I saw it within 60 seconds of its online posting.

"AP Reports Clark Withdrawing From Race (11:07 EST)"

Well, that was pretty devastating. I didn't take the announcement as hard as some of my co-interns did, but it was still a tough pill to swallow. I'm too sad to be angry, too busy to write much now, and too tired to not be asleep. And even though it's well past 4am, I have to get these thoughts out of my mind before I can rest.

But I will look back back on this night, that's for sure. I don't think Bush has won yet, but I feel that the Democrats squandered a huge benefit tonight. The exit polls suggest that democratic voters want a candidate who can beat Bush, yet many voters decided that Kerry was the most electable because -- get this -- he won early primaries. Thus, we are picking a candidate to beat Bush and appeal to most of the nation based on whether he is liked by a handful of Democrats in less than a handful of states. Does that make any sense to anyone?

And doesn't anyone think that his support could disappear as quickly as it suddenly appeared, and that perhaps his new supporters will be as flighty when they're sitting in the voting booth on election day?

In contrast, is anyone thinking about the general election? You know, the one where everyone can vote, not just your own party? Has anyone looked beyond the nationwide Bush-vs-Kerry polls to see what the Bush-vs-Kerry numbers look like in Tennessee? Ugh. C'mon, people, it's not too hard to see that Kerry might not do as well down there. If Al Gore couldn't win Tennessee (or any of the rest of the South) in 2000, what makes people think that a liberal New England senator can win them now? Like my previous post said, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning at least 5 southern states.

And what about the fact that he's a senator? Senators have had terrible luck with presidential elections in not-so-recent history. (Although, to be fair, both of the leading democratic candidates are senators, so perhaps we don't have a choice. Nonetheless, that doesn't give me much more luck for the general election.)

Don't get me wrong -- I have no hatred for John Kerry. I think he's a great person. I'm glad he's in the Senate. I worked at one of his fundraisers in California in fall 2002, shook his hand, spoke with him for a few moments. He's a great speaker, has a very impressive presence, and he belives in many of the same things I believe. But that doesn't mean I think he's our best candidate.

Looking back on Michael Moore's comments about General Clark, I feel my cynicism start to emerge. I haven't given up hope for the general election, and I will undoubtedly support the democratic nominee, but I've lost a lot of faith in the choices of my fellow citizens. (No, that does not mean I've lost my faith in democracy.)

I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal.

Republican strategists will sleep easier now that Clark is out of the race. I will not.

Current mood: Dark. Sad.
Current song: Enya, "Boadicea" and Counting Crows, "Raining in Baltimore"