Wesley Clark

excerpts from the Iowa Daily Report

September 16-23, 2003

 Is this a good or bad sign for the original wannabes? FOXNews.com and others report that Clark is calling advisors to Arkansas. Headline from FOXNews.com: “Clark Puts Finishing Touches on Presidential Run Announcement” Excerpt from AP report:   “On the verge of running, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark on Monday summoned his fledgling political team to Arkansas to discuss strategy for mounting a Democratic presidential campaign. Several party officials said legal, financial and political advisers were invited to the Tuesday session in Little Rock, Arkansas. They were told Clark had made a decision about whether to run, but they were not told what it was. Clark told friends and associates last week that he is likely to run, and Monday's developments left little room for doubt about his intentions. ‘We haven't been told for sure, but I think we know what this is about,’ said George Bruno, a New Hampshire activist who will attend the meeting. ‘It's up to the boss to call the shots.’ Mark Fabiani, former spokesman for the Clinton White House, and Ron Klain, a strategist in Al Gore's 2000 campaign, also were among those invited to the meeting, officials said. Clark, 58, has aggressively recruited staff in the last week. His earliest allies would be from former President Clinton's Arkansas-based political network, including former White House aide Bruce Lindsey, though not all will have formal campaign roles. Clark has met with several presidential contenders who covet his endorsement and might consider him for a vice presidential slot. He also has been in touch with top lawmakers and union chiefs, urging them to hold off supporting any candidate until he decides whether to run. Though late to the race and lacking in political experience, Clark's resume is formidable -- Rhodes scholar, first in his 1966 class at West Point, White House fellow, head of the U.S. Southern Command and NATO commander during the 1999 campaign in Kosovo.  A Clark White House bid would grab the political spotlight and undercut the strength of several in the nine-way Democratic race. However, he would be competing against more experienced politicians with more money and deeper staffs. An Internet-fueled draft-Clark movement has developed the seeds of a campaign and more than $1 million in pledges.  ‘In New Hampshire, there are many people ready to move out if they're given the green light,’ said Bruno, one of Clinton's earlier backers in the key primary voting state.” (9/16/2003)

 Clark to announce candidacy tomorrow in Little Rock.  Several media outlets are reporting – and allegedly confirming – that the ex-NATO commander will become the next wannabe. From a CNN.com special report posted late this morning: “Former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark has decided to enter the Democratic race for president in 2004, sources close to the retired general told CNN Tuesday.  Clark is expected to announce his candidacy Wednesday in his hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas. He has assembled a team of campaign operatives that include veterans of the campaigns of former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Clark, a West Point graduate, Rhodes Scholar and former CNN military analyst who led U.S. and allied forces in the 1999 air war in Kosovo, will be the 10th Democrat to launch a bid to unseat President Bush. An increasingly outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, Clark declared his party affiliation two weeks ago. The Democratic Party ‘stands for internationalism. It's a party that stands for ordinary men and women,’ he said. ‘It's a party that stands for fair play and equity and justice and common sense and reasonable dialogue. It's a party that has had a great tradition in our country. I'm very attracted to it, and that's the party I will belong to.’ Political analysts have said Clark could pose a formidable challenge to President Bush, who is seen as a president strong on national security issues.  ‘I've got ideas on national security and strategy,’ he said, pointing out that he's a ‘military person.’  The 57-year-old Clark retired from the Army after a 34-year career that included combat in Vietnam, a Rhodes Scholarship and leading the military negotiations in the peace talks that ended the war in Bosnia in 1995. He became NATO's supreme commander in 1997, but reportedly clashed with Pentagon officials during the Kosovo campaign and was relieved of command after the war.”  (9/16/2003)

… Odd pairing – Filmmaker Michael Moore pitches Clark candidacy, says the next wannabe may be the only one able to beat Bush. Under the subhead “Moore or less” in today’s “Inside Politics” column in the Washington Times, Jennifer Harper reported: “Film director and vociferously outspoken Bush critic Michael Moore has a message for retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark: ‘You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election,’ Mr. Moore wrote yesterday in an open letter at his Web site (MichaelMoore.com). ‘This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade 'A' rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into having a backbone — or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot.’…’This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination.’ Mr. Moore, who signed his letter ‘Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972,’ continued: ‘Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But desperate times call for desperate measures.’” (9/16/2003)

… Before the sun sets, the nine veteran wannabes will face a new – although probably not unexpected – opponent: The Clark Challenge. From Little Rock, the Washington Post’s Jim VandeHei reported in today’s editions: “Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, a prominent military leader with no national political experience, has told friends and advisers that he will enter the presidential race on Wednesday, shaking up the wide-open fight for the Democratic nomination. After months of deliberations, Clark, 58, will announce his candidacy here at a boys and girls club and immediately start challenging the nine other Democrats who have been running, with mixed success, for many months. ‘I don't feel it would be too late’ to enter the race and win, Clark said in a brief interview [yesterday]. Clark said he has ‘confidence’ he could quickly raise enough money and build a powerful enough political operation to eventually blow by the other candidates. Clark's candidacy is adding even more unpredictability to what is already one of the most unsettled Democratic presidential contests in history. Clark rained on North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's entrance into the race today, as Clark's friends spread the word he would soon march into the campaign to take on Bush. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, the frontrunner in key early states, decided to cancel a major economic address planned for Wednesday, concerned that the Clark announcement would drown it out. ‘A lot of people underestimate how strong he'll be,’ said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. Clark's entry comes at a point when the race is still taking shape. Despite Dean's success, many Democratic voters are undecided, and many have not yet begun to pay close attention to the race.  While a number of party strategists once considered Bush virtually unbeatable, many now feel that the weak economy and instability in Iraq make him more vulnerable than he was only a few months ago. Those around Clark think his unique résumé and his standing as a non-politician make him an ideal candidate to take on Bush…Clark's associates said he will run as a moderate southern Democrat in the tradition of fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. Clark is surrounding himself with key operatives from the Clinton-Gore White House and campaigns…Even before Clark's official announcement, Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), previewed the attacks to come. ‘It's a strange profile for a Democratic primary: a career military with no domestic policy experience,’ Jordan said. Moreover, ‘some Democrats might find it unsettling he just decided in recent weeks to become a Democrat,’ he said. Clark announced he was a Democrat on Sept. 4. But Jordan's candidate might have the most to fear from a strong Clark challenge, according to several Democratic strategists. Kerry is running as a war hero candidate, a Democrat who can challenge Bush on foreign policy because he, unlike Bush, served in combat and won several medals for his service. With his experience in Kosovo and Bosnia and prominent role in the U.S. military, Clark, however, could steal much of Kerry's thunder, strategists said, including Trippi, Dean's campaign manager. ‘The guy most affected the most will be Kerry,’ he said.” (9/17/2003)

… “Clark looks ready to run, but how hard in Iowa?” – headline from today’s Des Moines Register. Excerpt from coverage by the Register’s Thomas Beaumont: “Retired Gen. Wesley Clark faces an Iowa dilemma if he enters the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign, as he is expected to do today. The former NATO supreme commander, who has scheduled a noon announcement in his hometown of Little Rock, Ark., must either quickly assemble an Iowa caucus campaign or bypass the lead-off nominating state, a strategy that has never worked. ‘There's plenty of time, but General Clark is going to have to make a big splash and hit the ground in Iowa,’ said Donna Brazile, who ran former Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. ‘It's going to be tough, but Iowa Democrats need to know if he's up to snuff.’ Although it was not clear Tuesday whether Clark would campaign actively for the lead-off Iowa caucuses, Democratic sources in the state continued to say they had heard little from Clark supporters or advisers. Clark, 58, is a Rhodes scholar and former four-star Army general who conducted the Kosovo campaign in the former Yugoslavia under President Clinton in 1998 before retiring in 2000. He has been mentioned as a potential Democratic presidential candidate since last year, although he only recently changed his voter registration from ‘no party’ to Democrat. He would be the 10th Democrat to enter the race to challenge President Bush. Clark made no public statements Tuesday and instead huddled with advisers, many of them former staff to Gore and former President Clinton, in preparation for today's announcement…Political insiders said Clark's high-ranking military background distinguishes him in the campaign and offers direct competition for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who has emphasized his status as the only combat veteran in the field. Kerry and Clark are decorated Vietnam War veterans. ‘He definitely takes that distinction away from Kerry,’ said Republican strategist Rick Davis, who managed the 2000 presidential campaign for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also a Vietnam veteran. Clark's command of NATO forces in Kosovo could also counter the foreign policy edge Kerry has claimed, having served 18 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Clark, a critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, could also cut into support for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whom Kerry has criticized as having scant foreign policy experience…But first Clark will need to enter a race already well under way, especially in Iowa, where the campaign for the Jan. 19 precinct caucuses began in January. Iowa political insiders and former caucus campaign managers agree Clark's window for jumping into an already competitive Iowa caucus campaign is closing rapidly, but that the battle for Iowa's Democratic activists is far from over. ‘I don't think it's going to be that hard for him to come in and set up an operation overnight and get moving,’ said Steve Hildebrand, who ran Al Gore's successful 2000 Iowa caucus campaign. ‘But first, they have to decide whether Iowa will be a part of their strategy. I would argue it should be.’” (9/17/2003)

… Clark – expected to become another wannabe today – may face tough four months ahead in New Hampshire (not to mention Iowa and other states). Headline from today’s Union Leader on report by senior political ace John DiStaso: “Gen. Clark enters race late, but points to his pluses” Excerpt: “Late-entry Wesley Clark faces a tough road if he hopes to make significant headway in New Hampshire’s critical first-in-the-nation Presidential Primary. But key neutral Democrats and other observers say he has some important things going for him: * He enters a field which, with the exception of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has been less than riveting. Undecided voter rates are at about 30 percent. * A retired four-star general and former NATO Supreme Commander, Clark should be an authoritative figure on foreign policy and military strategy. * Most of the ‘big-name’ Democratic political activists have backed someone else, but such endorsements usually mean little in New Hampshire by the time the votes are counted. * Clark has hundreds of energetic volunteers who were active in the ‘Draft Clark’ movement. According to state draft head Susan Putney of Dover, about 200 Granite Staters have ‘gone above and beyond expressing interest and have organized on committees and attended events.’ * Clark’s handlers can try to lower expectations since he’s entering late. A ‘good showing’ should be considered a virtual win, they can say. * Former President Bill Clinton has had nice things to say about Clark, a fellow Arkansan who served in his administration. Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said a compliment from Clinton can be ‘a powerful thing.’  Still, it’s far from clear sailing. First, Clark must decide to campaign hard here. And that means doing the ‘retail politicking’ the other candidates have done. At the same time, because he entered the race so late, Clark must find time to raise big money to show the nation he’s the real deal. ‘On paper, he has a lot of promising electoral characteristics and the field has a large number of undecided voters,’ said Rich Killion, director of the Marlin Fitzwater Center at Franklin Pierce College.”  (9/17/2003)

… Clark throws four-star hat into the ring. Headline on latimes.com (Los Angeles Times) this afternoon: “Clark Enters Presidential Race” AP political ace Ron Fournier reported from Little Rock: “Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark entered a crowded and wide-open race for the Democratic presidential nomination on Wednesday. ‘We're going to run a campaign that will move this country forward not back,’ Clark said, promising to ‘talk straight to the American people.’ Clark, 58, became the 10th Democrat in the race, joining a contest that has been under way for months. ‘My name is Wes Clark. I am from Little Rock, Arkansas. And I am here to announce that I intend to seek the presidency of the United States of America,’ he began. He entered with no experience in elective office and no history on domestic policy, but offered one thing Democrats crave: New hope of undercutting President Bush's wartime popularity. Clark immediately took aim at President Bush, saying his economic policies ‘have cost us more jobs than our economy has had the energy to create.’ Nearly 3 million U.S. jobs have been lost since Bush took office in January 2001. Clark vowed to ‘restore the millions of jobs that have been lost.’ The former Vietnam veteran and commander of all NATO forces in Europe also said that, ‘More than 100,000 American troops are fighting abroad and once again Americans are concerned about their civil liberties.’ Clark made his announcement at a boys and girls club in the state capital, under clear blue skies and on a small stage bearing a sign of his Web site: americansforclark.com. Supporters waved American flags and ‘Draft Clark’ signs while volunteers passed out Clark chocolate bars to an audience of several hundred.” (9/17/2003)

… Clark’s done with the easy part – announcing his candidacy – but now comes the tough part: Meetings the challenges of Iowa and New Hampshire over the next four months. Headline on report from today’s “The Morning Grind” on CNN.com: “Wesley Clark: a tale of two (early-primary) states” Excerpt from report by CNN Political Editor John Mercurio: “Wesley Clark might be a familiar face. But as Joe Lieberman knows, front-runners need more than familiar faces.  Of course, the more pressing question Clark faces today as he joins nine fellow Dems in the presidential race is how he'll be received in the early-primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. And since we figured Clark is pretty busy these days, we made some calls yesterday to gin up some answers for him.  It turns out that Clark, who is 58 and as an Arkansan has no geographic edge in either state, enjoys far deeper support in New Hampshire -- where one of his largest draft movements is based -- than in Iowa, where Dem leaders and political minds say his military background could hurt him. One clear sign of this: Top Clark aide George Bruno, an attorney and Clinton-Gore '92 operative, who has spent this week huddled in Little Rock with the general, is a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair. There are currently no prominent Iowa Dems in Clark's inner circle. That's good news for Dick Gephardt, who doesn't need another strong rival in Iowa, and bad news for John Kerry and Howard Dean, who now must fight two-front battles in New Hampshire.  ‘Clark's not a politician. He hasn't been here. He has no presence. He doesn't have a record, and I haven't heard a lot of Democrats jumping up and down saying, ‘We want Wesley,’’ David Yepsen, the Des Moines Register's political brain trust, told the Grind yesterday. ‘These draft movements are started elsewhere, they're not from here.’  Sure, Clark opposed the Iraq war -- and he eloquently presented his antiwar arguments during hours of commentary on CNN. But Yepsen said that may not be enough to overcome his military background with the state's dove-like party base. ‘There's no warrior culture here,’ he said.  Yepsen's counterpart in the Granite State, John DiStaso, chief political writer for the Manchester Union-Leader, was far more welcoming. ‘The undecideds are exceptionally high at this point, so it's not just that people aren't focusing,’ DiStaso told the Grind. ‘That tells me it has something to do with the field. This tells me that there's still room for someone if he can get his act together.’” (9/17/2003)

… Clark Decision: To debate or not debate next week – Lieberman says he should, but Clark campaign no decision has been made. Headline this afternoon on latimes.com (Los Angeles Times): “Lieberman Wants Clark to be in Debate” Excerpt from report by AP’s Nedra Pickler in DC: “Retired Gen. Wesley Clark's day-old presidential bid is already drawing criticism from Democratic rivals who say he should not skip a party-sponsored debate next week. Clark is scheduled to give a paid speech next Thursday, the day the nine other candidates are scheduled to participate in a debate on economic issues in New York City that will be broadcast live on CNBC. Clark has not yet said which event he will miss. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign on Thursday challenged Clark to attend the debate. ‘The economy is going to be arguably the most important topic that will be discussed this entire political season,’ said Lieberman spokesman Jano Cabrera. ‘Surely the general can change his schedule to discuss this issue with the American people.’ Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, said, ‘I think all Democrats will be disappointed if General Clark passes on an opportunity on national television to lay out his policies for making the American economy stronger and fairer.’ In Little Rock, Ark., Mary Jacoby, Clark's press secretary, said, ‘We haven't made a decision on the debate.’ The New York debate will be the second in a series of six debates sponsored by the Democratic National Committee. The candidates also have appeared together at several other forums hosted by Democratic interest groups, including a debate last week in Baltimore sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. DNC officials said party Chairman Terry McAuliffe has mentioned the debate every time he spoke to Clark in recent weeks, telling him how important it is that he participate.”  (9/18/2003)

… “Congressional Democrats Happy to See Clark Enter Race” – headline this morning on FOXNews.com (Fox News Channel). Excerpt from AP report: “Wesley Clark's entry into the Democratic presidential primary is already proving advantageous, say congressional Democrats who argue that the retired four-star general's bid negates their image as soft on defense. Several lawmakers interviewed said regardless of whether Clark wins the nomination, having him among the party's candidates increases their credibility on the military and foreign affairs. ‘It's very bad for me as a Democrat to be tagged as somebody who doesn't support the military,’ said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind. ‘He takes that issue back for us.’ Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a decorated veteran of the Korean War who is backing Clark, said the former NATO supreme commander ‘is Teflon to the question of being a patriot.’…Rep. Marion Berry, a fellow Arkansas Democrat who is lining up support for Clark on Capitol Hill, said more than 30 members of Congress have told him they will back the former general. The only other Democratic presidential candidate who can match that is former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. Clark plans to visit Capitol Hill next week in an effort to line up even more support, Berry said. He said he expects close to 50 lawmakers will be ready to endorse Clark by then, including more than half of the ‘Blue Dog’ coalition of centrist Democrats as well as more liberal members. Clark plans to make his first campaign stop Thursday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., site of the 2000 presidential recount. He's also under pressure from Democrats to participate in a party-sponsored debate next week that will focus on economic issues. Clark's economic positions are largely undefined, and his aides said he may miss the event because he is supposed to give a paid speech that day. "Anyone who has never run for office before needs to articulate his position on issues," said Rep. Martin Frost, D-Texas. ‘I'm very open to him, but I want to win.’ Those who have already announced that they support Clark include all five of the Arkansas Democrats in the House and Senate, Rangel and Reps. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, Steve Israel of New York, Jim Matheson of Utah and Betty McCollum of Minnesota.” (9/18/2003)

… Don’t Mess with New Hampshire. It turns out that after all the pro-Clark activity in NH that The General is going to Florida and Iowa first – making the locals uneasy.  Report from column by the Union Leader’s senior political reported, John DiStaso: “Tomorrow, two days after his announcement for President, Wesley Clark will head to Iowa, a state whose leadoff caucuses are attended by a relative handful of liberal party activists.  We’re told the Iowa visit was scheduled long before his decision to announce. Perhaps, but how quickly will Clark get himself here?  New Hampshire appears more appropriately built than Iowa for a candidate who enters the race late and doesn’t yet have a complete grassroots organization. We usually have a large turnout of moderate Democrats (as well as liberals) and independents vote in the primary. Clark was on the telephone yesterday to several Granite State reporters, telling this one that he’ll be here very soon, but that a specific date has not yet been set.  Late yesterday, though, an Associated Press report called into question the degree to which Clark intends to campaign in New Hampshire — or Iowa, for that matter.  Aides told the AP he’d head first to Florida and ‘Clark wants to cast himself as a credible candidate in the South and one willing to stretch his campaign beyond the traditional early battleground states.’  Aides said Clark ‘has not decided how hard to campaign in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, but they quickly concluded that he can’t catch up to his competitors through conventional means.’  We maintain, as several Democratic activists said in our report yesterday, that there is room for Clark in this race. He downplays this state at his own peril. Remember, no big-name, late-entry candidate ever looks better than the day before he announces. Now, Clark is under the microscope with his nine fellow candidates.” (9/18/2003)

… “Worries for Clark’s Rivals Vary” – headline on analysis by Dan Balz in this morning’s Washington Post. “Retired general Wesley Clark is a candidate in search of a constituency and depending on where he might find it, almost any of his major rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination has something to fear. Too much is not known about Clark, Democratic and Republican strategists said Wednesday, to know whether his attractive resume and grass-roots following will translate into political success. At a minimum, the Arkansan has launched one of the most unusual candidacies in the recent history of presidential campaigns  -- that of an anti-war general. His impact already has been felt. Over the past week, he has soaked up valuable television time and columns of newsprint at the expense of his nine Democratic rivals. At a time when all the Democrats are trying to raise their profiles, Clark's arrival in the race makes it more difficult. ‘I think there will be a lot of noise for a while and it will take awhile to settle in,’ said David Axelrod, media adviser to Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. ‘We know what the potential and the power is. I expect he will get quite a bit of attention the next few weeks. They don't call it news for nothing and he's new.’ For Howard Dean, the intense media interest in Clark that may have been propitious, given that it has temporarily diverted attention from what was intensifying scrutiny and criticism of a series of controversial statements the former Vermont governor has made. But that's a short-term effect. Clark's candidacy, several strategists said privately, may serve to flatten the entire Democratic field, as if to underscore that there are questions about each of the candidates among undecided Democrats to make it possible for a novice candidate to attract significant attention. Republican strategists in particular said Clark's entry diminished the rest of the candidates, although they have a political interest in saying so. Clark's impact also could be felt quickly in fund-raising. Between now and Sept. 30, all the candidates will be pushing to raise as much money as possible to increase their totals for the third quarter. July and August are traditionally slow fund-raising months, but the last weeks of September are normally some of the best weeks of the year…Several Republican strategists said they did not see Clark as a strong candidate. ‘I don't go to bed worrying that we're going to face General Clark,’ GOP pollster Bill McInturff said on CNBC's ‘Capital Report.’ Because the Democratic contest remains so unsettled, however, any growth by Clark will come at the expense of one of the other candidates, and Democratic and Republican strategists have been busy attempting to measure Clark's potential impact on the field. The most popular assumption is that he could hurt Dean and Kerry most. ‘I think he's going to compete in the Dean-Kerry space as a critic of the war and a critic of Bush's foreign policy,’ said Bill Carrick, an adviser to Gephardt. ‘He's going to be in there competing with the same universe of voters that Dean has been dominating so far, and Kerry obviously has shown an inclination to compete there.’” (9/18/2003)

… Cyberspace warriors Dean and Clark expected to try to battle it out over Internet. Under the subhead “Click Clark” in the “Inside Politics” column in this morning’s Washington Times, Jennifer Harper reported:  “The race between Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination for president may play out heavily in cyberspace, Wired magazine reported yesterday. Mr. Dean is ‘staging an insurgent campaign on the Internet.’ Though he was practically drafted by an Internet-based campaign, Mr. Clark ‘faces a huge number of obstacles in making use of it,’ Wired observed. ‘First, he needs to figure out how to co-opt the leadership of the draft-Clark movement, which has been divided by infighting. Beyond that, Clark will have to figure out his relationship to the larger online community that has backed him. While he summoned leaders of the draft movement to Little Rock, Arkansas, in advance of [his campaign] announcement, Clark has otherwise been surrounding himself with Clinton campaign veterans who have little online experience…’Some Dean supporters are upset that Clark is running, and some Clark supporters realize that he could bring Dean down,’ a Dean supporter told Wired. ‘There's going to be a lot of bad blood, but ... what we dish out to each other will be nothing compared to what we'll get from the Republicans and their allies.’”  (9/18/2003)

… Decisiveness doesn’t appear to be a Clark characteristic during his first day on the job as a Dem wannabe. Conflicting headlines in morning media – will he debate or not? It now appears he’ll show for debate next week. The latest – headline from FOXNews.com: “Clark Criticized for Waffling on Dem Debate” Excerpt: “They said yes. Then no. Now it's yes again: Retired Gen. Wesley Clark will participate in next week's Democratic presidential debate after all, his campaign said. Clark will accept the invitation to next Thursday's debate via a letter to Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe carried by several members of a draft-Clark group, a senior campaign official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said. The letter will be delivered Friday, weather permitting, the official said. Clark came under fire Thursday for suggesting he would skip the first debate for which he was eligible, one day after declaring himself a Democratic presidential candidate. On Thursday night, Clark's campaign said he would participate in the debate, but then quickly backtracked. Spokeswoman Holly Johnson said Clark had a contract to give a paid speech in Texas next Thursday at the same time the nine other Democratic candidates planned to gather. ‘I hope I'll be there,’ Clark said after a campaign stop Thursday night in Hollywood, Fla. ‘I'd like to do it.’ The debate in New York City will focus on economic issues. On Thursday, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign challenged Clark to attend the event. ‘The economy is going to be arguably the most important topic that will be discussed this entire political season,’ said Lieberman spokesman Jano Cabrera. ‘Surely the general can change his schedule to discuss this issue with the American people.’ Clark is a retired four-star general who was head of the U.S. Southern Command and NATO commander during the 1999 campaign in Kosovo. He has also served as a cable news military analyst. The Clark camp did not disclose to which group Clark was contracted to speak. Senior campaign officials claimed they didn't know and made it clear they didn't want to discuss the details because ultimately they expected Clark to attend the debate. Earlier Thursday, Clark aide Barbara Leyton called the Democratic National Committee and said the retired general would participate in the debate and the party's fund-raising dinner afterward, said DNC spokeswoman Debra DeShong.” (9/19/2003)

… Clark – now a vocal critic of the war – says he probably would have voted for the resolution. Report – dateline: Fort Lauderdale – by the Boston Globe’s Joanna Weiss:   “Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark said yesterday that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to wage war in Iraq, taking a position on a key campaign issue closer to that of Senator John F. Kerry than Howard Dean's strong antiwar stance. ‘On balance, I probably would have voted for it,’ Clark said. ‘The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States.’ A former supreme allied commander of NATO, Clark has long been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, at various times calling it an ‘elective war’ and questioning whether it drew resources away from the war on terror. ‘There was no imminent threat,’ he told ABC's ‘Good Morning America’ on Wednesday. ‘There was no reason to do this.’ But Clark offered a more nuanced view to reporters yesterday as he discussed his positions on issues from domestic policy to national security aboard a flight from Little Rock, Ark., to Florida for his first campaign stop since his Wednesday launch. The Iraq resolution, passed in the months leading up to hostilities, has served as a dividing line between the Democratic candidates, as well as a litmus test for some voters who have found political purpose in their opposition to the Iraq war. Dean gained significant early support by saying he would have opposed the resolution. Senator Bob Graham of Florida voted against it, as did Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio. Senators Kerry of Massachusetts, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Edwards of North Carolina, and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri voted for it, with reservations about how Bush conducted foreign policy in the days that preceded the war. Clark himself said yesterday that he believed his position was closer to Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt than to Dean, a former governor of Vermont. Clark's comment seemed to catch his rivals by surprise, especially since his entry into the race was viewed as a challenge to Kerry, who is no longer the only veteran in the race, and to Dean, whose antiwar stance helped him rise in the polls.” (9/19/2003)

… “Clark-Hillary 2004?…A winning ticket” – headline from nationalreview.com. In a guest commentary, Peter Augustine Lawler – a Berry College government prof – makes a case for a Clark-Clinton team. Excerpt: “The serial-primary method used by our parties to pick presidential nominees is chaotic and unpredictable. Everyone knows that party elites have no real power any more, and nobody really knows how our involvement in Iraq and the stock market will look next year. Candidates also sometimes self-destruct because of personal foibles that would not be clear this early in the campaign. Nonetheless, predictions must be made.  Some facts that are probably facts: All the Democratic candidates except Dean and Clark are stillborn. They will be wiped off the map by crushing defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean is the candidate of the most-articulate faction in the party -- the upper middle-class, bourgeois-bohemian (bobo) crowd. He appeals to West Wing fantasies and Vietnam antiwar nostalgia, and especially to those on the Left who believe that Clinton demoralized the real (as opposed to the new) Democratic party. He presents himself effectively as an ‘outsider’; he has the image that perennially suckers primary voters. And he really is an outsider; he would radically reform the Clinton-dominated party establishment. It's hard to see how he wouldn't do very well among the disproportionally bobo (and very white) primary electorates of Iowa and New Hampshire. That doesn't mean that Dean can get nominated, much less elected. Bobo candidates (such as McGovern or even Dukakis) don't fare well in general elections. They exaggerate the nation's cultural divisions, and so they rally regular guys with no strong partisan affiliations to the Republicans. George W. Bush, one of the most-regular (including religious) guys ever to the president, would have a strong personal advantage over the smug and snotty Dean. More than that, African-American voters don't like bobos; Clinton -- who speaks with the cadence of a populist black preacher -- won because he understood that so well. Ethnic Catholic northern, and white Protestant southern voters -- still a large part of the party's electorate -- also are repulsed by the intellectual elitism -- including the lack of patriotism -- of what was until recently called ‘yuppie scum.’ So it seems to me that all Clark needs to do to prevail after the first couple of primaries is to be the viable alternative to Dean and be enthusiastically endorsed by both Clintons. And Bill and Hillary are clearly raising their visibility with that job in mind. They are the Democratic establishment, and they can't risk having a nominee they can't control. On Bill's word, African-American voters will flock to Clark as the alternative to the bobo, and the pro-choice Catholics (Democratic Catholics) will have found one of their own. Clark will remind many gullible Democrats of the pseudo-integrity of West Wing's Catholic — President Bartlet, and a new fantasy will develop. (Clark, like Bartlet, was also a professor economics for a while!) Clark is also more of an outsider than Dean; he has no political experience at all! And all astute Democrats will choose him over Dean as the man who could really beat Bush, as more a Clinton than a McGovern. Clark is actually Clinton with some Eisenhower added; it's hard to accuse a general of lacking personal courage or ignoring issues of natural security. Lieberman, the national-security candidate at this point, will endorse Clark when he drops out fairly early in the primary season. Clark, more than Clinton, will be a formidable candidate in the south. Clark has to be regarded as the favorite for the nomination, and it would be a mistake at this point to regard him as an underdog in the general election. The main stumbling block to his success would be Hillary entering the race. As far as I can tell, her judgment is that the risk for her at this point is too high. She surely secretly hopes for a narrow Democratic defeat next year to clear the way for her in 2008. But political results can't be engineered that precisely, and don't be surprised if she doesn't adopt the amazingly low-risk strategy of making herself available as Clark's running mate. That would make her the presumptive nominee in either 2008 or 2012, depending on the general's skill and fortune. Why would the senator give up her all the influence that comes from having a safe seat from one of our largest states? The former First Lady could hardly be fulfilled as a mere senator; her real ambition is to be president. And whomever Clark picks as his vice-presidential candidate -- if the ticket is elected -- would have immediate advantages in the struggle to succeed him. Hillary can't count on that person not catching on. And no insider Democratic senator has won the party's presidential nomination under the present primary-nomination system. If Mrs. Clinton wants to be president, she'll want to be on the Clark ticket.”  (9/19/2003)

… Clark in Iowa today with caravans expected from at least a half-dozen states. Headline from today’s Des Moines Register: “Now that he’s in, backers head for Iowa” From coverage by the Register’s Thomas Beaumont: “Hundreds of supporters of presidential candidate Wesley Clark are expected to descend on Iowa City today in hopes of catching a glimpse of the latest entrant in the race for the 2004 Democratic nomination. However, it was unclear whether the retired general's one-day Iowa visit would mark the transition from his supporters' fledgling draft effort into an active campaign for Iowa's lead-off nominating caucuses. Caravans of cars, vans and buses from more than a half-dozen states were heading to the University of Iowa for Clark's first Iowa visit as a candidate. Clark's 4 p.m. speech, scheduled months before he announced his candidacy on Wednesday, has attracted attention from dozens of national news media as speculation that he would run reached a crescendo in recent weeks. Despite the media buzz, no one with Clark's fledgling campaign or his Iowa supporters had contacted the Iowa Democratic Party as of the eve of Clark's first campaign visit to Iowa. ‘As of today, I've heard nothing from General Clark or his campaign,’ Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer said Thursday. ‘But the neat thing about the caucuses is there's no filing fee, no ballot or hoops to jump through. You come here, and you campaign.’ Clark is scheduled to fly to Iowa City in the morning and visit a cafe before spending the rest of the day in meetings at the university. He is scheduled to give a foreign policy speech at the Iowa Memorial Union at 4 p.m. and attend a dinner and reception afterward, before leaving Iowa this evening.” (9/19/2003)

… “Gay rights group embraces Clark” – headline from today’s Washington Times. Coverage – an excerpt – by the Times’ Cheryl Wetzstein: “Wesley Clark, the retired Army general who is the latest candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been embraced as ‘another pro-gay moderate’ by a national homosexual rights group. ‘Wesley Clark has been an inspiring, effective leader and a voice of reason on the national scene for quite some time,’ says Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ‘Like most Americans, he supports basic fairness for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people,’ Mr. Foreman says. ‘We welcome his entry into this already crowded and pro-gay field of Democratic candidates, and look forward to his contribution to the debate on the critical issues facing our nation and our world.’ Evidence of Mr. Clark's homosexual-friendly views are his support for a review of the military's decade-old ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy, the task force says. In June, Mr. Clark told NBC ‘Meet the Press’ host Tim Russert the policy ‘absolutely’ should be changed. ‘I don't think it works,’ said the former supreme allied commander in Europe who led the NATO forces in the war in Kosovo. ‘Essentially, we've got a lot of gay people in the armed forces -- we always have had, always will. And I think that…we should welcome people that want to serve.’ Mr. Clark, a Catholic who was raised a Southern Baptist, also came out in support of ‘gay civil unions’ and doesn't ‘believe gays to be inherently sinful,’ the task force says. David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, another major homosexual rights group, says he has heard Mr. Clark make several favorable statements, as well as a few that seemed ‘slightly problematic.’ On the ‘don't ask, don't tell’ policy, he told NBC's ‘Today’ show that ‘the military needs to decide for itself, but the military is clearly under civilian control,’ says Mr. Smith. He supports civil unions but opposes civil ‘marriage’ for homosexual couples. ‘To be fair, we're taking a wait-and-see attitude toward all the candidates,’ says Mr. Smith. ‘Gen. Clark's positions will be examined closely as the campaign unfolds…but he definitely seems to be on the right track.’ Sheri A. Lunn, spokeswoman for the task force, says that of all the Democratic presidential candidates, only one — Carol Moseley Braun — is supportive on all 11 issues important to homosexual activists. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, supports 10 issues but not for homosexual ‘marriage.’” (9/19/2003)

… Will Clark challenge Dean in crowd appeal? During first day on the trail, hundreds show for The General’s Florida visit. Headline from washingtonpost.com: “Supporters Mob Gen. Clark on First Campaign Stop” Excerpt from Reuters report datelined Hollywood, FL: “Hundreds of Florida well-wishers mobbed Gen. Wesley Clark on Thursday when he made his first campaign stop since declaring that he was joining nine other Democrats in the 2004 race for the White House. Clark, standing on a chair in the middle of an overflowing restaurant in this city north of Miami, criticized President Bush on the economy and Iraq and told supporters he needed money. ‘We're the envy of the whole world but we are trapped in a jobless economy and an endless occupation and that is the problem we have to address,’ Clark said. ‘I'm running for president because this country needs leadership. It needs honest leadership, it needs visionary leadership, it needs leadership with experience,’ he said to cheers from the crowd. Clark, a former NATO commander, announced his candidacy on Wednesday. Late to the race, the political novice was candid about his need for financial support. ‘This is America. We operate on the greenback. I need your support,’ he said. Clark has a grass-roots support network built on the Internet and a ‘Draft Clark’ Web site launched months ago has laid the groundwork for volunteer groups in many states, including Florida. The retired general has yet to lay out an economic or domestic agenda and declined to do so on Thursday. But supporters said his military background was what made him an attractive alternative to other Democrats in the field, and to Bush. ‘Bush has the whole national security aura, but he does not have that over Gen. Clark,’ said Aaron Dickerson, 26, who drove 500 miles from his Tallahassee home to meet Clark. One of many World War II veterans in uniform told Clark that his candidacy was his ‘greatest public service.’ Clark did not discuss what pushed him to make Florida his first campaign stop, other than to say he thought it was a beautiful state and that there was ‘no better place to start.’ Bush won the presidency in 2000 after a bitter recount fight in Florida. The state, whose Republican governor Jeb Bush is the president's brother, is seen as a key battleground for 2004 as Democrats say they are determined to avenge the loss.”  (9/19/2003)

… “Is Clark the ‘package’ Democrats seek?” – Headline on Joan Vennochi’s column in yesterday’s Boston Globe. Excerpt: “Wanted, for Democratic presidential nominee: a candidate the country can buy in 2004 as a ‘complete package.’ Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former CNN commentator, is now officially the 10th Democrat to enter the 2004 presidential race. A basic unknown to the average citizen, his military credentials and media contacts serve as springboard for his finally launched, much-predicted candidacy. The Clark pitch goes like this: He is combat tested but against the Iraq war. That makes him Howard Dean with military experience or John F. Kerry without a vote authorizing George W. Bush to wage war against Saddam Hussein. But Clark, 58, could also turn out to be one very big surprise package. And, as anyone who has ever opened up a birthday present knows, there are good surprises and bad ones. Place Clark in the heat of a political campaign rather than the heat of combat, and there is opportunity for more than the usual good, bad, and ugly…Clark might be a great candidate -- even the eventual nominee. But whatever enthusiasm there is for his entrance into the race is mostly testament to the failure of the other nine to sell themselves as the complete package the Democratic presidential nominee must be to beat Bush…Clark's late entrance gives the rest of the field a sorely needed chance to regroup and broaden their campaigns and messages. Right now, Dean is the antiwar, finger-waggling ex-governor of a tiny, nondiverse state. Kerry is the Vietnam veteran and Massachusetts liberal who wants to be defined only as a Vietnam veteran. Richard Gephardt wants to be the candidate of jobs and labor but is mostly a captive of the congressional establishment and a very stiff head of hair. Senator Joseph Lieberman is a remnant of Al Gore's failed effort to prove he could be exciting by picking the first Jewish candidate for vice president. John Edwards has dimples and a Southern accent. Florida Senator Bob Graham has a Southern accent. Al Sharpton is black and humorous in more ways than one. Carol Moseley Braun is a black woman and former rising star, since crashed. Dennis Kucinich is a true believer whose beliefs are far too left to be nationally palatable. And now there is Clark, rallying supporters around battlefield credentials and promises to restore jobs and economic opportunity. In doing so, he is trying to hijack the role of ‘complete package.’ Clark is battle-seasoned enough to be antiwar in Iraq, especially up against Bush and his National Guard service. But he has much to prove in terms of comfort level on the domestic and diplomatic fronts. Being accepted as a ‘complete package’ requires more than pushing the correct ideological buttons, although that is always the starting point in American politics. In every presidential face-off, voters ultimately consider intelligence, maturity, life experience, and that great intangible, likeability. Do they want to have a beer with the candidate (or, with liberals, a glass of chardonnay)? In 2000, Bush passed the likeability test with half the country, which gave him the benefit of the doubt on intelligence and maturity. In 2004, voters will be less inclined to like him enough to reelect him if Americans are still losing their jobs at home and their lives in Iraq. Bush will be an even tougher sell if the candidate running against him is a better buy and a more complete package.” (9/19/2003)

… “Clark will appeal to African-Americans” – headline in this morning’s The Union Leader. Report says Clark’s connection to the Clintons will help his candidacy in the black community. Coverage – an excerpt – by AP’s Devlin Barrett: “U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the most outspoken supporter of newly minted presidential candidate Wesley Clark, predicted Friday the retired general will get wide and enthusiastic support among African-Americans because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Rangel, D-N.Y., a ranking member of the House Ways and Means committee, said he is already pressing officials in his home district of Harlem, around his state, and in the Congressional Black Caucus to support Clark. ‘Anybody that's against the war that can beat Bush is going to be overwhelmingly supported in the black community,’ Rangel said. The congressman will meet Saturday morning with elected and religious leaders in his Harlem district to talk up Clark's candidacy. ‘I'm going to share with them that this is the most emotional political decision of my life,’ he said. ‘I truly believe that my community would be better off in putting their money on this horse to win.’ The Army retired general opposes the war in Iraq, favors abortion rights and affirmative action. The Congressional Black Caucus ‘would like to hear his views on a number of domestic issues,’ ranging from jobs to health care to education, said spokesman Doug Thornell. ‘Before there is a mass exodus to support Wesley Clark, which there very well may be... he is going to have to lay out a clear agenda and discuss these issues,’ said Thornell. ‘I don't think the majority of the caucus has made up their minds yet.’ Clark's entry in the race follows questions about whether the current Democratic front-runner, Howard Dean, can appeal to blacks, a key voting bloc for the party. Andrew Hoppin, part of New York's ‘Draft Wesley Clark’ group, said the black vote is ‘a huge priority’ for the campaign, and said the connection to former president Bill Clinton, a fellow Arkansan who urged Clark to enter the race, may help Clark's appeal. ‘It's not just trying to rehash the Clinton formula,’ said Hoppin. ‘Constituencies that have not felt like they can make a difference took a very leading role in this draft movement.’ Clinton, who keeps an office in Harlem, and his wife, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, are still wildly popular among African-Americans. Speaking of the Clintons, Rangel said, ‘If they don't come out and help him, they damn sure have said enough that they're not going to hurt.’” (9/20/2003)

… Rivals respond to Clark’s latest statements on Iraq resolution: Excerpt from report by political reporter Dan Balz in today’s Washington Post: “Yesterday's remarks in Iowa appear to put Clark in the same camp as Howard Dean and several others in the race who either verbally opposed or voted against the resolution. Strategists for several of his rivals expressed surprise at the latest turn in Clark's position. Some said the apparent flip-flop will hurt his candidacy. ‘I think one of his key attributes is he's a steady, experienced guy; and if you look like you're not sure what you want to say, it hurts,’ said Steve Elmendorf, senior adviser to Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.)…Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager, was asked for his reaction. He sent the following via e-mail: ‘We'll withhold comment until the general's blue-ribbon team of consultants and advisers decide what his position actually is.’ Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi was less critical. ‘I know we were surprised yesterday [Thursday] when we heard he said he would have voted for the resolution,’ he said. ‘But, look, he just got in the race. This is a new world of politics, and I think you've got to give him some time so we can learn where his positions are. But we think he's going to have an impact on the race, and other candidates should take him seriously. We do.” (9/20/2003)

… Clark’s credibility gap grows. After spending a day undecided – and indecisive – about whether he would be in next week’s Dem debate, Clark – in Iowa – backs off yesterday’s statement on the Iraq resolution. Headline from this morning’s The Union Leader: “Clark flummoxes staff with flop on Iraq war” An excerpt from coverage by AP Iowa caucus watcher Mike Glover during Clark’s Iowa City visit on Friday: “Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he ‘would never have voted for this war.’ The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments in an interview with The Associated Press. ‘Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war,’ Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. ‘I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein.’ Clark's initial remarks left members of his campaign team a bit flummoxed. ‘That caught me off guard a little. The general has been very critical of the war,’ said George Bruno, a New Hampshire activist. Clark launched his bid for the Democratic nomination on Tuesday with the type of media attention candidates crave, but early missteps underscore the dangers facing his late-starting campaign. The former NATO commander and his campaign staff went back and forth on whether he will participate in a Democratic debate next week -- all in a single day. Creating more confusion were Clark's comments on the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to oust Saddam, remarks that were at odds with his opposition to the war. Veteran Democrats pointed out that Clark is in the unusual position of trying to put a major presidential campaign in place and clearly lay out his positions in the glare of the media spotlight. Other candidates have had months to hone their message below the political radar. ‘If politics were theater, you get to open in New Haven (Conn.),’ rather than on Broadway, said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who warned of the dangers of ‘policy on the fly.’ Added Carrick: ‘Howard Dean has been out there for two years rehearsing his act.’ Carrick compared some of the difficulties Clark has faced to the early days of Edward Kennedy's 1980 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, also a late-starting campaign where the Massachusetts senator tended to blurt out comments that reshaped the race. Kennedy predicted, for instance, that he would beat President Carter in Iowa; Carter easily prevailed. Twenty-five years later those gaffes stick in Carrick's mind. ‘It completely changed the expectations,’ he said. ‘It was all triggered by the late start.’ The nine other Democratic candidates also have spent the last few months meeting with Democratic activists across the country, getting feedback on various issues and testing their campaign lines. ‘I'm sure Howard Dean has tried a variety of things along the way,’ said veteran Iowa activist Jeff Link. ‘By the time people began paying attention, he had it down pretty good.’ Iowa casts its votes in four months, giving Clark little time to smooth out the rough edges…In the interview, Clark sketched out a checkerboard of positions, saying he would leave in place a tax cut for middle-income Americans and indicating his support for gun rights, although he supports a ban on assault weapons. Clark said the helter-skelter effort to build his campaign was ‘like trying to bottle lightning,’ but he shrugged off the early stumbles. ‘It doesn't bother me a bit,’ he said. ‘It helps you get the message out across America. When you start late, you need that.’”  (9/20/2003)

… “A Candidate Who Answers His Own Phone?” – headline from today’s Washington Post. Report by the Post’s Dana Milbank: “Wesley K. Clark: NATO commander. Presidential candidate. Receptionist? Everybody knows that Clark, the latest entrant in the Democratic presidential primary competition, is scrambling to assemble a staff because of his late start. But Peter Wallsten found out just how much Clark is scrambling when the Miami Herald political writer tried to call the nascent Clark campaign headquarters last week after Clark signaled his entry into the race. Wallsten had heard that Clark was planning a trip to South Florida, so he telephoned Little Rock for more details. He called every 10 minutes, encountering only voice-mail messages, busy signals and endless ringing, until 6:30 p.m., when somebody finally picked up the phone. ‘Hello?’ an excited Wallsten inquired. ‘Hello?’ replied a male voice in Little Rock. ‘Who's this?’ Wallsten asked. ‘General Wesley Clark speaking,’ the voice said. Wallsten, not expecting the candidate to be working the switchboard, identified himself and asked about the Florida trip. ‘I don't know -- we're still trying to figure that out,’ Clark replied. ‘Call back in 15 minutes.’ Wallsten tried to ask more questions of Clark, but the candidate quickly extricated himself from the conversation. ‘There was no time to inquire about his economic plan,’ Wallsten said.” (9/21/2003)

… For the Record: Although yesterday’s Iowa Prez Watch update included a report on Clark’s appearance in Iowa City, additional coverage is featured below from two Iowa newspapers – the Des Moines Register and Quad-City Times: Headline on the front page of yesterday’s Register: “Clark says he wouldn’t have voted for Iraq war” Excerpt from report by the Register’s Thomas Beaumont: “Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, in his first Iowa campaign visit, backed away Friday from a comment that he would have supported the congressional resolution giving President Bush power to order the war in Iraq. ‘I never would have voted for war,’ Clark, a retired four-star Army general, said during an interview with The Des Moines Register. Reports published Friday quoted Clark as saying he probably would have supported the resolution. ‘I would have voted for a resolution which gave the president leverage to seek a diplomatic, non-military solution to the problem in Iraq. I would have never voted for war,’ he said. ‘I'm a soldier. I know what war is like.’ Clark, the former NATO commander, has been a vocal critic of the war, but had kept other policy positions a mystery for months as speculation mounted about whether he would seek the 2004 Democratic nomination. Clark began fleshing out his candidacy Friday, promising to propose a health-care plan built on existing programs, rather than a government-run, single-payer system. He also said he favored repealing income-tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans but leaving in place all other cuts enacted under Bush. ‘I think we have to protect especially the tax cuts for middle-income and ordinary people across the country,’ he told the Register. War, tax cuts and health care have been the main dividing issues of the Democratic field, which reached 10 with Clark's entry into the race Wednesday. Campaigning Friday in Iowa City, Clark was making his first visit as a candidate to Iowa, where the Democratic precinct caucuses mark the opening event of the presidential nominating season on Jan. 19. On his second full day as a candidate, Clark sought to clarify his position on the war after press reports Friday quoted him as saying he probably would have voted for a resolution giving Bush broad war-making authority in Iraq. The resolution, which authorized Bush to order the attack in Iraq without United Nations approval, has been a dividing point among Democrats seeking to challenge the president next year…And from the Quad-City Times: An excerpt from report by the Times’ Ed Tibbetts. Headline from yesterday’s Times: “Clark fills lecture hall in first Iowa appearance” The excerpt: “Retired Gen. Wesley Clark urged a greater embrace of the United Nations in a speech here Friday that afforded a host of contrasts between the 10th candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination and President Bush. Meanwhile, Clark also moved Friday to control damage that arose from remarks he made the day before on a campaign flight when the candidate said he ‘probably’ would have voted for the congressional resolution last year that authorized the use of force in Iraq. Clark, the former commander of NATO, has been a severe critic of the war, a stand that ignited much of the support for his candidacy. His appearance here has been anticipated for months, and his speech at the lecture hall drew more than 1,000 people, some left standing in the aisles. The speech was said to be nonpolitical, but Clark, on a number of fronts, contrasted himself with the president, not only the handling of the Iraqi war but also the general tenor of the way the country is dealing with foreign countries. He also took a stab at some domestic issues such as Republican tax cuts. It was foreign policy, however, that dominated his remarks. Clark said that instead of being scornful, the United States needs to support the United Nations. The United Nations has become a target of some conservatives who say it has become irrelevant. ‘This is an organization that is ours. We’re the leaders of it,’ he said Friday. ‘We have to use international institutions, not abuse and condemn them.’ In his address, and then in response to questions, Clark added that the United States should not close its borders to foreign immigrants, that it should more tightly embrace the United Nations and that it should retain the threat of force but use it only as a last resort. He also implicitly challenged the president’s assertion that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Instead, it is the individuals in foreign countries who are stoking the flames of terror that should be the target, he said. ‘Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, Egypt, those are the central fronts in the war on terror.’ he said.” (9/21/2003)

… Columnist Novak: Clark off on “wrong step” by hiring Fabiani. Under the subhead “The General’s Aide,” columnist Robert Novak wrote in today’s Chicago Sun-Times: “Gen. Wesley Clark began his campaign for president on one wrong step, in the opinion of President Bill Clinton's former aides, by hiring ex-Clinton and Gore adviser Mark Fabiani. Fabiani got low marks from Clinton insiders as deputy campaign manager for communications and strategy in Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. They complain that Fabiani relied too much on polls and not enough on the issues. A footnote: Clark picked up two early important supporters in Congress: Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former Clinton White House aide.”  (9/21/2003)

… Now, the Newest Wannabe faces another test – raising money this late in the game. Headline from yesterday’s New York Times: “Fund-Raisers Greet Clark Warmly, but Not All Purses Open” Excerpt from report by the Times’ Glen Justice:  “Gen. Wesley K. Clark has met Democratic fund-raisers from California to New York in recent weeks in an effort to finance his presidential run and has drawn a mixed reaction of curiosity and caution. General Clark had lunch with the film director Steven Spielberg; received a call from Steve Kirsch, founder of Infoseek, the Internet search engine, and a major donor; and then went to a party where he was the guest of honor at an event given by Jann Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone, efforts that yielded varied results. Although Mr. Kirsch said he would most likely support the general, Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Wenner held off from raising money for the primaries. ‘We recognize the challenge is to convert all this unbridled enthusiasm and turn it into meaningful contributions of money and time,’ said Mark Fabiani, an adviser to the general's campaign. Strategists who have worked on presidential campaigns said that as a fresh face in the race General Clark could expect a burst of contributions in the coming weeks. Maintaining such support will depend on attracting established fund-raisers and using the Internet to draw large numbers of small donors. ‘The key is not the first couple million,’ said Anita Dunn, a Democratic consultant who worked on Bill Bradley's campaign in 2000. ‘The key is sustaining it.’ General Clark is the 10th candidate in the Democratic field. Most of the other candidates have cultivated fund-raisers and gathered money since 2001. Some will probably raise $20 million or more this year. Whether a latecomer can attract enough cash is a question that will turn on how Democrats receive General Clark. The books close on third-quarter financial reports on Sept. 30, and General Clark's supporters hope that his meetings with fund-raisers will energize efforts. ‘It's difficult for people to make a commitment without having met somebody or spending a bit of time,’ said Susan Patricof, a fund-raiser in New York who supports the general. ‘I'm confident that when people do meet Wes, many of them will be very enthusiastic about supporting him.’ Sarah Kovner, another fund-raiser supporting him, said she was fielding offers of money and help after she held a 70-person reception for the candidate at her home in New York. Jordan Kerner, a film producer in California, said he had noticed great interest since holding a 200-person reception for the general. Mr. Kerner said, ‘A lot of people made large commitments to him, in the millions of dollars.’  One question is whether General Clark's ties to former President Bill Clinton will translate into money. ‘He's from Arkansas, so he shares many friends with President Clinton,’ said Skip Rutherford, a fund-raiser who is president of the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation. Still, many fund-raisers say they are waiting for a clear Democratic front-runner to emerge. Battered by requests, they are interviewing presidential hopefuls to gain a sense of who can beat President Bush. Melvyn Weiss, a lawyer who has assembled a group of 25 donors and fund-raisers who hope to identify the best candidate, said General Clark had been well received by the group. ‘We've been throwing money away in the past without thinking about electability,’ Mr. Weiss said.”  (9/21/2003)

…New York Times report this morning says that Clark, Edwards and Graham getting hard look as No. 2 on the Dem ticket. Lieberman discounted because he’s done that already. Headline: “Looking out for No. 2…If You’re Baffled by the Presidential Race, Consider This” From report by Times political ace Adam Nagourney: “These days, there is plenty of action in the Democratic presidential nomination fight: 10 candidates as of noon on Thursday, when Wesley K. Clark joined the show, ensuring one of the most mixed-up nomination battles either party has produced in years. But just in case that is not enough for Democrats who enjoy a good fight, a new contest is rising out of the mist of this one. It is the race within the race, an unstated competition for the No. 2 spot on the ticket. No one running for president would ever say, at least right now, that they are actively campaigning to be vice president. As an aide to one of them noted, the candidates in question probably do not recognize that they are conducting what might eventually turn into dual campaigns: one for the presidential nomination, the other for vice president. But at least three presidential candidates are being increasingly measured by competing campaigns and party leaders for their vice presidential talents, a trend that seems certain to continue. This reflects both an early assessment of their presidential prospects (generally speaking, perhaps not so good) as well as an appreciation of the geographic and biographical assets they would bring to a ticket. No one is writing off anyone for the presidency yet. That said, the emerging vice presidential field includes General Clark, who would fortify a Democratic ticket with a military uniform and a Southern background; Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, another son of the South who has impressed Democrats with his keen campaign skills, and Senator Bob Graham, who comes from Florida (if you have to ask). ‘They are all in their heads running for president -- you don't get in this game to be No. 2,’ said Paul Costello, a longtime Democratic consultant. ‘But that has got to be the hidden context for a lot of these people.’…‘I think that it is very likely that one of them will be the vice presidential nominee,’ he said, referring to Mr. Edwards, Mr. Graham or General Clark. Two other Democratic presidential candidates -- Howard Dean of Vermont and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts -- are, as liberal Northeast Democrats prone to the campaign misstep, not exactly what party officials would describe as attractive vice presidential candidates. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has done his time in the vice presidential candidate seat. Since there are actually some Democrats in the land who are not running for president, the speculation about No. 2 possibilities extends beyond the field. Some names being mentioned are Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, for example (though Mr. Richardson said in an interview he would not accept the position); Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. But as of today, Democrats think the No. 2 nominee will come from the cast seeking the No. 1 job — speculation that, not surprisingly, does not delight the candidates. General Clark scoffed at the No. 2 position, saying that he is not embarking on a career in politics to win a post that has no discernable authority. But asked if that meant he was ruling out the vice presidency, General Clark shook his head no. ‘I'm not saying that,’ he said. ‘I'm saying for me there was only one decision, and that was whether I would run for the presidency or not. This is not about positioning.’ Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for Mr. Edwards, said, ‘Anybody who thinks that John Edwards is running for vice president doesn't know him very well.’” (9/21/2003)

… Clark – initially uncertain about whether he’d debate this week – now prepares to meet The Original Nine for the first time. Headline from yesterday’s Boston Globe:  “As new Democratic contender, Clark crams for debate…Campaign seen as a work in progress” Excerpt from report – dateline: Iowa City, where Clark gave a speech Friday –- by the Globe’s Joanna Weiss: “Retired Army General Wesley K. Clark has committed to taking part in next week's Democratic debate, and he knows full well what to expect when he faces off against his nine rivals for the party's presidential nomination. He knows he will need well-formed policy positions on a range of issues he has not begun to study. He knows the candidates will be training for his jugular. And he knows that, with only a week to go, there will not be time to learn everything. ‘There are prime ministers I don't know, and there are economic facts I don't know, and I'll get stuff wrong,’ Clark said on a turboprop yesterday, en route to a one-day visit to Iowa. ‘Everybody does.’ Clark and his staff plan to spend all weekend studying the issues and devising positions. In two days on the road, Clark has been grappling with the demand for sound bites and quick responses. He has seemed more comfortable with multipart answers and long-form discussions -- and he has given far more thought to foreign policy than to a range of domestic issues that many voters consider priorities. This is the challenge of starting a presidential campaign from a standing start, entering a crowded field of candidates who have been prepping, primping, fund-raising, planning, and spinning policy statements for months. And this is what a campaign looks like when a candidate decides to run on Monday, calls in staff on Tuesday, announces on Wednesday, and jets to Florida on Thursday to meet voters and potential donors. So far, the Clark campaign has no cellphones, no e-mail addresses, and no formal headquarters to speak of -- just dozens of staff and volunteers in his tiny consulting office, seizing space for laptops wherever they can find it, four to a desk and two to a dresser. There is no system for collecting money at campaign events; when supporters mobbed a deli in Fort Lauderdale to greet Clark on Thursday, many walked straight up to the general's surprised aides to hand them checks. Clark is still in the process of assembling a staff and an organizational chart, as his aides determine which members of a disparate and sometimes warring ‘Draft Clark’ movement will join the official campaign. He is getting used to the already grueling schedule, determined to get in a swim every morning and grab cat naps when he needs them. He has met with notable enthusiasm; in Fort Lauderdale, a crowd of hundreds gathered at an event the campaign had set up with less than a day's notice -- and moved from early morning to late afternoon, after a debate about whether to fly to South Carolina while Hurricane Isabel approached the East Coast. But while the Florida crowd seemed satisfied with handshakes and autographs, the press and pundits are looking for specifics, and Clark is trying to strike a balance between the two. Yesterday, he bounded onto his plane with a stack of editorials about Iraq that he wrote for the Times of London, which he printed to combat what he called ‘gotcha’ stories and take control of his still-forming public image. ‘I'm the guy who understands this stuff,’ he said.”  (9/21/2003)

… “Clark jumps in: Will he make a splash?” – headline on editorial in today’s New Hampshire Sunday News. Excerpt: “Retired General Wesley Clark has entered the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. That makes an even 10 major candidates. Provided no one else throws his or her hat into the ring before the filing deadline, which is at the end of this month, we can finally get on with finding out which Democrat President Bush will beat next November. OK, we jest. It is not certain that Bush will win re-election. He has low poll ratings on several points of domestic policy, most importantly the economy, and a year is a long, long time in the life of an election campaign. But Bush is positioned well at this point. Though the American people question some of the President’s policies, they personally like him, and most of them still think he’s done a good job managing the federal government. Clark enters the race as a blank slate. Americans admire their military heroes, and Clark’s resume is very impressive. Too bad for him that resumes count for little in a Presidential race. The people want to know what a President will do for them, especially on the economy and other domestic issues such as health care and federal entitlement programs. The public has no idea what Clark thinks about these issues, assuming he thinks about them at all. With four months until the New Hampshire primary, and with South Carolina’s primary following about a week after that, Clark has a tremendous amount of work to do in a very short span of time. There are undecided Democratic donors to be hit up and plenty of undecided voters to be wooed. Is it possible that Clark could win either the New Hampshire primary or the Iowa caucus? Our Magic 8 Ball says ‘outlook not good.’ We don’t get the feeling that too many Democratic voters are all that excited about Clark’s candidacy. Even now they still seem to hold out hope that some other knight in shining armor will stride in. He doesn’t have to win either of these contests to wind up as President, of course. All he has to do is make a respectable finish. And he did get off to a good start last week by stealing John Kerry’s New Hampshire campaign spokesman. If he is to make it to Super Tuesday, Clark must hope for many more Kerry supporters to switch sides. With all that is a mystery about Wesley Clark, one thing is certain. He is highly ambitious. If he makes a serious, energetic run at the nomination, this race will be all the more interesting, and entertaining, to watch.”  (9/21/2003)

… Newsweek poll: Clark gets early support, but could it be that it’s because he hasn’t been around as long as the other wannabes? Or maybe they haven’t heard about his indecisiveness on whether to join this week’s debate – or his flip-flop on the Iraq war resolution. Report by Newsweek’s Laura Fording: “Retired Gen. Wesley Clark may have only entered the presidential race on Thursday, but he is already the Democratic frontrunner, according to a new Newsweek poll. Clark won support from 14 percent registered Democrats and democratic leaners, outpacing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (12 percent), Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (12 percent), Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (10 percent) and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt (8 percent). Meanwhile, as Americans focus on the fiscal realities of creating a stable Iraq, President George W. Bush's approval ratings continue to slide, the poll shows. The president's approval rating now stands at 51 percent, down 1 point from last week's poll and from 65 percent on May 1, when major hostilities in Iraq ended. For the first time in a year, Bush's approval for his handling of the situation in Iraq has dropped below 50 percent to 46 percent, a 5-point drop from last week. Fifty-six percent of Americans say they think the amount of money being spent in Iraq is too high. And 57 percent of Americans now disapprove of how Bush is handling the economy, an increase of 6 points from only one week ago. The Newsweek poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, which interviewed 1,001 adults by telephone on September 18 and 19. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Americans are divided on whether Clark's military background gives him an edge in national defense and security issues--40 percent said it made them more confident in his abilities to handle these areas while 42 percent said it didn't. And more than half--52 percent--said it didn't matter to them that Clark had never held political office. Despite Clark's strong entrance, the Democrats remain less than enthusiastic about their choice in candidates. If former Vice President Al Gore or New York Sen. Hillary Clinton were to enter the 2004 presidential race--both have said they will not run--loyalties of Democrats would shift dramatically, with 33 percent saying their first choice for Democratic nominee would be Clinton, and 28 percent saying their first choice would be Gore. Others in the race look especially weak. The Rev. Al Sharpton polls at 7 percent among registered Democrats and leaners, while North Carolina Sen. John Edwards received 6 percent, Florida Sen. Bob Graham 4 percent, and former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich received only 2 percent each. Nineteen percent of Democrats and democratic leaners are still not sure who they will vote for in the upcoming primary. When registered voters were asked who they would vote for if a general election if President George W. Bush was pitted against Clark, Kerry or Dean, none of the candidates were able to beat the incumbent, although Clark fared better than the others, polling at 43 percent to Bush's 47 percent. Kerry was next, polling at 43 percent to Bush's 48 percent. Dean fared worst, with Bush beating him by a full 14 points (52 percent to 38 percent).” (9/21/2003)

… “The trouble with Wes Clark” – headline on Robert Novak’s column in today’s Chicago Sun-Times. Excerpt: “The important Democrats eager to run retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president might exercise due diligence about a military career that was nearly terminated before he got his fourth star and then came to a premature end. The trouble with the general is pointed out by a bizarre incident in Bosnia nearly a decade ago. Clark was a three-star (lieutenant general) who directed strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. On Aug. 26, 1994, in the northern Bosnian city of Banja Luka, he met and exchanged gifts with the notorious Bosnian Serb commander and indicted war criminal, Gen. Ratko Mladic. The meeting took place against the State Department's wishes and may have contributed to Clark's failure to be promoted until political pressure intervened. The shocking photo of Mladic and Clark wearing each other's military caps was distributed throughout Europe. Last week on CNN's ‘Crossfire,’ I asked one of Clark's new supporters -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois -- about that indiscretion. ‘Well, I don't know about the photo,’ he replied. He and other Clark backers, led by Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, might want to dig more deeply into the general's turbulent military career before getting too deeply committed.  For Emanuel, Rangel and other well-connected Democrats, Wes Clark seems a dream come true. He is walking the liberal line on taxes, abortion, racial quotas and Iraq. But he has military credentials and decorations that George W. Bush lacks. Even before formally announcing last week, Clark had 10 percent in Gallup's first national listing of him among presidential candidates and was just 6 percentage points behind the front-runner. Clark comes over on television as a square-jawed straight-shooter, not the stormy petrel that the Army knew during 34 years active duty -- including his conduct in the Banja Luka incident. U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol. This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the ‘Clark Rule’: whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats. After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat. After such behavior, Clark was never on the promotion list to full general until he appealed to Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He got his fourth star and became commander in chief of the Southern Command. His last post, as NATO supreme commander, found this infantry officer leading an air war against the Serbs over Kosovo. Clark argued with NATO colleagues by insisting on a ground troops option and complaining about the slowly graduated bombing campaign. He was pushed out abruptly by Defense Secretary William Cohen. Since retiring in 2000, Clark has not been less contentious. Secretary of State Colin Powell was furious that a fellow four-star general in his CNN commentary would criticize U.S. strategy in Iraq, without much information and with the war barely underway. Clark attributed one comment to a Middle East ‘think tank’ in Canada, although there appears to be no such organization. After claiming that the White House pressured CNN to fire him, Clark later said, ‘I've only heard rumors about it.’ They chose to ignore past performance, which may be cause for regret.”  (9/22/2003)

… Headline posted on the DRUDGE REPORT this morning -- “CRAWFORD: Could Clark Be a Stalking Horse for Hillary Clinton?” Excerpt from column by CQ’s (Congressional Quarterly) Craig Crawford: “Clinton-Clark. Don't laugh. I'm serious. That ticket is the only way I can make sense of Gen. Wesley Clark's sudden adventure into presidential politics. Clark must be a stalking horse for Hillary Rodham Clinton. And not for her to be his running mate, as some suggest — but the other way around. Sure, believing that the junior senator from New York will run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination might be the political equivalent of believing in Unidentified Flying Objects. But on Wednesday, I am sure I saw a UFO flying over the head of Clark as he announced his quest for the presidency from Little Rock, Ark. Piloted by the Clinton pals now managing Clark's every movement, this flying saucer could soon land and reveal its true cargo: Hillary. The publicly-known list of Clintonites on Clark's team encourages speculation that the 42nd president and New York's senator are somewhere in the mix. It includes former presidential spokesman Mark Fabiani; fundraiser Skip Rutherford; confidant Bruce Lindsey; and 1992 campaign bosses Eli Segal and Mickey Kantor. Others, including former aides to Vice President Al Gore, are in the wings. Suspend disbelief for a moment and consider the scenario. For Clinton to run, she needs more time to shake her pledge to New York voters that she would not seek the presidency this soon. The massive media buzz surrounding Clark's nascent campaign buys her time by diverting attention from the only threat to a Clinton bid -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's dazzling rise in the nomination race. Husband Bill publicly launched the pledge-dodge maneuver for his wife just as Clinton loyalists working for Clark leaked word to the media that the general would definitely run. How convenient that Bill Clinton's own former chief of staff Leon E. Panetta asked the set-up question at a forum on Sept. 16 in Monterey, Calif. Panetta asked if there was ‘a chance’ Hillary Clinton would run in the current campaign. ‘That's really a decision for her to make,’ Bill Clinton said. But didn't Sen. Clinton already say she had made her decision, repeatedly vowing not to run? Why did he not repeat her official stand? Having cracked the door open much further than his wife ever has, Bill then oddly ruminated about the vagaries of her pledge to New York voters. ‘I was impressed at the state fair in New York, which is in Republican country in upstate New York, at how many New Yorkers came up and said they would release her from her commitment if she wanted to do it,’ Clinton said. ‘But she said ... she just doesn't understand how to walk away from that. So I just have to take her for where she is right now.’ He knows plenty about such things. To run for president in 1992, Clinton had to conduct a series of town hall meetings with Arkansas voters asking to be released from a similar pledge he made in his 1990 campaign for reelection as governor. He had no trouble putting it behind him. Clark's bid hurts more people than Dean, the media-anointed front-runner who has so far faced no serious threat from the existing field. The other major candidates are harmed in various ways, making it all the more likely that the race could be unsettled by the time Clinton would jump in. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts can no longer claim to be the only combat veteran running, a central rationale of his campaign. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri now faces another high-profile foe who opposed the Iraq War that the former House minority leader so strenuously supported a year ago when it seemed like the thing to do. With so many former aides to Clinton and Al Gore on Clark's team, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut no longer seems to be the heir apparent, a status conferred by his stint as Gore's 2000 running mate. Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida now must contend with a rival whose Southern roots threaten their already-floundering bids to be Dixie's favorite son. Clark's first campaign swing took him to Graham's home state and Edward's native state, South Carolina. Now comes the hard part for the Clinton-Clark ticket. How does a candidate who is running drop out, endorse someone who is not running -- and then become her running mate? Such drama is not beyond Clinton's reach. She is, after all, the first First Lady with the audacity and skill to win elected office of any kind, let alone a Senate seat. My best shot at imagining this scenario begins with Clark building the foundations of a national campaign by running a credible two-month effort, raising a respectable amount of cash and deploying former Clinton-Gore staffers around the country. In the meantime, the Clintons continue their tease. She keeps saying ‘no’ while everyone around her, including her husband, says ‘maybe.’ They closely watch President Bush's polling strength. If his slide continues, they pull the trigger in late November. Clark and Clinton stage a summit and in a sudden burst of activity, the deal is done and she takes over his campaign organization just in time for the Nov. 21 filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary. You may now resume disbelief. Unless you've seen a UFO lately.” (9/22/2003)

… Not all media reports are favorable to Clark’s candidacy or image. Headline from today’s Los Angeles Times: “Clark Wears Campaign Medals From Two Fronts…The 2004 hopeful counts diplomatic and military victories. But some peers city an abrasive style” Excerpt from report by the Times’ Pail Richter: “Before the Pentagon leadership picked Gen. Wesley Clark to head the command for the Latin American region in 1996, it asked the Army for its recommendations. The brass submitted a list of candidates -- and Clark's name was not on it. A year later, before the Pentagon leadership elevated Clark to NATO supreme allied commander, it asked the Army again -- and again received recommendations that did not include Clark. Clark went on to win fame as the top military commander of the successful 1999 war to expel Serbian forces from the former Yugoslav province of Kosovo. Now he is counting on a resume packed with military and diplomatic accomplishments to give his candidacy credibility. But Clark's military past is not an unalloyed asset. In fact, critics say, the Army's reluctance to back him for promotion illustrates misgivings that a number of his peers had about Clark despite his distinguished 37-year career. Clark, who was tagged as the Democratic front-runner in a poll released Sunday by Newsweek just days after becoming the party's 10th candidate for president, gained strong supporters and patrons during his military career because of his brains and energy. But he also accumulated detractors, who considered him abrasive and overly ambitious, and sometimes questioned the wisdom of his decisions. The 58-year-old Arkansan was ‘one of the quickest studies, hardest workers, brightest stars in the Army,’ said one Army general who worked closely with Clark. ‘But was he the guy you wanted on your team? Were his solutions the best? There was a lot more debate about that.’…Clark's accomplishments as a hustling problem solver again and again drew the attention of top civilian policymakers, from Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr. during the Nixon administration to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and national security advisor Samuel R. Berger during the Clinton administration. In dealing with the Balkans crisis, Clark was ‘the best partner we could have had,’ Albright enthused in her autobiography. Top Clinton foreign policy officials continue to praise him. Yet in 1999, there were bitter disagreements between Clark and his Pentagon bosses about what was probably the most important military judgment of his career -- how to drive Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic and his troops out of Kosovo. NATO leaders broadly agreed that the effort should rely on a high-altitude bombing campaign, rather than a ground war that would risk major casualties -- and a public backlash. Clark pushed for weeks to use ground troops, in face of resistance from President Clinton, Defense chief William S. Cohen and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” (9/22/2003)

… The Saga of Waffling Wes: Clark now says he’d be a Republican if the White House had only returned his calls. So, apparently he decided that he’s a loyal, dedicated Democrat who’s never carried a gallon of water to the Donkey. Headline on report by Newsweek’s Howard Fineman – “Campaign 2004: Clark’s Charge” Excerpt: “After Al Qaeda attacked America, retired Gen. Wes Clark thought the Bush administration would invite him to join its team. After all, he'd been NATO commander, he knew how to build military coalitions and the investment firm he now worked for had strong Bush ties. But when GOP friends inquired, they were told: forget it. Word was that Karl Rove, the president's political mastermind, had blocked the idea. Clark was furious. Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. ‘I would have been a Republican,’ Clark told them, ‘if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.’ Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race--as a Democrat. Messaging Newsweek by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a ‘humorous tweak.’ The two others said it was anything but. ‘He went into detail about his grievances,’ Holtzman said. "Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked.’ They shouldn't have been: when Clark wades into the battle, he expects to be taken seriously. Howard Dean knew to be careful when he and Clark held what was supposed to be a secret conference three weeks ago in L.A. Dean's advisers had warned their boss not to even hint that Clark would be the running mate should Dean win the Democratic nomination. ‘That would have been both presumptuous and condescending,’ said a Dean aide. Somehow, word of the meeting leaked -- as did the notion (hotly denied by Dean insiders) that the VP slot indeed had been offered. Once again Clark was furious; once again his response was to gear up. The day of the leak, Clark for the first time met his new senior PR adviser, Mark Fabiani. The general asked him to suggest a possible chief of staff. Fabiani nominated Ron Klain, who had filled that role for Al Gore. ‘What's his number?’ Clark asked -- and called immediately. Klain said yes. Nine days later, Clark entered the race. Now all of politics has to take Clark seriously -- as the latest Newsweek poll shows. Entering with a tremendous media splash, ‘the general’ seized the lead in the Democratic race…The poll is notable for three reasons. It shows that Clark starts with the star power and on-paper credentials to be credible; he diminishes the entire field in equal proportion; and Democrats, yearning for a winner (and suddenly confident of their chances of beating President Bush), still haven't found their shining knight …Indeed, his first few days on the campaign trail were anything but shock and awe. Never lacking for confidence, a firm believer in the virtues of surprise, spoiling for a fight from the time he bought his first toy soldier (at 5), Clark entered the race like the squad leader of a commando raid. He'd reconnoitered the battlefield for 18 months, attending Washington dinners, meeting big-hitting donors, learning the art of the sound bite as a contract player on CNN, sizing up the candidate competition in chance encounters and green-room chats…Clark had little experience dealing with the nuances of myriad issues -- and no idea at all about how every word he uttered (in his entire life) would be parsed, inflated and exploded by media looking for simple declarations, clear stands and conflict, especially with other Democrats in the field. Hours after his announcement, ABC's Mark Halperin asked Clark for his personal ranking of the two most crucial U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the last quarter century. The general drew a blank (but privately vowed afterward to hit the books). More seriously, Clark managed to create confusion about his position on the war in Iraq--opposition to which was supposed to be his calling card. Pressed by reporters, Clark said he probably’ would have voted last year for the congressional resolution that authorized George W. Bush to go to war. Suddenly, the Democratic establishment's beau ideal -- a four-star foe of the war, a MacArthur who could not be branded a McGovern--seemed to fade into just another wishy-washy pol. What Clark meant, his aides scurried to say, was that he would have voted aye only to pressure Saddam Hussein into allowing more inspections, and as a way of scaring the United Nations into taking more action. But that was the rationale many Democrats in the Senate (including Kerry and Clinton) used to justify their yes vote. Dean, by contrast, agreed with Gore: that a yes vote on the resolution was tantamount to giving Bush a strategic blank check, sanctioning the president's theory of pre-emptive war. Dean says he would have voted no; Rep. Dennis Kucinich actually did so. Clark's new spinners blamed the confusion on reporters' refusal (or inability) to understand fine distinctions -- and on Clark's own naivete about the brutish simple-mindedness of the campaign press corps. Lacking infrastructure (his new press secretary was using her husband's cell phone), Clark personally printed from his computer a sheaf of his writings showing his passionate opposition to the war per se. ‘We screwed up, but we're learning,’ one aide said. In Iowa, he declared he never would have voted for the war,’ though war was precisely what the resolution he ‘probably’ would have supported authorized. The sound of such spinning tires on D-Day alarmed party insiders. Many view Clark as their best hope for derailing Dean, who will raise more cash than anyone else this quarter, and who is leading in polls in key early states. Clark is surprisingly at ease with voters on the campaign trail, and his time on cable schooled him in sound-bite science. The organizational tasks are daunting, but the battle plan is clear: take off in New Hampshire, win the following week in places such as South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma and Arizona. Clark knows the old Army saying: plans are useless when the war starts. Can he adapt fast enough? Over at the White House, they profess not to take the general seriously. Based on history -- his own and the country's -- that could turn out to be a mistake.”  (9/22/2003)

… So far, so good – but can Clark sustain the fundraising pace (or improve on it) over the next four or five months. The General raises $750,000 during first three days as an official wannabe. Excerpt from AP political roundup in today’s The Union Leader: “Retired Gen. Wesley Clark raised $750,000 in the first three days of his Democratic presidential campaign, campaign officials said Sunday. Advisers say the money does not include the $1.9 million that supporters pledged before he entered the race Wednesday. The campaign intends to notify those supporters, members of various Draft-Clark organizations, and ask them to back up their pledges with cash. Clark became the 10th democratic presidential candidate but immediately made a mark for himself in a major poll. The Newsweek edition on newsstands Monday reports that Clark, former supreme commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who retired from the Army in 2000, had 14 percent backing in a poll taken just days after he entered the race. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut had 12 percent each, and Sen. John Kerry had 10 percent. Head-to-head against President Bush, the poll showed Bush would get 47 percent backing, Clark 43 percent. The poll of 1,001 adults was taken Thursday and Friday and had an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points, 4 percentage points for registered voters.” (Iowa Pres Watch Note: See Sunday’s Pres Watch update for more details on the Newsweek poll.)  (9/22/2003)

… For former wannabe prospect Biden the choices appear to be Clark or Kerry, but Hillary gets solid mention too. From AP’s roundup of the weekend Sunday morning shows: “Sen. Joseph Biden, a former Democratic presidential candidate, says he's leaning this year toward supporting his Senate colleague John Kerry or the newcomer, retired Gen. Wesley Clark. He reserved most of his praise, however, for a candidate who's not running: Hillary Clinton. ‘One of the smartest people I know’ was Biden's reaction when the New York senator's name came up on ‘Fox News Sunday.’ ‘She's a very powerful figure in our party. She's very well-liked, and she's very, very smart.’ But she and those around her insist she does not plan to run, and she has pledged to serve in the Senate at least until her term expires in 2006. So, Biden said, ‘The two people I'm most inclined to support are Kerry or Clark.’ Kerry, from Massachusetts, was an early entrant in the campaign. Clark, from Arkansas, former supreme commander of NATO and a friend of former President Clinton and his wife, the senator, announced his candidacy only last week. But, Biden was asked, what if Mrs. Clinton should decide after all to run in 2004? ‘Look, this is one of the few people in all of America who's known by every single American,’ Biden said. ‘The good news is the bad news: Everybody has an opinion.’ Biden, D-Del., ran for president in 1987 but ended his campaign before the primary season began because of allegations that some information in his biography and resume were plagiarized. The eventual nominee, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, lost badly to the first President Bush.” (9/22/2003)

… Clark’s entry into the Dem campaign stimulates – not discourages – more talk about a Hillary candidacy in ’04 campaign. Now, Pat Buchanan tosses in his 12-cents worth – headline on townhall.com yesterday: “Clinton-Clark in 2004?” Excerpt: “Asked about political chatter that Hillary might enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, ex-President Clinton volunteered, ‘That's a decision for her to make.’ And that has set the cat down among the pigeons. For, presumably, Hillary had already decided. And the answer was an unqualified ‘no.’ During the 2000 election, and again and again since, she has pledged to New Yorkers she will serve out her full Senate term and run for re-election in 2006. A ‘Second Thoughts’ conference appears to be going on in the Clinton household about the wisdom of waiting five more years to return to a White House from which they were evicted in Y2K. Why may the Clintons be taking another look at 2004? First, no clear front-runner has emerged from the Democratic field. Second, polls show Hillary would be the strongest candidate Democrats could run against President Bush and she could win the nomination. A Quinnipiac survey, taken before Gen. Wesley Clark entered, showed Hillary would snag 45 percent of the Democratic primary vote, with her nine rivals in single digits. Third, centrist Democrats appear alarmed that Howard Dean could be painted by the Bush campaign in such lurid colors that Democrats could suffer the kind of thrashing in 2004 they took during the Reagan Decade. In three presidential elections in the 1980s, Democrats never once won more than 10 states. Against an incumbent Reagan in 1984, they won Minnesota and the District of Columbia. The big impediment in the way of a Hillary run is her solemn pledge not to run. Breaking his pledge back in Arkansas in 1991 did not faze Bill, but it apparently does bother the former first lady. But Bill is out testing the water for her, saying publicly he has run into New Yorkers who would readily release Hillary from her pledge, if she would save the country from George Bush. But then, it was not Bill or those New Yorkers who made the commitment to serve out her term. Another sign the Clintons are considering a run is the presence of numerous old Clinton-Gore hands in the Clark campaign. Of the general himself, Bill says, ‘He is brilliant, he is brave, he is good, and he has a sack full of guts.’ Is Wesley Clark a placeholder for Hillary? Is his campaign the recruiting office for her campaign? And is his reward to be the vice presidential nomination, or secretary of state or defense, in a Hillary Rodham Clinton administration? There are other reasons to believe Bill does not want to wait until 2008. An observer who saw him work that black church in Los Angeles with Gray Davis found him ‘at the top of his game.’ Is Bill the sort of patient, deferential fellow ready to wait five years, with all that can happen, before making history again by aiding his wife in the recapture of the White House, and thereby vindicating him? Does he really want to risk the possibility that Howard Dean, or another Democrat, could accomplish what he himself did in 1992: defeat a president thought to be unbeatable a year earlier? If another Democrat is elected in 2004, Bill and Hill are history. For that president would eclipse Bill for the next four years and run for re-election in 2008, shouldering Hillary aside until 2012, when she would be 65 and Bill would be a senior citizen on full Social Security…Yet, whatever may be said against Hillary, the lady does not lack for nerve. Some of us thought she would never dare to try to become senator from a state where she had never lived. Clinton-Clark in 2004? Not a bad bet, if you can get some odds.” (9/22/2003)

 “Why Clark Will Fade” – headline on Dick Morris’ column in this morning’s New York Post. Excerpt from Morris’ report: “The shocking truth about the U.S. presidential race is that the sudden and headlong collapse of President Bush's popularity has created such a vacuum that a new candidate such as retired Gen. Wesley Clark has no difficulty soaring to the top of the polls based on one week's publicity. The most recent Newsweek survey documents both Bush's crash and Clark's rise. Bush is now down to a job-approval rating of only 51 percent. More ominously for the Republicans, in a trial heat against any Democrat (except Howard Dean), he scores below the crucial 50 percent mark. Against Al Gore and John Kerry, he gets only 48 percent, and against Clark, drops to 47 percent. When an incumbent president is below 50 percent of the vote, he is in desperate trouble. (Bush still manages 52 percent against Dean.) Asked if Bush should be re-elected, Americans vote no by 50-44. Equally astonishing is the sudden rise of Gen. Clark. After only a week as the media's darling, he leads the Democratic pack with 14 percent of the vote to Dean's and Joseph Lieberman's 12 percent, with Kerry at 10 percent and Dick Gephardt at 8 percent. The key to Bush's free-fall? Only 46 percent approve of his handling of postwar Iraq, down 5 points from his ratings last week. Not only do Americans mind losing soldiers, they also worry about the cost of the occupation, with 56 percent complaining that it is too high. Clark's rise is clearly a media-inspired flavor of the week. When Dean graced the front pages of Time and Newsweek, he was similarly honored with a first-place rating. Clark's surge is not so much a testament to his strength as to the weakness of Bush on the one hand and the Democratic field on the other. Clark will not wear well. His early gaffes show his inexperience. He would be a bit like a latter-day Dwight D. Eisenhower, except that nobody can quite recall what war it is that he won. The initial enthusiasm for his candidacy really came from Europe, where this general-who-opposes-war is the kind of guy only the elites of Paris can truly love. The only primary he has locked up is Democrats abroad. But then Bill Clinton picked up the Clark banner and had his staff rally around his fellow Arkansan. Why? Hillary and Bill support confusion, chaos and consternation as their preferred strategy for Democrats in 2004. Determined that nobody but they capture the White House -- or even the Democratic Party -- the Clintons are opposed to anyone who gains momentum. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain pursued a policy of opposing any European nation that got too powerful, always amassing a coalition behind the weaker states to maintain the balance of power. This is precisely the Clinton posture in this election year. In the long run, Dean's momentum will prove real and Clark's will be seen as bogus. Dean has amassed a base of grassroots (or cyber-roots) support by tapping into two groups -- gays and peaceniks. His message spread among them not as a result of top-down advertising but by the new Internet style of viral, horizontal marketing. Gays and their supporters and anti-war zealots spread the word among themselves that Dean was their man. The result was a genuine outpouring of backing from small donors and local activists. The Dean candidacy is the first creation of the Internet age. By contrast, Clark's is perhaps the last of the media-created candidacies. Dean's support will carry him through the early primaries. He will likely score one-punch knockouts in Iowa of Gephardt, in New Hampshire of Kerry, and in South Carolina of Edwards. His three victims must win their respective primaries because they come from the state next door. Their failure to do so means the end of their candidacies. Dean still can't beat Bush. But how far can Bush drop before we hear the splash at the bottom of the well?” (9/23/2003)

… Clark, apparently positioning himself as the new Southern candidate, goes to the Citadel to push patriotism. Headline from this morning’s New York Times: “Clark Calls for a ‘New American Patriotism’: Report – as excerpt – from Charleston by the Times’ Eric Schmitt: “Gen. Wesley K. Clark called [Monday] for "a new American patriotism" that would encourage broader public service, respect domestic dissent even in wartime and embrace international organizations like the United Nations. General Clark, a former NATO commander and Army officer who last week announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration of neglecting economic problems and of pursuing a dangerous go-it-alone foreign policy. But he also used the setting of the Citadel, the military college here, to appeal to about 150 cadets and civilians on the parade grounds to help restore something loftier, a sense of national spirit that he suggested that the administration's campaign against terror had corroded. ‘We've got to have a new kind of patriotism that recognizes that in times of war or peace democracy requires dialogue, disagreement and the courage to speak out,’ General Clark said. ‘And those who do it should not be condemned, but be praised.’ General Clark made it clear he believed that the administration had unfairly focused on whole classes of immigrants, for fear of a minority within them. ‘Three million Muslims have come to this country from Asia and the Middle East,’ he said. ‘They didn't come because they were afraid of our values. They came because they wanted to live under them.’ [Monday] was Day 6 of the campaign, and General Clark's 20-minute stump speech at the hastily arranged event here had a few rough patches. ‘Patriotism doesn't consist of following the orders, not, not not when you're not in the chain of command,’ the general said, stumbling over his words and catching himself before he inadvertently encouraged insubordination in the ranks. Despite the stumbles, General Clark heard good news in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll that showed he had jumped ahead of the other Democrats. The poll, conducted over the weekend, showed him tying President Bush head to head.” (9/23/2003)

… “Clark, Like McClellan, May Hoist Party’s Antiwar Banner” – headline on Ronald Brownstein’s column in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times. Excerpt: “Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has more in common than he probably realizes with George B. McClellan, the last general the Democratic Party nominated for president during wartime. As a warrior, Clark could point to greater success than McClellan. McClellan was such an indecisive commander that Abraham Lincoln, who complained that the general had a case of ‘the slows,’ relieved him as head of the Army of the Potomac in November 1862. Clark, as NATO supreme allied commander, led the alliance's victory over Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in the 78-day Kosovo war in 1999. If anything, some critics in the Pentagon and other governments considered Clark too aggressive in fighting that war. But Clark's political appeal to Democrats today has much in common with the allure of McClellan to the Democrats who nominated him in 1864, at the height of the Civil War. During the Civil War, Democrats were bitterly divided between ‘peace’ and ‘war’ wings. The peace Democrats hated the Civil War and were willing to end it under almost any terms; some were even willing to let the South go. The war Democrats wanted to fight to victory and reestablish the Union. But both sides shared a common opposition to the way Lincoln was prosecuting the war. Both abhorred its effect on civil liberties in the North. Both, to their lasting discredit, opposed making the war a crusade to end slavery (even the war Democrats were willing to accept slavery as the price of a compromise reunification). And, as the election of 1864 approached, both wings faced a common problem: How could they express opposition to the president's strategy and aims in the war without seeming disloyal to the nation itself? For the leaders of the war Democrats, McClellan was the answer. He shared their doubts about Lincoln's approach. But as a former Army commander, McClellan offered the best shield against the charges of disloyalty that Republicans were routinely directing against Democratic critics of the war (some of whom probably deserved it.) ‘McClellan seemed the one man who could legitimize the Democratic opposition to the administration without having its loyalty questioned,’ wrote John C. Waugh in his book on the 1864 campaign, ‘Reelecting Lincoln.’ Clark, as a critic of the Iraq war, may be in a similar position today. Does anyone really imagine that after spending most of his adult life in the Army, Clark will win the Democratic nomination because a large number of voters believe he's developed better ideas for improving school performance or covering the uninsured than former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean or Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts? If Clark takes off — still a big if — he will almost certainly do so by convincing Democrats that he can express their hostility toward Bush's national security strategy and repel Republican efforts to paint the party as weak or unpatriotic. In that sense, Clark's hole card looks a lot like McClellan's. This analogy, of course, only extends so far. McClellan and his supporters placed themselves unambiguously on the wrong side of history by failing to recognize the importance of ending slavery; history's verdict on the Iraq war won't be in for some time and isn't likely to ever be so unequivocal. Yet, like McClellan, Clark has the potential of bridging a war-torn party by expressing views mostly acceptable to the doves from a background attractive to hawks. Clark joins the race facing many hurdles. He starts far behind his nine rivals in organization and fund-raising. Clark's brief, and mostly bland, announcement speech didn't inspire much fear among his opponents. And he's not nearly as well-known as other celebrity generals of recent times, such as Colin L. Powell; one poll this summer in New Hampshire found only a third of Democrats knew enough about Clark to express positive or negative opinions. Besides, the Democrats haven't nominated a general for president since Winfield Scott Hancock, who flopped in 1880. But Clark has assets too. He's attracted formidable political talent, including so many confidants of Bill Clinton -- whom Clark served under as NATO commander -- that some Democrats are privately wondering if the former president is pulling strings for Clark's campaign. Intimates of both men say the answer seems to be no, though Clinton is apparently praising Clark as effusively in private as in public. ‘Let's put it this way,’ said one Clinton ally on board with Clark, ‘there wasn't discouragement [from Clinton].’ But the greatest asset for Clark may be the way in which he most directly echoes McClellan. No one should underestimate how much Democrats will like hearing criticisms of the war with Iraq come from the mouth not of a politician, but a general. Imagine a liberal derided at work as a wimp for denouncing the war. It's one thing to tell your co-workers that Howard Dean also considers the war a mistake. It's another to say that's the verdict of a retired four-star general with a Silver Star and Bronze Star at home.” (9/23/2003)

September 1-15, 2003

September 16-23, 2003

September 24-30, 2003

top of page

Paid for by the Iowa Presidential Watch PAC

P.O. Box 171, Webster City, IA 50595

privacy  /  agreement  /    /  homepage / search engine