PDA

View Full Version : Wesley Clark wants to avoid '04 mistake in '08


lily
11-28-2006, 11:54 PM
Someone with military experience might be just what we need, considering Bush said it was up to the next president to get us out of this mess. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/28/clark.presidential.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

Wesley Clark wants to avoid '04 mistake in '08
POSTED: 7:51 p.m. EST, November 28, 2006



LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Wesley Clark said Tuesday he wants to avoid
waiting too late to make a decision on whether to run for president -- a
mistake he made in his failed 2004 bid.

"I think it was clear that I got in too late last time," the retired general
and former NATO commander told The Associated Press in an interview.

Clark announced his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in
September 2003, just four months before the first votes were cast.

He dropped out of the race the following February, with his only victory in
14 caucuses and primaries coming in Oklahoma.

Clark is considering running again, but he said the late start was one of
the mistakes he learned from his last attempt.

"[There was] an inability to create a staff in a timely fashion," Clark
said. "I didn't have a campaign manager until the end of November. I had no
money. I had no strategy when I started.

"It was my only faith-based initiative. ... It's one of several mistakes
that if I were to run that I would hope I wouldn't repeat."

Clark said one factor that has changed is the number of candidates who have
announced their intentions or have formed exploratory campaigns for
president this early.

"There's no doubt it's moved earlier," Clark said. "Some people have never
stopped running.... It's just a factor that has to be considered."

The retired four-star general said he believes his military background has
special resonance during this campaign because of the national security
issues that face the country, including the war in Iraq.

"I think that it's more clear than ever before that the country is an era of
profound national security challenges," Clark said.

Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with
suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent
to help stabilize Iraq.

Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six
months, as others have suggested.

"It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels," Clark said. "It's a
matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose
what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily,
either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out."

Clark was a popular surrogate on the campaign trail during the midterm
elections and has visited New Hampshire in the past month.

He said he hasn't set a deadline for making a decision on the presidential
race.

"I don't deal with timelines," Clark said. "For me, it's talking to people
and working separate related issues."

Nathan Brazil
12-11-2006, 07:47 AM
Oh. I thought Clarke's mistake in 2004 was running.

Buck Laser
12-11-2006, 02:20 PM
I haven't quite understood the appeal of General Clark as a presidential candidate. I'll admit that I didn't read much about him other than what was in the news magazines and in the mainstream media, but there wasn't anything there that caught my eye. So Lily, could you or someone else highlight some things about Clark that I might have missed?

I have an instinctive fear of a general as a president, so some of my bias is showin there. Although Eisenhower seems to have turned out to have been the right man for the job, what he accomplished was essentially a return to a peacetime economy from the tensions of WW2 and Korea, and the imposition of some common sense into the Cold War. Why would a general be a good choice to lead today?

lily
12-12-2006, 01:53 AM
So Lily, could you or someone else highlight some things about Clark that I might have missed?

Buck, he wasn't in the race that long for me to get familiar with his positions. It's just my personal belief that in time of war a military man would be better for President. I'd settle for Powell, though.

Buck Laser
12-12-2006, 02:14 AM
So Lily, could you or someone else highlight some things about Clark that I might have missed?

Buck, he wasn't in the race that long for me to get familiar with his positions. It's just my personal belief that in time of war a military man would be better for President. I'd settle for Powell, though.


I would have settled for Powell before he got duped into that dopy UN presentation where he showed the "evidence" that was suppoosed to "prove" Saddam had WMDs. Not any more.

lily
12-12-2006, 02:19 AM
Ah, but Buck.........he was man enough to apologize for his mistake.....and I honestly think he thought what he was saying was true.

Elrathin
12-12-2006, 02:58 AM
Ah, but Buck.........he was man enough to apologize for his mistake.....and I honestly think he thought what he was saying was true.


He apologized a day late and about a couple hundred million dollars too late Lily. And no I don't think he thought what he was saying is true, I think he was pressured to say it. That is the point, to many he sold out to this administration and then they threw him to the curb later for it.

lily
12-12-2006, 03:10 AM
He apologized a day late and about a couple hundred million dollars too late Lily.Â*Â*And no I don't think he thought what he was saying is true, I think he was pressured to say it.Â*Â*That is the point, to many he sold out to this administration and then they threw him to the curb later for it.


It still doesn't change the fact that he was only one of two that was man enough to apologize and not put the blame on someone else, El....in this day and age of no one taking responsibility for their actions, I take that as a big thing. (sad isn't it, that we've come to that?)

Whether he knew or not, is specualtion on both our parts. I choose to think he is an honest man. You're entitled to your opinion also.

Elrathin
12-12-2006, 03:18 AM
El....in this day and age of no one taking responsibility for their actions, I take that as a big thing. (sad isn't it, that we've come to that?)

I take a look at it from the perspective of someone who got caught lying. They can apologize all they want, but they apologized cause they got caught, not because of what they did.

Just my perspective is all, and I may be wrong on it. Either way Powell really dissapointed me on this one.