpy Emperor former Governor who with little to NO forieign policy experience prior to his Presidential Run (let alone any travel outside the US in his 47 years on earth) was taken as a very serious candidate by the “liberal” media in 2000…..

    This lack of “national” experience narrative by the media is a joke

    3 of the last 4 Presidents (Reagan, Clinton, Bush 2) were all Governors and were largely untested in national politics so that arguement really doesnt hold water….

    The fact is that Obama is a potential candidate that has actually dealt more in the national politcal arena than any of the three former Governors did prior to their election to the Presidency …..that fact alone contradicts the whole point of this poorly written article…..

    Also comparing Obama to Clark is completely off base…Clark was a FORMER GENERAL WITH NO POLITCAL EXPERIENCE that entered the race late…..apples to oranges…..

    lazy journalism at its best

  • “I plan to remain neutral, at least as far as the Democratic primary race goes. ” — CB

    A wise approach and one I think (most of) your readers will come to appreciate. Be prepared for some arm-twisting, though.

  • Yes, Mr. Obama is unusually talented…

    As Chris Rock would say, “He’s so articulate! He’s so well-spoken!”

  • I think lib4 has a point – lazy journalism. Journalists focused on the front runner that they in large part created – Dean. When Dean fizzled (with the media’s encouragement) they foucused on the obvious (Kerry and Edwards). Clark may have been inexperienced in politics (though I would say operting in the Pentagon is it’s own form of politics) and started late – but he raised a lot of money (and has kept a lot of his supporters active for him and the candidates he has worked for). He has also done a really good job since that election. Yes, he has spent time of Faux but he usually kicks some lame Faux personality’s a**, has appeared before Congress (kicked Perle’s a**), has been at the forefront of Democratic efforts for crafting their own Iraq/Defense agenda, raised a lot of money and made a lot of appearances for various Democratic candidates.

    Of course the Democratic party itself never got into him and were frankly suspicious (he was also operating under the “used to be a Republican” meme that was out there). I think what he as done for the party has showed people what he can do.

  • I like Clark and intend to work for him in New York. He cuts through the crap and, as others have said, he is thoughtful and accomplished. I think he’ll do a surprising good job campaigning this time and he’d be good for the country. A fighting Dem in every sense of the word. I hope he doesn’t change.

  • Clark has been woodshedding these past couple of years by making appearances for candidates and at local Democratic clubs and by being a regular on Fox News (thus innoculating himself against Swift Boat-type attacks).

    Clark-2004 ain’t Clark-2006 and won’t be Clark-2008. He wasn’t ready then; he is now.

  • In some societies a 45 year old is an adult. Obama not only has a lot of campaigning experience, he has a fantastic background in social and political issues, both in education and experience. As I recall he’s a little older than Kennedy was when he parlayed his boyish good looks into a presidency.

    Kerry is well-tested in national campaigning and he still hasn’t got the hang of it.

  • ET does make a good point as have others: “When Dean fizzled (with the media’s encouragement)—” shows how the media has been too instrumental in creating and defining candidates for the Democratic Party. Clinton has already been determined as the front runner when most of us are still trying to overcome election fatigue and have not even been allowed to express our feelings. While there is no doubt that she and Obama are attractive candidates, they do not necessarily represent the choice of mainstream Democrats, something that the media has NOT mentioned.

  • I believe Clark would be a very strong candidate. I certainly thought he was in the early going last time. He doesn’t carry Senate voting record baggage and he’s hard to Swift Boat. He also comes across as a sober adult, something that seems lacking in current presidential politics.

  • I’ll add my voice to the pro-Clark camp. He clearly wasn’t comfortable with the action in the late months of 2003, when the door was open for him; after skipping Iowa, his goose was cooked, but watching a lot of C-SPAN through January 2004, you could see him getting better and better at the retail campaigning that’s determinative in the early states. Also, as noted, he’s continue to sharpen his skills since then–and he’s earned his bones by campaigning for Democrats across the country.

    The guy has brains, guts, gravitas and a sense of humor. He’s also, in some ways, the most truly progressive candidate of the field. Right now, he’s far and away my first choice for the nomination, and I think he’d make a great president.

  • One of Clark’s “problems” might have been that he not only entered late, I seem to remember him having a weekend “retreat” fairly late in the year where he pondered the question of running or not running. Any sort of posture that reveals that you are going to think deeply about whether you are going to run is unfailingly treated as dithering by the media. A more experienced(and perhaps more cynical) politician would have kept his plans secret and announced his decision without letting the press know that he had actually had to deliberate over it.

    Another and more tragic facet of this problem is the way the media love such phonies as Bush(or they did love him–they seem to smell blood in the water now) and McCain. Two guys who present themselves as “shooting from the hip” as if that was a desirable trait in such a momentous job. People with a deliberative bent are disliked, perhaps because their quotes are often not as pithy–but in world moving decision-making I doubt if brevity is the soul of wit. Thus we find ourselves in this morass, and Al Gore finds himself out of a job.

  • ok, let me take the unpopular position in Left Blogistan.

    Clark got into 2004 very late, had very little money, a small staff, and no experience to speak of. But he still managed to do surprisingly well. He “turned out to be a pretty lousy politician”?

    I think by definition the “late, unfunded, understaffed, inexperienced” equals “lousy politician.” If not, I’m not exactly sure what it means to be a lousy politician. Clark made early gaffes in trying to articulate positions and flip-flopping around; he announced before he or his campaign were really ready for prime-time — and you only get that one shot at ta first impression. I like Clark much, much better this time around because he has spent time doing the groundwork and trying to improve (which I greatly respect). Still, I do not think POTUS is an entry-level job. Being a General is not at all the same, and history has mainly found generals who become President to have been better generals than Presidents. Congress, the media, etc do not take orders the way soldiers do.

    I am rapidly warming to Obama. I was among those who once said a partial Senate term was not enough. But he has really impressed me when the spotlight is on him, including his turn at Saddleback. More time in the Senate at this point will likely make him less electable, not more.

    That said, I remain very interested in Richardson.

  • Thanks, Steve. It’s always been so frustrating having watched what really happened as the Republican media ignored Clark and created a conventional wisdom that is so often repeated by Democrats, as well.

  • Zeitgeist–

    You know what Clark is doing right now? He’s attending a conference in Dubai which include various heads of state from the Middle East who are considering the future of the Middle East.

    Foreign policy shouldn’t be an entry level job either.

    Clark hasn’t simply given orders during his time in the military. As head of NATO he had to do some incredible diplomatic maneuvering which resulted in his being awarded the most medals by governments around the world for any American since Eisenhower.

    He speaks 4 languages, studied economics, politics and philosophy at Oxford, and has lived many places around the world.

    And yet, he’s still studying. He’s still learning the Middle East, so he’ll know what to do and know people who will want to do it with him.

    What experience do the other candidates have with foreign policy? What are they doing to learn it — are they talking to anyone other than Americans? How can we expect them to know how to judge between foreign policy options when for every expert there will no doubt be another opinion about what is best?

    The executive branch of the United States is meant primarily to lead in foreign policy. It’s kind of strange that the “leader of the free world” is one of the very few jobs a person can get with no resume to speak of.

    I’m surprised at how many liberals let a nice way around a speech and media celebrity convince them that a few years of legislative experience is just fine qualifications.

    If we were voting for a figurehead, someone like the Queen of England, it would be exactly what we needed.

    But that’s not what we’re voting for.

    And however nice a person is at making speeches, that really doesn’t tell you much about their ability to pull together a team and a plan and put it into action. It doesn’t tell you whether they are informed enough on the areas that they need to know about to make good decisions on our behalf.

    I’d feel a lot better about folks like Hillary and Obama if I thought they were paying half as much attention to learning what they need to know as president, as they are to fundraising.

  • that shoulda said:
    fwiw, NOBODY gets four stars on his shoulders w/o being very astute politician!

  • Please do not let us get sucked in By Obama. In a perfect world he might be a great candidate. The rethugs are salivating about running against him. In a country where Michael Dukakis was not considered a white guy, what do you think they will do with Obama? The Harold Ford white girl Playboy commerrcial will seem like childs play.
    Hopefully Clark would not allow the chickenhawks to do a swift boat number on him. Clark-Clinton with Clark on top would be a great ticket.

  • Clark is as eminently qualified a person to be president as there is in the nation. His chief obstacle is that he has yet to be annointed by beltway insiders. His frequent appearances on Fox and CNN, where he is completely comfortable and handles all the grenades thrown at him with skill and aplomb, might just change that.

    The conventional wisdom on a candidate like Clark is shaped by how often people repeat positive or negative comments about him. If we keep saying he is a serious contender, he will be one.

  • I’ve seen Clark a number of times in person during 2004 and since. I’m not taking any sides yet, and don’t plan to for a while, but the general has come a long way from his awkward first steps. He’s a very good man, clearly qualified, and will be a formidable candidate if he moves forward with a serious run for the nomination in 2008. I look forward to his entering the race as it will, at minimum, make a strong contribution to the debate and hopefully will bring out the best in the Democrats.

  • Good article, and thank you for enabling us to discuss Obama and Clark as possible contenders.

    IMO Obama may well be the light of the future, but Clark is already the right man for all our current seasons. Clark’s positions on every major issue are well reasoned, articulate, and progressive. Perhaps Obama’s are also – I don’t know. However, even if Obama’s positions were the equal of Clark’s, I would still prefer Clark as our next POTUS, because there is no one on the planet more qualified than Clark to get us out of Iraq at the least possible long term cost in lives and dollars. That is because Clark is not only a brilliant military strategist, but he is also trusted by more international leaders than any other American politician, and he has been right about Iraq from the very start.

    Finally, no one should doubt Clark’s committment to either democratic or Democratic goals. Contrary to the propaganda used against him in 2004, Clark has never been a registered Republican. Furthermore, I am absolutely certain that no one worked harder or more effectively for Democratic candidates all over the country in 2006 than Wesley K. Clark, a great Democrat, who would have been a great Democratic Presidential nominee in 2004, will be a truly awsome Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008, and will likely go down in history as one of the very best Presidents the world has ever seen.

  • Hillary announced after Gates got confirmed.

    Kos made over 100,000 last year off that crowd and Peace Corps, so what did they do to Obama? His money is Clinton?

  • Thank you. I hope you don’t mind if I use your post here to debunk the oft-stated misinformation re: the 2004 primaries.

    It almost shocks me how many people on liberal blogs still take what Corporate Press says as truth. It’s equally shocking to me that those same liberal bloggers will possibly allow Corporate Press to once again decide who’s going to be our candiate in ’08. To me it’s very telling that Clark is rarely, if ever mentioned by them. They definitely do not want people knowing too much about him.

  • His chief obstacle is that he has yet to be annointed by beltway insiders.

    Actually, I think Clark’s chief obstacle is that his main sources of funding are the same as Hillary’s. I hope I’m wrong.

    Vote Clark/Obama (or Clark/Edwards) 2008!

  • I’ve said it before and will say it again, Clark/Richardson in 2008! Hey Wes, it’s time to get rolling in Nevada, Harry got our caucuses moved up!!!!

  • If Gore sticks to it and doesn’t run, then I’d be for a Clark/Edwards ticket myself. Liked Clark the first time I heard him, and he wasn’t talking about Iraq, but about wages and women’s rights. And Edwards has grown up a lot in 2 yrs too; like Virginia Slims

  • Can anyone tell me why Clark was so unpopular with the media in 2004 democratic nomination? To date, very rare that CNN would mention the name of Wesley Clark. Any comments, please.

  • Linda,

    I think the media disliked Clark because he mulled bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and limited one-person ownership of the media – the sort of thing that has led to wide-spread conservative talk shows without any liberal answer.

    It’s also why they didn’t like Dean – he also mulled that same point.

    So, what did the media do? They put Dean so far into the spotlight, no one could have survived and they refused, and still refuse, to even mention Clark.

    You know they have to read the blogs and have to know what a major net roots Clark has, yet they still refuse to mention him or, when they slip and do it, then they follow it with a case ignoring the facts posted in the OP.

    • Comments are closed.