O.K. Clarkies, use this as needed:
(Got it from CCN):
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html#more-9242"December 05, 2006
He wasn’t that bad a candidate
I should probably make one thing clear about the 2008 race and The Carpetbagger Report: I plan to remain neutral, at least as far as the Democratic primary race goes. I like several of the major candidates, but won’t officially take sides. Readers can expect me to say supportive and derogatory things about each of them. An official endorsement, however, will not be forthcoming.
With that out of the way, something caught my eye in yesterday’s NYT about two possible candidates, both of whom I like.
For all the excitement Mr. Obama’s potential candidacy has stirred, he remains a 45-year-old first-term senator who is largely untested in national politics. Yes, Mr. Obama is unusually talented, Democrats and Republicans alike say, but the history of presidential campaigns is filled with examples of celebrity candidates like Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004 who burst onto the political stage but eventually sputtered as they struggled to master the difficulties of running for president.
The comparison doesn’t work for me. Clark was running for public office for the first time; Obama has run two congressional campaigns and several state legislative campaigns. For that matter, the NYT seems to be confusing “talented” candidates with “celebrity” candidates. As Noam Scheiber said, “When you parse what the writer is saying here, it amounts to: Yes, Mr. Obama is unusually talented … but the history of presidential campaigns is filled with examples of untalented candidates sputtering.” It’s as if an editor wasn’t paying very close attention.
But I think it’s worth noting that Clark never really got his due as a candidate. The Times said he “struggled to master the difficulties” of being a presidential candidate, while Scheiber said Clark failed because he “turned out to be a pretty lousy politician.”
I followed Clark’s campaign pretty closely in 2004 and I remember things slightly differently.
. . . . . .
After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates — Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards — met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.
In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests. . . . "