|
 Wesley
Clark
 excerpts
from
the Iowa Daily Report
June
2003
… On the
Clark Watch: Under the subhead “Reluctant
warrior,” Greg Pierce wrote in his “Inside
Politics” column yesterday that former NATO
Supreme Commander Wesley K. Clark “continues
to have a hard time deciding whether to run
for president. ‘I am going to have to
consider it,’ he said yesterday on NBC’s ‘Meet
the Press.’ For at least the past year, the
retired general has been considered a
potential Democratic candidate, but he has
refused to be pinned down. ‘In many respects,
I would like a chance to help this country.
And I don’t know if that means being president
or doing something else,’ he said. But his
interview yesterday was the closest he has
come to making an announcement and laying out
a potential platform, Agence France-Presse
reports. He discussed his opposition to
President Bush’s tax cuts, his support for
racial preferences, and why the military
should rethink its ban on open homosexuals.
Gen. Clark, while hinting at a run, is so
reticent that he still declines to say whether
he is a Democrat or a Republican.”
(6/17/2003)
…
The alleged Clark groundswell. Report
on the DraftWesleyClark.com website says an
interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday “appears
to have set off an explosion in the grassroots
“Draft Wesley Clark” movement.
DraftWesleyClark.com, leader of the overall
campaign to draft Wesley Clark, reports
that in the day since Clark’s
appearance, its membership has tripled,
thousands of new supporters have written
letters urging Clark to run for President,
donations have poured in, and the momentum is
actually accelerating. “In 10 years of
online activism, I’ve never seen anything even
close to this,” said John Hlinko, president of
Extreme Campaigns, and founder of
DraftWesleyClark.com. “If 18 minutes of
General Clark [on NBC] and 18 seconds
of
www.DraftWesleyClark.com can lead to this
kind of response, then 18 months of
candidate Clark will no doubt lead to our next
President.”…Faced with the evidence of the
mounting groundswell of requests to run,
Clark referred to the effort as “amazing,”
and responded to Russert’s question “Are you
considering entering the presidential race?”
with “I’m going to have to consider it.”
(6/18/2003) …
It was just a
few days ago that some New Hampshire polls
were showing Kerry and Dean in a virtual tie –
but, according to the latest American Research
Group survey, Kerry has bounded into a
10-point lead.
The
ARG poll, released yesterday, indicated that
Kerry is now at 28% to Dean’s 18%.
Actually, the outcome indicates marginal
changes since last month’s survey when
Kerry
was
leading 26%-19% --
but, to say
the least, the numbers are not moving in a
desirable direction for Dean.
Two wannabes –
Gephardt
and
Lieberman – continue to battle for third.
Lieberman has 11% in the June poll
(from 12% last
month)
while Gephardt
is at 10%
(down from 12%
last month). The poll shows that 23% remain
undecided.
Others:
Edwards is at 4%, Graham 2%, with the rest –
Moseley Braun, Clark, Kucinich
and
Sharpton
–
locked in a competitive battle for last
at
1% each.
Footnotes:
ARG
reports
that
Kerry’s
10-point margin over
Dean
is his largest since January when
Kerry
enjoyed a 12-point lead over
Dean…Kerry
leads Dean 31%-16% among registered Democrats
likely to vote in the primary
(which
accounted for 81% of the June sample) while
Dean
leads Kerry 26%-15% among undeclared
–
Independent –
voters
(19% of
the sample)…The sample included 600 voters –
484 registered Dems and 116 undeclared –
during 6/14-17. The margin of error +/- 4
percentage points. (6/19/2003) …
On the Clark
Beat:
In his “Best
of the Web” column yesterday, James Taranto
wrote on OpinionJournal.com (Wall Street
Journal) – “One
can understand why Democrats would turn to a
military man at a time like this. In the wake
of Sept. 11, national security is of
surpassing importance, and the Dems are known
for their cluelessness on the subject.
But
Clark
doesn’t seem
to have any particularly imaginative ideas
about how to win the war against Islamic
terrorists, and
it’s worth
noting that military experience is no
prerequisite for excellent wartime leadership.
Abraham Lincoln served only a few months as a
captain in the Illinois militia, and he saw no
combat. FDR had no military experience at all.
Besides, if the Democrats really want a
nominee with military experience, what’s wrong
with John Kerry? He served in Vietnam, or so
we hear.”(6/19/2003)
… From James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” on
OpinionJournal.com (Wall Street Journal):
“Newsmax.com picked up a United Press
International report that some Dems
speculated that Clark was ‘angling for a bid
as Al Gore’s running mate in 2004.’ Gore
is out of the race, of course, but what if
Howard Dean were to win the Democratic
nomination? Dean’s views on national
defense can be most charitably described as
flaky, and in order to avoid being laughed off
the political stage, he would probably want a
vice presidential candidate with some military
credentials. Perhaps by choosing someone
of such high rank he could hope to avoid the
49-state drubbing his party suffered the last
time it nominated a lefty peacenik. After all,
George McGovern’s running mate was only a
Sergeant.” (6/21/2003)
… Democrats – finally – address a critical
question: How many wannabes are too many
wannabes? Headline from this morning’s The
Union Leader online: “Some Democrats fear
crowded field hurts party” AP political
reporter Will Lester writes from DC: “Nine
and counting. The Democratic field for the
presidential nomination is already crowded,
and now Joe Biden and Wesley Clark are hinting
they may become candidates Nos. 10 and 11, a
prospect that leaves Republicans practically
giddy with anticipation and a few Democrats
wondering whether it's time to draw the line.
Democrats are loath to say no to any White
House aspirant, but this political traffic jam
is producing a cacophony of voices that has
few Americans tuning in. Democrats
acknowledge it's not necessarily in the best
interest of the party, particularly in the
fall, just a few months from the first
election tests …Said Arizona Democratic
Chairman Jim Pederson: ‘The problem is that
our message is getting diluted.’ Some
Democrats have started talking about requiring
the candidates to meet a threshold of support
reflected in public opinion polls to
participate in debates and forums. It's a move
unlikely to get past the discussion stage as
it would likely alienate many in the party's
base. Minnesota Democratic Chairman Mike
Erlandson raised another concern - numerous
Democrats scrambling for limited campaign
dollars…In the meantime, Republicans are
gleefully rubbing their hands. "It's an
intramural battle on the Democratic side,’
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told
The Associated Press during a visit to New
Hampshire earlier this week. ‘They'll be
playing A-ball, hoping to get up to Double A,
then maybe getting up to Triple A before they
get to the majors. I think we've got to let
that process mature.’ Republican consultant
Scott Reed said: ‘Candidate forums will
turn into reruns of ‘Hee Haw.’ They will
become out-of-control events that diminish all
of the candidates and lower everybody's
expectations.’” (6/21/2003)
… On the Clark Beat: Headline from
yesterday’s The Union Leader – “Retired
general visits major union” Associated
Press report from
DC by Leigh Strope: “He talked like a
candidate. He acted like a candidate. Wearing
the prerequisite red tie, retired Army Gen.
Wesley Clark even looked like a candidate. But
asked if he would say definitively Thursday
whether he would seek the Democratic
presidential nomination, Clark again
punted. ‘No, I'm not going to say that,’
he told reporters who had been summoned to the
lobby of the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees - one of the
most politically powerful unions - where
Clark had spoken to union leaders in a
closed session. ‘I don't want to talk about
process,’ he said. ‘Let's talk about the ideas
that we need to think about as Americans."
Clark discussed foreign policy and the
need for a comprehensive strategy. ‘We're
going from event to event’ he said, citing the
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
uncertainty with North Korea and Iran. ‘What
does America stand for?’ Clark
said. ‘What are the principles on which we
conduct our activities in the world?’ But
puzzled reporters, who had been invited by the
union to speak with Clark after the closed
session, were expecting news. ‘Why are you
here?’ one reporter asked Clark, who said he
had been invited by union President Gerald
McEntee. ‘But clearly you wanted a chance
to speak with us,’ another said. McEntee
stepped in, saying he had invited Clark
and called the media. An embarrassed Clark
apologized: ‘I hope I didn't abuse anybody's
time here this morning.’” (6/21/2003)
… On day
Dean officially announces his candidacy, New
Hampshire poll shows he’s already dropped
behind Kerry by 9 points. Headline from
the Concord Monitor online: “Kerry leads
Democratic candidates…Poll: Dean
running second; state’s voters prefer Bush”
Report by the Monitor’s Daniel Barrick:
“The latest Monitor poll has good news for
Sen. John Kerry – but even better news for
President Bush. Kerry, a
Massachusetts senator, has increased his lead
over the field of Democrats running for the
2004 presidential nomination, according to the
poll. All the Democrats, however, lag far
behind the president in potential match-ups.
Kerry was the choice of 30 percent of the
likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters
surveyed. Former Vermont governor Howard
Dean was next, at 21 percent. The two New
Englanders have shared the lead for much of
the race. But the Monitor poll echoes the
results of other recent surveys that have
found Kerry widening his lead. Rep.
Dick Gephardt of Missouri (11 percent)
and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
(10 percent) followed in third and fourth
place. The poll also matched the four top
Democrats against Bush in head-to-head races.
A mix of 600 Republican, Democratic and
independent voters were asked which candidate
they would choose in a general election.
Bush defeated each of the Democrats by similar
double-digit margins. Bush polled between
57 and 59 percent in each hypothetical race
while the Democrats polled between 28 and 32
percent. Lieberman fared the best against the
president, winning 32 percent. The Democratic
primary poll, which questioned 400 likely
voters between Tuesday and Thursday, was
conducted by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md.…Of
the remaining candidates, Sen. John Edwards of
North Carolina was the choice of 3 percent,
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and retired general
Wesley Clark each took 2 percent, and the Rev.
Al Sharpton, former Illinois senator Carol
Moseley-Braun and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich
were at 1 percent each.” The polls margin
of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
(6/24/2003)
… David
Broder’s weekend column in the Washington Post
– headline, “So Many Democrats, So Few
Dollars” – says this year’s Dem
competition is closest since ’76.
Excerpts: “At a time when hardly any of the
people who will vote in next winter's caucuses
and primaries have spent even 30 seconds
mulling their choice, the ridiculously few
Democrats who actually give money to the
candidates are being importuned to make their
picks now. Never again will someone capable of
writing a $2,000 check have so much influence.
Until the votes are cast in Iowa and New
Hampshire next January, the fundraising
reports represent the surest measure of how
well the rivals for the nomination are doing.
But how good a measure is that? Sen.
John Edwards of North Carolina raised
more money than anyone else in the first three
months of the year, thanks in large part to
support from his fellow trial lawyers. But
Edwards -- even after that feat -- still
registers in the single digits in early polls
in Iowa and New Hampshire, ranking fourth or
fifth in the field. By contrast, Sen.
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the 2000 vice
presidential candidate, leads in most of the
national polls, despite a notably slow start
on his fundraising. It is clear from the
crowds he has been drawing and the cheers his
fiery speeches elicit that former Vermont
governor Howard Dean has captured the
hearts of many liberal Democratic activists.
Whether that will translate into financial
support is another question. Rep. Richard
Gephardt of Missouri has led in every
poll of the Iowa caucuses and has attracted
significant support in both New Hampshire and
South Carolina, but his opponents whisper that
he is having a hard time on the financial
front, in part because major unions, his
traditional allies, are reluctant to place
their bets on him as yet. Of all the
contenders, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
seems to have the best combination of
financial and political backing -- trailing
Edwards narrowly in first-quarter fundraising
while running well ahead of him in the early
polls in New Hampshire, Iowa and other states.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida got into the
race well after the others did. His home state
is a great source of Democratic campaign
money, but Lieberman in particular has been
competing for Florida fundraisers' support,
and Graham's appeal to his past financial
backers as a presidential hopeful remains
untested. The other three announced
Democrats -- the Rev. Al Sharpton, Rep.
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former
senator Carol Moseley Braun of
Illinois -- readily acknowledge that they will
lag far behind the others in campaign cash.
Even by [DNC chairman Terry] McAuliffe's
generous estimate, there is a limit to how
many Democrats can afford to run. Last week
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and retired
Gen. Wesley Clark both talked more
seriously about increasing the cast of
contenders to a football-squad 11. They
recognize -- as do those who have been out
there campaigning and fundraising -- that no
one has put a grip on this nomination or even
established himself as the one to beat.
Despite McAuliffe's hope for an early
resolution, the race is as wide-open as any
the Democrats have seen since 1976.”(6/25/2003)
… On the Clark Watch. Under the subhead
‘Silly and farfetched,’ Greg
Pierce reported this morning in his “Inside
Politics” column in the Washington Times: “There
is simply no reason to take retired Gen.
Wesley Clark seriously as a contender for the
Democratic presidential nomination in 2004,
political analyst Stuart Rothenberg writes.
‘No reason at all.’ Mr. Clark apparently
wants to be drafted into the race, like Gen.
Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, Mr. Rothenberg
said in Roll Call. ‘Clark's ideal
scenario is as follows: When the Democratic
race fails to produce a clear front-runner
this summer, party leaders and grass-roots
activists start looking for a fresh face who
can neutralize President Bush's advantage on
defense and foreign-policy issues. That's when
they turn to Clark, who has no domestic
record to defend and can take on Bush on
Afghanistan and Iraq. It's an entertaining
scenario, even if it is silly and farfetched.
While Clark is a former Rhodes scholar
and, like Ike, a former NATO supreme
commander, he simply isn't Eisenhower. Not
even close.’” (6/27/2003)
…
Without a candidate, Clark supporters plod
on, open NH office. Excerpts of report in
yesterday’s The Union Leader: “The state's
newest presidential campaign headquarters will
be stocked with all the essentials except one:
a candidate. Supporters of retired Army
Gen. Wesley Clark aren't waiting for
him to decide whether to run. They plan to
open a campaign office next month to spread
the word about the former NATO supreme
commander After months of being coy about
his political plans, Clark said last week he
is seriously considering a presidential bid.
‘If you've listened to him in interviews last
few weeks he sounds more and more like a
candidate,’ said Susan Putney, New Hampshire
coordinator of the Draft Clark 2004 for
President Committee. ‘I honestly believe
we're having an impact on that decision.’
Putney and other Clark supporters will
spend the July Fourth weekend fixing up the
new office, with a grand opening sometime the
following week. Eventually, the space will
serve as a base for organizing supporters for
door-to-door campaigning and other outreach
activities, she said. Clark is not involved
in the effort. ‘We're running a campaign
without a candidate,’ Putney said. ‘We're
prepared to make this a write in if we have
to.’ Putney's group is one of several created
by Clark supporters.”(6/28/2003)
… And just
as Graham indicates he’d be available for a VP
run, Clark shows on the vice presidential
horizon. Chicago Sun-Times Robert Novak,
in column published yesterday, reported: “Retired
Gen. Wesley Clark, meeting privately with
moderate Democratic ‘Blue Dog’ House members
last week as he moved toward a possible
presidential candidacy, took hard shots at
President Bush but criticized Democrats as
well. The former NATO supreme commander, a
newcomer to partisan politics, told his new
political allies that Democrats ‘need to dig
in’ and fight harder on both foreign and
domestic policy. Clark's criticism of Bush
was more pointed than his public statements.
Clark did not make a hard commitment to become
a candidate. The Blue Dogs were impressed
with the general, and many consider him an
excellent prospect for the vice presidential
nomination whether or not he runs for
president.”(6/30/2003)
Clark
main page
top
of page
|