Looks like Clark is readying himself for 2008. Good. Longtime readers know I was a big Clark-booster in 04 and I think all the same arguments will apply this time around, so I'm glad to see him taking it seriously. Looking back, there's little doubt in my mind that, had Clark entered the primaries when Dean did, he would've won them. I'm also convinced that Kerry/Clark rather than Kerry/Edwards would have taken home the presidential bacon. Kerry thought his resume enough to prove his national security cred; he was wrong. I remain certain that the reason John lost was because it was easier to imagine Bush traipsing through Vietnam than it was to see Kerry do the same -- appearances, unfortunately, matter.
Happily, Clark oozes military. It's impossible to imagine the guy anywhere else. And that's the key thing for a Democrat right now. We've got a persistent advantage on domestic issues and the credibility we've built there is attached to the party, any nominee can use it. What we don't have is a party-wide credibility on national security issues; that needs to be brought my the nominee. Luckily, Clark brings it. And since Scott unearthed my posts on this from last time around, let me be the first to take up the call again -- Clark/Sebelius 08.
By the way: Clark, Dean, Angelides, Westly -- seems like this years CA Dem convention didn't suck. I covered last year's as press and found it a horrible depressing affair. A procession of ambitious, backbiting politicians cycling anonymously over the stage while taking potshots at each other because Arnold was still too popular to hit. Made me want to be a Republican. Wish I'd gone this time around, though.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)