Fear the Weasel (Clark Could Be Biggest Threat to Bush)

PowerlineBlog.com ^ | 1/5/04 | HindRocket

[NYC Republican]

The question of the hour is, Can Howard Dean be stopped? Well, of course he can be stopped. His "lead" is enirely on paper. Not a single delegate has been selected. In my opinion, the air could go out of Dean's balloon with shocking suddenness. The only primary that he has more or less locked up is quirky, non-predictive New Hampshire. Beyond that, everything is wide open.

The conventional wisdom is that the story of the Democratic contest so far is Howard Dean's success. In a sense, of course, that is true. But as I've said before, the real story is not so much Dean's success as the failure of the other candidates. Dean has never been able to get much over 25% in either the national polls or, with one or two exceptions, individual state polls. What has caused Dean to monopolize the buzz is the fact that no other candidate has been able to get much over 10%.

Moreover, the most recent data from Rasmussen Reports shows Dean's lead declining nationally. In the December survey, Dean was at 26%; in the January polling, he has fallen to 22%. Amazingly enough, the competitor who apparently picked up the 4% was John Kerry. Everyone else was stable. The latest American Research Group poll shows a similar drop-off in New Hampshire. So far, despite all of the publicity he has garnered and his presumed front-runner status, Dean has shown no sign of being able to put together anything like a majority of Democratic voters.

In my opinion, the picture will look very different when Dean's competitors start dropping from the race, which will happen very soon. In a one-on-one matchup against a more seasoned, more moderate candidate, I think Dean loses. The question comes down, I believe, to whether opposition to Dean will coalesce around a single alternative in time.

There are three plausible alternatives to Dean (assuming Hillary stays out). Kerry, notwithstanding his apparent recent gains, is, in my opinion, a hopeless candidate. Gephardt isn't as inept, but is just as dull. The most dangerous Democrat, I think, is Wesley Clark. Democratic voters are clearly looking for someone new, and someone who can win. Gephardt fails on both counts. Clark, on the other hand, could run a dangerously strong race against President Bush. As a military man from Arkansas, he would not write off the South. He looks great and talks pretty plausibly. I suspect that a considerable number of voters who would normally be automatic Bush supporters may be seduced by Clark's military background. Do I think Clark would beat Bush? No. But I think he would be by far the most dangerous nominee.

When Clark first announced, his amateurish mistakes caused me to discount him. Even more, I thought the idea that the Democrats would nominate a man who voted for Ronald Reagan, and joined the party only days before announcing his candidacy, was ridiculous. Now, I'm not so sure. These are strange times. Dean is clearly vulnerable; my hope is that if he is beaten, it is by Gephardt rather than Clark.

[NYC Republican]

Good analylsus. He brings to light one VERY important item that many of tend to overlook.

Dean is leading but has nowhere near a majority. His 25% (perhaps 30% with undecideds choosing) may represent mainly the liberal kooks that realize Kucinich can't win. As the field narrows, Edwards/Kucinich/Sharpton/Lieberman voters will go elsewhere... Many could very well go to Clark...

Any thoughts on the Powerline analysis?

[Support Free Republic]

If you don't make a donation to Free Republic, then that's one more thing you have in common with Patrick Leahy.

[Inyokern]

That idiot general who ran with Ross Perot was a better candidate than Clark.

[marlon]

Well the analysis isn't so bad except for the part that "Clark looks good" maybe it's just me but I think he looks an a lot like Grey Out Davis. Same pallor and beady eyed look ot me.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

He was an Admiral (Stockdale), and definitely not an idiot. Not much of a campaigner or debater to be sure, but not an idiot by any stretch.

[TheGeezer]

I'm mystified by the Clinton's support of Clark. What happens if he's elected? Will Hildebeast run against a sitting DemocRat president in 2008? Unlikely. Will Clark behave like a good puppet and let Clintons pull the strings for the entire Clark presidency? Unlikely.

The Clintons must have Clark win the nomination, since that will let them retain control of the DNC and the party overall, in preparation for Hildebeast's 2008 campaign (even she loses her Senate seat in 2006!). The hitch is that the 2004 candidate must lose to Bush.

What do you think?

[tbpiper]

Considering that democrats, particularly of the clintonian persuasion are far more intersted in form than substance, Clark may be their best choice. In a head to head fight with George Bush, Clark would be quickly exposed as a paper tiger. The man has nothing...except maybe a time machine. Pushed hard, I think the loon will crumble. Clark is after all, what Kusinich would be if Kusinich wasn't so f'n ugly. (appologies to John F'n Kerry for possibe copyright infringement).

[JustPlainJoe]

Easy. Clark gets Clinton backing. Strings: Hillary-V.P.

3 months into term, Clark gets Vince Foster treatment... He uhh, commits suicide! yeah, suicide. And thus,

Emperor Hillary!

[expatpat]

You are correct, EXCEPT that the lefties want to beat GWB so badly that they will vote for any nominee.

[cc2k]

TheGeezer wrote:

---

The Clintons must have Clark win the nomination, since that will let them retain control of the DNC and the party overall, in preparation for Hildebeast's 2008 campaign (even she loses her Senate seat in 2006!). The hitch is that the 2004 candidate must lose to Bush.

What do you think?

---

I think it will be Wesly Clark/Hillary Clinton in 2004. Here's why:

• In a Clintonesque way, she keeps her promise to server in the Senate through the remainder of her senate term. The VPOUTUS is also President of the Senate and casts a tie breaking vote if needed.
• If that ticket loses, it's all Clark's fault and Hillary will be the frontrunner in 2008.
• If that ticket wins, some sort of Arkcident or Arkancide happens to Clark in early 2007 and Hillary runs as an incumbent in 2008 and 2012, serving for nearly ten years.

[gridlock]

RATs will never, ever forgive him for that.

They want to win. They want to beat GWB so bad they can taste it. They would vote for the Devil himself if he had a (D) behind his name and had a legitimate shot at beating Bush.

[NYC Republican]

I think Clark may select Hildabeast as his VP nominee if he can beat Dean.

[pkajj]

I'll grant you Admiral James Stockdale was a dud as a political candidate. But he was no idiot as you assert. He spent eight years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, endured routine tortures by the Viet Cong, yet managed to keep fellow POW's inspired and hopeful. He developed a unique code by which to communicate to fellow POW's, and was rightly hailed as a war hero upon his release. To this day, he walks with a limp as a result of the tortures. Perot picked him as his VP running mate more for his inspirational story than his political credentials.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

This time it won't be such an obvious murder. No body this time.

[bobjam]

Does anyone really think that a president Clark will have any say in matters with a veep Hillary looking over his shoulders? Okay maybe Clark thinks that. The Clintons will effectively be in charge of the White House and Clark can pull an LBJ and decide not to seek re-election in 2008, thus paving the way for Hillary.

[Dionysius]

Fear not. His contemporaries in the army will do him in if it comes to that. There simply is no necessity as yet. They will not allow that gutless pencil-pusher to become C-in-C.

[TheGeezer]

How naive is Clark?

Wait - I think I hear black helicopters approaching, so I have to get this out fast...

Suppose shortly after a Clark/Hildebeast vistory, Hildebeast suddenly suffers a post-menopausal emotional collapse and is found tragically in a septic system in Delaware?

I've got to take my medication now...

[SpinyNorman]

Weasel Clark has a long way to go in his answers to questions though. He won't give the same answer twice, and has flipped on the issues more times that a flounder on a boat deck. Even Chris Matthews on Imus today, made fun of Clarke's inability to give a straight answer to a direct question.

I just feel kinda greasy after listening to Generalissimo Monobrow.

[PhiKapMom]

Exactly! I have heard that military members from 4-star Generals on down are ready to go after Weasley Clark if he gets the nod. He will be so ravaged by the time November comes around, he will lose bigger than Dean to Bush IMO.