2 Top Democrats Will Not Contest Iowa's Caucuses

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: October 20, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — Two prominent Democratic presidential candidates, Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have decided to bypass Iowa's presidential caucuses, angering some party leaders there and signaling what could be a very different nomination battle next year.

Mr. Lieberman's advisers said on Sunday that they would pull out all but one of his 17 staff members in Iowa and send them to states considered more receptive to his appeal, like Arizona. General Clark's aides said he would maintain a minimal presence in the state, which has the nation's earliest presidential selection contest. Last week, the general hired the former Iowa coordinator for Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who quit the race two weeks ago, and dispatched her to other states.

General Clark's advisers said they concluded last week that his late-starting candidacy had left him unable to assemble the intricate organization needed to win the Iowa race, which puts a premium on drawing voters to some 2,000 precinct caucuses. Most of the state's experienced organizers have signed with other candidates.

"What we'll do is what I call the General MacArthur strategy," a senior Clark adviser said. "General MacArthur was very successful in World War II because he skipped over the Japanese strongholds, where they were more organized, and instead picked islands that were favorable or neutral terrain. Which means we would choose not to focus resources on Iowa and instead focus them on New Hampshire and on Feb. 3," when there are Democratic contests in seven states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/politics/campaigns/20IOWA.html?ex=1067227200&en=676aa42b713a12a2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

on edit:
1) Bradley did not skip Iowa, so I corrected the subject.

2) not related exactly, but I don't like all the military stuff surrounding Clark. Ok, he is a former general, but still... he is running for President now.

""What we'll do is what I call the General MacArthur strategy," a senior Clark adviser said. "General MacArthur was very successful in World War II because he skipped over the Japanese strongholds, where they were more organized, and instead picked islands that were favorable or neutral terrain. Which means we would choose not to focus resources on Iowa and instead focus them on New Hampshire and on Feb. 3," when there are Democratic contests in seven states."

Although he didn't win the nomination, he scored some victories afterward, in places such as New Hampshire and Michigan. Had he lost in Iowa, he may have lost momentum, and been unable to pull of the NH upset.

Let Gephardt and Dean duke it out in Iowa and focus the resources elsewhere. Especially the way the anti-Clark media would try to spin it if Clark didn't take 1st or second.

One correction: anti-Democratic media.

Some points I'll add:
It's the smart move and, IMHO, it is the only move they can make. Clark has more limited resources than Dean has and so he needs to use his resources even more frugally than normal. Spending his limited resources on a state that he doesn't have enough time to win would be poor strategy. At least this way he has another excuse to give the media for losing the state by such a wide margin.

To their fans: Let the spin begin.


What happened to their running a "national race"?

he got a late start. Lieberman is just flat-out struggling.

UGH!

Is he a one-trick pony, or what ??

:eyes:


:hippie:

True WWII buffs know MacAuthur was in an absolute panic in the Phillipines after word came back of the Pearl Harbor attack. He ensconsed himself, incommunicado,in his hotel suite in Manila.

The next day the Japaneese executed a coordinated airstrike on our air forces in the Phillipines, including numerous wings of B-17 bombers and 150 fighters. McAuthur had failed to disburse or secure the aircraft (standard procedure) and they sat outside, undefended, wing-to-wing. They were totally destroyed on the ground without losses to the Imperial Air Forces.Their destruction by the Japanese was almost as catastrophic as Pearl harbor itself.

MacAuthur followed that blunder by an even bigger one; allowing our ground forces to be bottled up on the Bataan Peninsula, where they were defeated and captured by the Japanese, resulting in the unspeakable horrors of the Bataan Death March. The General himself was evacuated to Australia.

But, alas, America needed heros. He used his political influence to avoid a court martial. McAuthur's failure was swept under the rug, and he went on to lead our forces to victory in the Pacific.

http://www.us-aircraft.com/bbs/army_config.pl?read=502

Still...Gen. Clark needs to come up with a better analogy for cutting and running in Iowa.

Interesting that Clark, who was sacked as NATO commander, would mention General MacArthur who was himself fired by President Truman for insubordination.

Here is a brief bio:

MacArthur tested the waters of politics in 1948 by allowing his name to be placed on Republican Party primary ballots in a number of states in the spring and summer prior to the 1948 election. However, after a disastrous primary defeat in Wisconsin, MacArthur did not actively lend his name to any additional political activities.

<snip>

With the exception of a brief run for the presidency in 1952, (he delivered a listless keynote address at the Republican National Convention that year) MacArthur retired to a quiet private life. He died at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C., April 5, 1964, at age 84.

History has treated MacArthur as the consummate soldier, a leader of men, but a man who could give orders better than he could take them. For most, he was the genius behind America’s victory against Japan. In Korea, the legacy of MacArthur is usually expressed as much in the controversy that led to his firing as the brilliant landing at Inchon that changed for a time the entire character of the war.

http://korea50.army.mil/history/biographies/macarthur.shtml

Pretty Interesting history of the NH primary.

http://www.nhprimary.com/pastelections/1952.html

This is the guy who criticized Gore's (winning) campaign strategy after the election.

The same guy who had the overwhelming lead for the nomination a year ago (based on high name recognition).

Whose campaign is so bad, that they are pulling out of Iowa.

Who says irony is dead?