Clark recognizes that he got in too late in 2003. And he's arguably the most qualified to confront issues of war and peace in these turbulent times. Is February of 2008 equivalent to September of 2003? What an absurd question -- of course not.
But then again, when you think about it, it's hard to divine a compelling justification for Clark to take his time in a field that includes foreign policy heavyweights (Biden), a Clinton (remember how Clark was encouraged to run by Pres. Bill Clinton's friends and donors?) a Southerner (Edwards) and a breath of fresh air (Obama?)
First off, at this rate of announcements drop outs etc, it might be like September 2003. Secondly, Biden is not a foreign policy heavyweight. He is a blowhard Senator that likes to hear himself think. If he was such a brilliant foreign policy guy, why did he support the war? Why is he pushing all these non-binding resolutions and going on Sunday talks shows moving the goal posts for Iraq dozens of times? Clinton's presence really does hurt Clark in terms of his old staff and his old donors. But maybe he needs to get beyond Bill and Hill. He needs better staff than last time, he needs his own fundraising base.
I am starting to worry that Clark, being the smart guy that he is, realizes it will be tough slog to raise the necessary money with this current three-headed monster of Clinton-Obama-Edwards gobbling up all the primary cash. He may be running for VP against Richardson & Warner & Bayh. I sure hope he runs. If he does, he will have my support. If he doesn't, I will support Obama and urge him to pick Clark for his VP (visionary with no foreign policy experience but with lots of domestic policy experience coupled with a visionary with lots of foreign policy experience and no real domestic policy experience).