Okay, what's really going on here? Political conspiracy?

[chimpymustgo]

Is Clark's getting in really to stop Dean's campaign?

Why would the Clinton/Gore people want it? It could block Gore or Hillary for '08?

Why did Clark step on Edwards in such a classless way?

Is the DLC behind this, or DNC, or both?

What political machinations are at work, and who's behind them?

Thoughts, conjecture?

[roguevalley]

1. could it be that clark wants to be president too and that

given we are still a free country, i think, he decided to run?
Sometimes I think we put too much into things. :)

[Dookus]

2. sigh...

I believe Clark decided he wanted to run for President.

[Emboldened Chimp]

3. Clark doesn't hurt Dean

he hurts Kerry (the most), Lieberman (should knock him out, actually), Gephardt and perhaps Edwards.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. I admit it, it was me!

When I first started hearing about Clark almost a year ago, I've been on a vigilante campaign to get him to run! The more I hear about him, the more progressive he sounds.

I'm so happy my political mechinations worked!

[tjdee]

5. Blame the media. Honestly.

Clark is not an asshole. I'd bet a number of dollars on that. The media stepped on Edwards today, for two reasons:

1-Clark is polling around where Edwards is (right?) and people have been on their toes waiting to see what he does. We already knew Edwards was running, and none of the talking heads think he has a chance anyway. They go where they think the story is.

2-Edwards is a populist. Us v. them does not make the media comfortable, because many of them think they are 'them'.

It's obvious that Clinton and many of the big dogs at the DNC (not necessarily the DLC) wanted Clark to enter. Because, as we know, the DNC is freaked out about the war on terror/whatever. And they want us to have a winner. I don't think there's any nefarious business going on, it's pretty clear cut. Someone looked at Clark one day and thought good.

Clark, though, is also educated in economics and taught it. So he really is an excellent choice for a candidate, whether the big dogs wanted him or not. And again, he is in this to not only to stop Dean, but to stop Kerry, etc. He is in this to get Bush out. The voters will have a lot to do with that, so all this "who made Clark run" and stuff.... not necessary, IMO.

I am very, very distressed for Edwards at this point--he just cannot catch a break with the media.

[calimary]

7. Gee, we once had a president like that.

"just cannot catch a break with the media." We had a President AND a First Lady like that. And a Vice President who then ran for president and couldn't catch a break with the media.

Perhaps with the growing disenchantment with the bushies, and the VERY logical, understandable, and irrefutable reasons why (Iraq, economy, unemployment, civil rights, environment, etc.), and the momentum building the other way, we might start seeing a complexion change in the media. It's starting to look as though the pendulum may be swinging back. Not fast enough to please me, but the extreme rightward tilt seems to have slowed. And it's because the right has had its way for awhile now and people are starting to notice that it's not working very well. I think we'll soon see the liberals rise again. And why not? Christ did. The "South" sure has. It does happen. I'm guessing it will soon be chic to be liberal. Especially when that stance is perceived to be a winning one. Everybody loves a winner, after all...

[rabid_nerd]

6. DLC

.

[AP]

8. My theory: Clark won't be president.

If I were Clinton, I would think the media clearly wants to focus attention on national security, because that's the way Bush will win. The media has built up Dean as the anti-Bush candidate who will focus discussion (unproductively) on national security. There is a risk that Dean will get the nominatation, so, to balance this out, they wave some red meat in front of the media -- Clark. Clark, the media might believe, would be an even better person to focus upon if you wanted the debate to focus on national security. So now, you have Clark playing off on Dean, the media goes for it. It leaves the field open for the FDR-JFK like candidate to rise to the top.

Clark might even drop out before the end of it all.

Just spinning out ideas. I don't know if that one makes any sense at all.

[realFedUp]

9. interesting

at this point, anything makes sense.
I'm just wondering if the Dem Cabal is supporting Clark
or Gebhardt now?

[Capn Sunshine]

11. I haven't received any news on the batphone

but I do get daily missives from Al From and his band of pranksters.

My impression is :

1) Clinton politely told them to back off Dean
2) they still are pushing for Lieberman pretty hard.
3) Wednesday is always "anything can happen day" (an arcane
Mickey Mouse Club reference for you baby boomers out there)

and
4) Newsguyatl has something up his sleeve, and it's more than fanmail from some flounder.

So stay tuned . Especially you DLC conspiracy nuts.

[chimpymustgo]

10. Hmmm. AP, I can always count on you.

Maybe I'm getting too tin foil, but this just has the feeling of a chess match. With someone else moving the pieces around.

[paulsbc]

12. Clinton's pulling the strings..

the best theory I have heard is

Clark / Clinton

Here is why:

-> Clinton gets into the race without breaking her word regarding running for Pres (she is running for VP).

-> First woman VP - Say what you will about the right, but Hillary pulls in the woman and minority vote

-> Clark to challenge Bush on defense and the handling of terrorism, with Bill and Hillary helping lead his campaign and platform on the political, economic and social front.

I see no downside....

Hence, it will not happen :)