An open letter to Gen. Wesley Clark

Dear General Clark,

On the off-chance that you stumble across my site (or, if you're like me and Google your name pretty often to see what people are writing about you), I would like to explain why at this time I do not support your entering the Democratic presidential primary race.

Let me get the basics out of the way: The invisible primary we are in the midst of--as you probably have read in my archives--is for donors, endorsement, and activists. You know, organization stuff.

By mid-August, when you say you will announce, the good staffers will be taken (the ones Lieberman's letting go aren't that good), as well as volunteer networks and big-name endorsements. If you wait until then, you face a big battle for name recognition, campaign structure, and, in a serious way, money.

But wait, you say, Bill Clinton didn't enter the race until late 1991. Jimmy Carter didn't break out until well into the primaries themselves.

This is true. But the primary season is a different animal now. We will know who the candidate is (unless there's some monkey business with superdelegates and whatnot, leading to a brokered convention) by March 3. That's only about eight months from now.

This front-loaded primary season makes it essentially impossible for anyone to start slow and gain momentum. You have to start strong and stay strong. You could maybe win in Washington, DC if you campaign there--many other candidates are skipping that one, at least officially--but that might anger Iowans the next week and the New Hampshirese the week after that for undercutting their primacy (which is why the others are skipping DC). But DC's vote is mostly symbolic; the big prizes are elsewhere. Will you have time to be strong in IA, NH, and SC?

I know you've got a growing group of Meetuppers, who, as I know from first-hand experience, can really help a campaign. But the five months between Labor Day and Iowa will go by very quickly. No amount of people can make up for lost time.

But there's more, Gen. Clark. I also think that if you jump into this campaign as late as it seems you might, you will anger a whole lot of people who might be wondering why you have been avoiding it. Why, they might ask (and, heck, I've heard it asked already), should you be allowed not to have to campaign like the rest of them?

I know this is historically early yet. And if you announced your candidacy tomorrow, I think a lot of people could forgive you. But to wait until September? Some will get tired of waiting for you; others will just be offended that you took so much time.

And I personally worry about your being seen as the "savior," as I don't think Democrats need to be seen as people who need saving. We have nine great candidates right now, all of whom would be far better than the Whopper. But the pundits and especially the right-leaning cable and radio folks will see this as another opportunity to bemoan the quality of candidates that Democrats can field. Even if their statements are designed to contrast these candidates with how formidable you are instead--and I do believe you would be a formidable opponent to the Whopper--the overall impression the audience is left with is what a bunch of losers Democrats are in general.

One of the key reasons I support Howard Dean (so, yeah, okay, take this all with a grain of salt) is that Dean is partisan. He stirs up this opposition party to actually go out there and offer some opposition. That helps to restore my faith as a member of this opposition party. I think it's good that Dean is firing up Democrats, especially the disaffected ones who had given up politics or who had avoided politics altogether.

Unlike a lot of people who worry that Dean at the top of the ticket would be bad for Democrats down-ballot, I think Dean's ability to energize Democrats--not just independents and former Greens--will be very helpful to Democrats down-ballot (and you have to admit that former Greens won't vote for Republican Senate candidates or even dogcatchers).

But you, General Clark, have a very non-partisan appeal. That means a lot of Republicans might vote for you. This could work in your favor, but what does it do for Democrats down the ballot? I actually think this is an issue many Democrats will face, as a whole lot of Republicans may vote "D" at the top of the ticket as an anti-Whopper vote. But without a candidate who does a good job mobilizing the base, a la Dean, will there be enough Democratic voters to elect Dems to other offices?

Take Wisconsin as an example. We elected Democrat Jim Doyle as governor in 2002. But many of his votes came from Republicans who did not like or trust the incumbent Scott McCallum (who inherited the job from Tommy Thompson) because, frankly, he was not very good and that was widely acknowledged, even in Republican circles. But the state Senate was taken by Republicans, and Republicans strengthened their hold on the Assembly. Doyle--unlike what either of his primary challengers Tom Barret and Kathleen Falk might have done--did not energize the base, and those other races fell to Republicans. I worry that the same will happen nationally with a Clark candidacy.

Finally, and this is perhaps my most important point (as a regular reader of mine, Gen. Clark, you must know I always save the best for last), as I said above, right now you are seen as non-partisan and impartial. Your criticism of the Whopper and his policies is therefore laden with credibility and regarded highly by the public and, more importantly, the media.

The second you declare a party affiliation or candidacy for president, all of that goes right out the window. Immediately. You lose a great deal of your current appeal just by declaring.

You are a vital and necessary voice of reason against the Whopper and the pack of liars he has working for him. People listen to you and trust you. But once you start playing politics, your attacks will be seen as partisan. Your opinions will seem politically motivated. Your credibility will be diminished.

Don't believe me? Look at what they're doing to Bob Graham. His experience as a governor and senator are unparalleled and his tenure on the intelligence committee gives him, of all our candidates, a great deal of credibility and stature when it comes to the intelligence issues currently in the news. The media, though, preface every statement of his with "Graham, who is also running for president," as if to say, "grain of salt, please." And the Wurlitzer ignores every point he scored against the Whopper on Russert this weekend instead to focus on his calling "deceit" a five-letter word instead of six (as opposed to the three-letter "lie"). It's partisan and petty, but it's what you, too will be reduced to.

General Clark, I implore you to retain your current status. You are valuable and needed by Democrats, but that value would be seriously undermined were you to become Candidate Clark instead of General Clark.

Sincerely,

Folkbum