Reply #171: Clark for sure... still wondering why he missed Iowa

[dazeconf]

Clark is a general and foreign policy expert, and Bush would have found it nearly impossible to debate him on Iraq/terrorism just by talking about how resolute (read: stubborn) he is. As for Clark's lack of domestic experience, on the flipside Bush clearly lacked any foreign policy knowledge whatsoever in 2000, and I highly doubt that Bush would have taken away working class domestic issue voters just because Clark was never a Governor/Senator.

I still think that Clark might have been able to win the nomination had he not skipped Iowa. At the time, it seemed that Kerry's success there was largely due to his military history and widely publicized reunion w/ Jim Rassman. Clark's military record is actually much more impressive than Kerry's, and might have nullified Kerry's war hero advantage to some extent. If Clark campaigns in Iowa, I think either he or Edwards (based on his political / campaigning skills) wins.

I like/respect Dean, now even more so than during the primaries. The problem is that the Repubs just have too much ammo to use against him. "The Scream" isn't the only instance of Dean being angry or controversial. The post-election Newsweek article indicated that Rove had several "angry Dean" videos ready to go. Angry impassioned speech works well with college kids, but probably would scare paranoid "security moms." Dean's pro Gay Rights stance probably wouldn't have helped either, given the result of the recent state ban votes.

All in all, I thought Clark was the strongest candidate this year, and would like him to run again. He really needs to keep up his name recognition somehow, and some sort of domestic government experience wouldn't hurt either. I just don't know how he'll do it in 4 years. Maybe he can run for a two year term in the house in 2006 (and hopefully take a Republican seat in AK)