Someone left the Clark out in the Rain….
The New York Times reports that Clark and Lieberman are skipping Iowa.
Lieberman has apparently decided that he’s going to win the nomination by skipping any place that doesn’t like him. Which, honestly, might not be such a good idea. When many voting Americans see you as a passionless cold fish of a candidate, the last thing you want to do is walk away from a state because it might be difficult to win.
And that’s not to mention the message that it sends to the voters in Iowa. If Lieberman goes on to win the Democratic nomination, he will have sent a message to Iowans that he considers them a low priority. Having played the “You never liked me, anyway” card in Iowa, he’ll have a hard time convincing voters that he’ll make a good President. How can you trust a President when he feels your state isn’t worth the effort?
Lieberman’s already having a difficult time convincing the voters that he’ll go the distance against the financial and propoganda juggernaut. Perhaps Iowa is a battle he won’t win – but he won’t prove that he can win America by giving up without a fight.
Clark, on the other hand, has a different reason for leaving.
General Clark’s advisers said they concluded last week that his late-starting candidacy had left him unable to assemble the intricate organization needed to win the Iowa race, which puts a premium on drawing voters to some 2,000 precinct caucuses. Most of the state’s experienced organizers have signed with other candidates.“What we’ll do is what I call the General MacArthur strategy,” a senior Clark adviser said. “General MacArthur was very successful in World War II because he skipped over the Japanese strongholds, where they were more organized, and instead picked islands that were favorable or neutral terrain. Which means we would choose not to focus resources on Iowa and instead focus them on New Hampshire and on Feb. 3,” when there are Democratic contests in seven states.
I’m certain the Democratic party appreciates being compared to Japan in World War II. To follow Clark’s tendency to think in military terms, I doubt that he has Little Boy and Fat Man hiding in reserve – or that he would know where to drop them if he did.
I’ve likened General Clark to a latecomer at a pot-luck picnic who shows up to the tables hauling a massive tupperware full o’ chicken soup after everybody’s already finished off their banana pudding and pulled out their bingo cards. He’s bringing not much more to the table than his name and military credentials, and any time people point out his lack of substance, he responds by saying that he hasn’t been in the race long enough.
Perhaps it made sense when he spent the entirety of his first debate complaining that he had only been in the race for eight days, but by now he has to have more to offer than excuses and promises. We can’t hang our hopes on somebody who offers a bright smile and a big name instead of firm positions or a plan of action – that’s how we wound up with Schwarzenegger running a state.
As I’ve said before, we need a fighter to go up against Bush. Bush may have a record of bad stumbles and big messes, but he’s also got massive sponsorship, a giant propaganda machine, and one of the biggest and most experienced dirty tricks squadrons ever assembled.
Dean has already cast down the gauntlet by campaigning in Texas – a state expected to be a Bush stronghold in the next election. It’s a daring move that shows he’s committed to winning a true mandate from the people, and not just a Supreme Court decision. The question now is who’s going to follow suit, and who’s going to pull out old military tactics and advance… to the rear.