In any discipline the keys to good analysis are simply identifying the most important relevant data, not minimizing data that is difficult or contradictory to other data, factoring in changes that have occurred subsequent to the data collection and synthesizing all of the data to create a reasonable prediction for future events.
For months we have been treated to the Ike was a General and in charge of a military action that was successful, Ike had not held prior elective office and was drafted by the Party elders to run for POTUS. Ike won. Clark = Ike and therefore, he is the most electable DEM.
Some of what is continuously minimized or overlooked is:
- WWII does not equal Kosovo.
- Ike was a household name and hero, Clark wasn't.
- Ike didn't run against an incumbent.
- The two Parties were strong and top down driven in 1952. (Yes, the GOP is that again, but the public thinks they are doing the selecting.)
- The race was unblemished career record and war hero General vs. intellectual. Not "top gun" vs. "fired" General.
- 1952 was an innocent age when compared to today. The country still basked in the glow of having been the savior of the world from fascism.
- Ike wasn't burdened with a past record of writings and speeches that was inconsistent with the positions he took in order to run nor did he have the Rove slime machine out there to contend with.
- The job of POTUS in 1952 was simpler than it is today. Experience in politics and governing weighs more heavily on voters minds today than it did back then. The only time experienced is minimized is when voters absolutely hate the status quo and those who represent it, like Davis in CA.
- Ike warned us about the military-industrial-complex. Clark is of the military-industrial-complex.
Some conclusions: On the Party selection process: When RoveCo illuminates Clark as the Clinton stalking horse that alone could cost us the election. Underestimating the "Clinton fatigue/disgust" or repulsion at the "Clinton ambitiousness" will cost us dearly this year. Those on the left who reject such criticisms of Clinton are as blind as the right is to the true nature of GWB. The difference is that Clinton has been "unmasked" for a majority of voters and GWB hasn't. On inconsistencies: Clark's praise of GWB and others on his team will be great fodder for Rove. While DEMs are buying into the notion that Clark was against the war, Rove will not allow that misperception to live. On experience: Edwards is an enormously attractive candidate, but it is his lack of governing experience that has limited his support. (What I see is someone who would have an administration that would be as troubled as was Carter's, and for the same reason. Too little political experience/expertise. The POTUS learning curve with much experience is very steep and possible not scaleable with the Edwards/Carter entering level. (Edwards, however, would be a good VP selection for Dean and with eight years as VP would be ready for the top job.) Look for the "team with proven results and experience" to highlight the very narrow skill set of Clark. A single campaign does not make a skilled politician.
The POTUS General election is unique and experience here does matter - that may be the single most important factor in why Gore with many campaigns under his belt won and Dukakis faded. Expecting Clark to perform as well as Gore did when he is attacked 24/7 (not to mention the period when he will be silenced because he opting for federal funding) is a pipe dream. He doesn't have the political chops. Whether Clark would perform at the Dukakis level would depend on the strength and stability of the ABB voters. OTOH the chance that DEMs will walk away from a Clinton/DLC Party that backs the man from the military-industrial-complex and that has already led us to the political wasteland is very high too.
(Contrary to what some of you may think that I have drunk some Dean "kool aid" that is not the case. I began studying and observing the candidates closely from Sept 2002. The Iraq votes and mid-term elections convinced me that GOP lite was not going to cut it, and that in turn forced me to review the Clinton years. Bill did perform on the one issue that decided my vote for him in 1992 and that was to get the damn deficit down. However, as I reviewed his legacy once again, I was shocked to discover how much of a free pass I'd given him. Plus the ease with which GWB unwound the one very good thing and a host of minor things that Clinton had done pointed out that what he had "built" rested on sand. Holding back the rightwing radical agenda for another four or eight years is not good enough. Those people are mobilized, determined and well funded and until we begin going after them with spears and stakes they will continue in their efforts to suck the lifeblood out of this country.
To get there we need a candidate who is not afraid of the GOP, can credibly claim to support democratic principles and has no serious ethical or moral skeletons in his closet. Dean is far less liberal than I would like on many issues, but he is not GOP lite. What has been the surprising and most wonderful development in his campaign since 2002 when I was still undecided between Kerry and Dean is his fundraising. We have an opportunity to get someone in the WH who will not primarily be beholden to special interests and fat cats.
And yes, I did look at Clark when he popped up suddenly on the scene. Unfortunately he didn't satisfy a single criteria we need to take back the WH. And it may just be me, but his physical appearance has a creepy quality to it.)