Clark v. Edwards for second place



John Ellis makes an insightful post about some behind-the-back mud that Clark's people are throwing at Edwards, via Drudge. Ellis doesn't think that Clark's campaign has an endgame strategy.

The point made by Mr. Ellis is bigger than he thinks, though. The superficial absence of an endgame strategy is not just a staff problem -- it's a strategic one. Clark has to push Edwards out of the way in order to be one of the final two candidates in a two-man race.

Clark actually has the same problem as Dean. Between now and Feb. 4th, Clark is not likely to win any single primary. Clark's best hope is that the media chooses to frame the race as "Kerry v. Clark," depriving Edwards of free media. That can't happen in New Hampshire, because the media isn't done picking over Howard Dean's corpse yet. So it has to happen after New Hampshire, but in time to be the story for South Carolina.

But Clark's problem after New Hampshire is Edwards. For example, Edwards can survive 4th place in New Hampshire because his presumed strength in South Carolina is already factored into the expectations game. But Clark, unlike Edwards, has no firebreak. If Clark can't get past Edwards on Feb. 3rd, it's game over.

That's why Clark is (allegedly) going negative on Edwards now, instead of Kerry or Dean. It won't work -- Edwards has Clark boxed out in South Carolina and nothing short of Clark going negative on a thermonuclear scale (with entirely unpredictable results) will change that fact. But that's what has to happen for Clark to survive.

In any event, the inference that Ellis draws is incorrect: if Clark's people are going negative on Edwards, it's not because they're confused about the endgame -- it's because Clark won't be in the endgame unless he can get Edwards out of the way.

Posted: Fri - January 23, 2004 at 09:59 PM        

©