Gen. Wesley Clark made it official this morning, telling an internet audience that he has decided to “accept your draft.” I think it was a nice touch telling the online crowd first, since it was online activists who helped make this campaign happen.
Clark will make his announcement speech in Little Rock this afternoon at 1 pm EST. If you happen to be in the area, you should definitely swing by. If not, I’m pretty sure it’ll be on TV.
Also, the Clark campaign unveiled its website this morning — Americans for Clark.com. It’s a little sparse right now, but the campaign isn’t even a day old, so I’m sure it’ll be adding lots of content soon. The overall feel of the site looks pretty good to me.
It appears at this point that Clark is getting exactly what he wants — a campaign that is hitting the ground running. The campaign may still be in its infancy, but it’s already drawn some of the most impressive staffers I can think of. I used to think John Kerry’s campaign team was remarkable. Then I saw the names of some of the folks surrounding the general.
Two weeks ago, blogger Daily Kos, with whom I agree 95% of the time, said it’s “too late” for Clark, in part because he wouldn’t be able to assemble a strong enough staff to surround him. “All the top consultants are committed,” Kos said.
No offense, Kos, but check out Clark’s team as the campaign kicks off: former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor, Gore field director Donnie Fowler, Gore strategist Ron Klain, Clinton/Gore communications specialist Mark Fabiani, New Hampshire activist George Bruno, Clinton appointee Vanessa Weaver, former deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, and Eli Segal, former head of AmeriCorps and chairman of Clinton’s 1992 campaign.
The Clark campaign has a long road ahead, but if assembling a powerful and impressive team of aides was at the top of the checklist, I’d say it’s safe to put a checkmark next to that one.
The most common criticism I’ve heard is that there just isn’t enough time for Clark to mount a serious challenge in the earlier primaries and caucuses. I don’t buy this argument for a number of reasons.
First, most Dem primary voters have not yet settled on a candidate. Dean is certainly the frontrunner right now, but it’s not as if the nomination is already in his pocket. 40% of the country doesn’t even know who Dean is. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the overwhelming majority of Dem voters would, at a minimum, be open to a Clark candidacy. And I have a hunch, the more they see him, the more they’ll like him.
Second, despite the fact that the campaign season began about a year ago for some of these candidates, there’s still quite a bit of time before a single vote is cast.
Five months is a long time. In campaign politics, it’s an eternity. Don’t believe me? Consider where Howard Dean was five months ago. As recently as the spring, Dean’s fundraising was mediocre, the media was still labeling his campaign “quixotic,” he wasn’t in the top three in any poll in any state (except Vermont), and he had zero endorsements outside Vermont’s delegation. Five months later, he has more money than he knows what to do with, throngs of supporters, and is the odds-on frontrunner.
If an unknown governor of one of the nation’s smallest states can go from an asterisk to a superstar in five months, why can’t a four-star general?
There are other recent examples. In 1992, it took Ross Perot less than five months to go from obscure Texas businessman to leading independent presidential candidate, who, according to polls in the summer of ’92, had a realistic chance of winning (before everyone realized he’s nuts). In 1998, it took Jesse Ventura far less than five months to go from notoriety as a “professional” wrestler to being the chief executive of the state of Minnesota. The point is, Clark can and will do a lot in five months time.
I have no idea what kind of campaign Clark is going to run and how (or whether) he’ll be aggressive towards his Dem rivals. Daily Kos predicted yesterday that Clark will set himself up as the “anti-Dean.” I don’t see it that way.
I expect Clark to do almost the opposite — pitch himself as “Dean Plus.” Indeed, Clark and Dean have many positions in common. They’re both pro-choice, anti-war, anti-Bush tax cut Democrats. Without major distinctions on issues, it comes down to electability. Clark will simply give voters a choice between himself and a candidate who can pound the podium and get the Dems riled up, but is burdened with limited national appeal. Like Dean’s positions and passions but don’t think he can win in November 2004? Then I’m your man, Clark will say.
As Ruy Teixeira at the Emerging Democratic Majority said last night, “If only there were a candidate who was anti-war, but still credible as commander-in-chief; willing to go after Bush, but less likely to alienate swing voters; able to generate enthusiasm, but not dependent on a limited demographic slice of the Democratic party like…well, like Wesley Clark.”
My sentiment exactly.
In fact, in just the last couple of months, one of many things that’s impressed me about Clark is his ability to bridge the gap between establishment types in DC and activists types who’ve checked Clark out in the field. The hyper-centrist DLC sees Dean as a disaster waiting to happen. The Campaign for America’s Future, the DLC’s rival for the heart of the party, sees Kerry/Edwards/Lieberman/Gephardt as unacceptable because each voted for the Bush war resolution. Clark can (and I believe will) appeal to both sides. He’s like Dean on the issues, but is less abrasive, has more credibility on national security and foreign policy, and like every Democratic president of the last 40 years, is from the South.
Even an uber-liberal like Michael Moore, who voted for Nader in 2000, is practically drooling over Clark’s candidacy. In an Open Letter to Clark last week, Moore said, “I am sure there are things you and I don’t see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for.”
Then consider the early voices of support for Clark in Congress. Clark went to Capitol Hill in June and ran into Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.), one of the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus. Clark introduced himself and asked if there was anything he could do for the congressman. “I want to help you get elected,” a beaming Shows bellowed. “That is what the hell I want to do.”
Yet Clark is equally popular with lawmakers like Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who represents a very liberal district in Harlem. What else do Rangel and Shows have in common? Not much.
Indeed, as of close of business yesterday on Capitol Hill, seven Democratic members of Congress had thrown their support behind Clark — the day before he was even a candidate. That’s as many endorsements as Howard Dean has picked up from Dem lawmakers in Washington — and Dean’s been running for over a year.
I’m not saying Clark’s future will be easy. It won’t. First order of business should be the most aggressive fundraising campaign ever. Clark is about $20 million behind Dean, Kerry, and Edwards. He’ll probably never catch up, but he won’t have to go dollar-for-dollar against those guys to remain competitive. Clark will, however, need about $10 million before the New Hampshire primary.
I remain confident that Clark can pull it off. Rest assured, I’ll be posting lots of updates along the way.