I have to ask...

[meatloaf]

I keep hearing from a number of people that it bothers them Clark may be entering the race so late.

Isn't it true that Clinton didn't enter until Oct 91?

I'm not saying that Clark is the next Clinton, just that it's not impossible to join the party late and still win.

I'm also not a Clark supporter. I haven't gotten fully behind anyone yet.

I find myself ideologically agreeing with Kucinich but really do not see him as electable ona national level.

The hard part with all of the candidates is determing how much of what they say jibes with what they do/have done.

I won't bad mouth any of them, but will wait a while yet and continue to research.

No matter who gets the nod, they'll still be ten times better than the current fraud.

[liberalhistorian]

1. I agree, I don't understand what all the fuss is about as

as far as Clark entering the race "late." You're correct, Clinton did indeed enter the race "late", as well, in October of '91. I think what's really got people upset is not that he'll be entering the race "late", but that he'll be an extremely formidable hard-to-beat candidate who will overshadow all of the others.

[ShimokitaJer]

2. All the other candidates were really early

So now it feels like we've already had a full primary cycle when it's still fairly early. Clark just feels late in comparison.

If you want to talk late, look at Bush, who's pushed back his announcement as long as possible to maximize his funds for attack ads.