Hugo Estrada, One place to follow Clark's activities is his PAC site, www.securingamerica.com.  As you saw on the StopIranWar site, that's been occupying his time and attention more than deciding what day he will jump into the race.  He knows the urgency of stopping the war before Bush inflames the region and gets it started. 

He's making a lot of pre-candidate noises, so if his candidacy interests you, don't give up yet! 

Thanks, Hugo; agreed - my greatest concern is what to do, whom to support if Wes Clark does NOT run for President.  I haven't yet allowed myself to get involved in the various other candidates' campaigns because it's an easy decision for me as long as Clark runs.  Otherwise, I will have to do much thinking and soul-searching in order to determine who is our next best candidate. 

We Democrats have many good possibilities, but I continue to maintain that we need to think about who is the best possible candidate, who can win in 2008, and for me that is retired four-star general, citizen/soldier, world traveler, athlete/scholar and superb grassroots campaigner Wes Clark.

Yes, it's quite difficult to support someone who isn't running, and I have to believe - hope - that Clark is waiting for some pre-determined, opportune moment to make his announcement.

And I must agree that, in this year's early onset, fast-paced presidential race, Clark's time is running out quickly.

Finally, at the risk of sounding redundant, naive and boring, I will repeat:

Jim Webb for Senate 2006 = Wes Clark for President 2008.

Please keep the faith, and thanks again!

Steve

And if.. if he doesn't run, I wait for Gore.

Clark, Gore, and then finally Obama.

I want a candidate who was right about Iraq from the start. To me that's real leadership.

It's not that I am a one issue voter, I am not. We have great Democrats running. But to me, as an Iraq Veteran I want someone who got it right from the start because I know they will have the same judgment in the future.

Thanks for the information! I will visit his web site and follow him more closely.

I liked Clark in '04, but didn't vote for him in the Virginia primary b/c it was clear that he was going to bet slaughtered in the national campaign.  But why doesn't the man run for SOMETHING?  The sooner he is elected to something the better.  I'd like to eventually see him as a Presidential candidate, but he has to start somewhere first.

...in this thread, but if Clark hasnt announced already, what would be the point of doing so now? or some time in the near future?

Lets be honest - he was a HORRIBLE candidate in 2004 - good resume for International Affairs, poor for domestic, campaign was horrible on the inside and out (I've heard the stories from actual staffers in Little Rock).  What is going to be different this time around? 

The pros that helped him run that horrible campaign last time are helping Hillary (could be a postive or a negative); his donor base was small, and its mostly gone now (there are no large donors left); the press is only covering two, maybe three candidates, how does he expect to get his message out?

Lets look at reality folks - the odds of him getting in are slim to none.  What he would have to go through to actually get in the race, raise the money necessary to compete in a primary, do to actually get some press, prove that 2004 was a fluke (and let me remind you, the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire dont forget anything), and then, to top it off, differentiate himself from the rest of the field (Richardsons Foreign Affairs resume is better, like it or not).  I just think a Clark candidacy is pure fantasy.  Its time to come back to planet earth.

Not sure how you could conclude that all the big donors are gone or that there is no donor base.  That's what the netroots are for, and I'm not convinced that all the big money's been committed already. 

As for his candidacy, he's had four years to work on his understanding of and proposals for domestic policy, to build up support for his foreign policy stances, and to learn how to speak to non-military crowds.  Remember, he does have a Masters in Economics from Oxford, has been a successful businessman, and can understand financial issues quite well.  He's been a consistent presence on news shows and was very visible during numerous Senate and Congressional campaigns last year.  I think he was the most requested speaker for those campaigns.  Maybe with a decent staff he can put something together this time.  Four years ago his opponents got traction from claiming that he was a DINO.  That's not going to happen this time around.  He's more progressive by far than Clinton or other northeastern liberals. 

You are right about the press and its slothful habit of covering only 2 or 3 candidates; however, the press also has a habit of getting bored with frontrunners and looking to potential darkhorses for news, especially if the frontrunners are busy imploding all over themselves.  Clark skipped the Iowa caucuses the last time.  Don't think he'd do that again.  And the primary landscape is now different, too, so I don't know what conclusions we can draw from either New Hampshire or Iowa. 

Richardson may have a more extensive foreign policy background, but he is also going to be hampered by his frat-boy reputation.  Moreover, only Clark has a sophisticated understanding of military matters and warfare, which distinguishes him from ALL the candidates on either side at this point.  Even McCain and Hagel cannot begin to claim Clark's level of military knowledge or the connections he's developed with our allies through his NATO service.

As someone who is very involved with politics, and knows a lot of staffers on the top 3-4 campaigns, its been said all the big money people are gone.  Maybe I need to clear that statement up a little - all the bundlers, the people that can get you 50k, 100k or more.  In addition, by just knowing how fundraising goes - if you are a big bundler and havent signed up yet - you are going to be on the outside looking in.  Thats why people like Mark Warner and Evan Bayh travelled the country so extensively last year - to court these people - and when they dropped out they had the Clintons, Obamas and Edwards of the world calling them. 

Well I hope he really has been brushing up on his domestic credintials, because, regardless of what everyone else says now, when it really comes down to it, especially in a Democratic Primary - it is all about Domestic issues - and if we are really moving towards a receession - that will be magnifyed x10. 

I agree with the press coverage - but that is the reality of the world.  As big as these media outlets are, they dont have the resources to cover every candidate - especially candidates that ran horrible campaigns 4 years ago. 

I have a few friends out in Nevada - and they have NO idea what they are doing right now.  It will be hard to put a lot of stock in that caucus unless the turnout really increases over 2004 and it is run well.  I still put a lot of stock in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The people of those states still will see the candidates a lot - in their homes, in smaller forums, whereas the people of NV and SC wont.  Thats not how you campaign in NV and SC, but it is in NH and IA. 

Regardless of Governor Richardsons supposed indescretions, in terms of actual foreign policy his experience is the best.  I dont think anyone will doubt Gen. Clarks knowledge of warfare or the military - that person would actually be stupid to.  But military and warfare arent really foreign affairs, which is something that is extremely lacking.

To wrap - so Gen Clark is good on Military/Warfare, has ponied up on his Domestics, has some loyal supporters, no fundraising base, wont get any media if he runs, and hasnt even made up his mind, while the top 3 candidates are raising more money in one quarter than he will probably raise in 2 or 3.  Hell, even the folks over at Kos and MYDD are 50%+ for obama and edwards combined.  Seems like the Generals support really isnt there anymore.  So what would really be the point of his candidacy?

Some of you will be doing a lot of waiting!