Why didn't Clark do better in 2004?

I supported him early on but his whole primary campaign was over before I knew it! What I'd like to know from DUers who do know is what happened to his campaign to stop him, what did he do wrong and what is he doing about it now, and what else needs to be done to get him positioned better?

Why? I haven't a clue.

He seemed to stumble a few times early. Not too surprising for a guy who didn't have much experience. I think this time around he will be much more polished.

of course.

(I lurked a lot back during the primaries, here and at Kos.)

;-)

this was one of the biggest factors....

But, watch out, some people are going to flip out again with three threads that mention Clark on page one. :P

This was the first flaw of his campaign. And it was fatal. All this other stuff (No Iowa, slammed by the left, or the right, or just anyone who didn't like Clark, etc.) is just icing on the cake. Clark started WAY too late for it to work. Had he built up the momentum (and, perhaps more importantly, the cash and financial backers) that come with a normal start, he coulda been a contenda.

But the main problem was that his opponents and the media kept asking for his democratic credentials. His statements and positions made him one of the most progressive candidates, but him being a retired General made too many democrats (especially anti-war ones) suspicious. The media locked on to the "Clark is Republican" lie and never let up on it.

"he's a republican!"

"he voted for Reagan!"

"he's a war criminal!"

"he's Hillary's stalking horse!"

"he's a GOP stalking horse!"

"he's a DLC operative!"

"he works with Henry Kissinger!"

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Somebody at my caucus tried to explain that he would be put on trial for "war crimes" and was therefore ineligible. This was another, otherwise intelligent, Democrat mind you.

didnt like him. If you are gonna speak for us loonie lefties get it right!! :P :)

They used to say he was the stop-gap desperation candidate put up by the Clintons to stop Dean from getting the nomination. And it must be said, that when he entered the race he stole some thunder from Dean. But I don't think it was really the case. Also, he did bad because he made a lot of mistakes that a first time politician running for office would make. For instance, he said he would have voted for the resolution to invade Iraq and the next day had to reverse his position.

He can do better in 2008 by learning from his 2004 experience, but I still don't think he will go anywhere even if he runs again.

You are right. He quickly got labeled as the "Clinton" proxy. I also think he would have made a stellar VP pick. They might have been able to fight off the Swifties better with 2 military candidates on the ticket.

Clark was neither so they didn't help him out in the primary. In primaries that makes a big difference.

He'd have been a good candidate. He didn't have a voting history to be used against him and while there are always going to be comments to take out of context but I think he would have done much better than Kerry. He could have called Bush and Co. a group of fuck-ups without having to defend his own actions.

So Late, without grass roots support or a known track record gave rise to some well founded questions and suspicions. (Where the fuck did you come from, and WHY NOW????)

He did not have a sharply defined issue that provoked and justified late entry, but rather presented a Chinese Menu of issues that were playing well with the electorate. His late entry did little but Muddy the Water.

I was suspicious when he entered the Primaries at such a late date and could not answer the questions about his funding, support, or motivation.

I have since changed my opinion of Clark and believe him to be genuine. He is charismatic, well spoken, tends to be direct, has concerns for LABOR, but more importantly, he is pretty (like it or hate it, pretty wins elections today, not issues).

Okay, here's why: he entered late, he didn't contest Iowa, he had far too many right-wing questions in his past that he STILL HASN'T ANSWERED, he didn't perform well in the debates, the deck was stacked for the one with the most perceived strength, he lied about Kerry's and Edwards' opposition to Bush's tax cuts, not that many lefties REALLY like the "I'm a military tough-guy" approach, he waffled on vouchers (and still does) and more than anything else, the field was too crowded.

For all his faults, the guy's got a lot going for him, but with a crowded field like that, and a lack of politicking under his belt, he made a power-play to try to enter the race late and hopefully steamroller everyone. It didn't work. It also didn't help that Marc Fabiani and other asshole operatives made him come off as more vicious to his opponents than he really was.

He still has some explanations to make about his past, and he was just getting up to speed as he entered a VERY difficult profession.

Now let's get back to General Discussion: Politics, or as we like to call it, "all Clark all the time".

It seems to me that he was one of the more likely candidates to get through in 2004, given the fact of his military expertise at a time when we were at war (and in bad shape). I didn't know that he "lied about Kerry and Edwards opposition to tax cuts." What was that about?

Do you think he has a chance in 2008? Have we pruned the tree of candidates enough to seem him as a possible winner for us?

I don't want to stir up a ruckus.

You can use it to hide the threads that don't appeal to you.

Kerry was the first one. Edwards and Clark next. Then Dean.

Kerry pulled it out anyway because he had the stronger ground game even though the media would never report it honestly in their effort to take him out early in Iowa.

What they did to Dean after Iowa was classic media takedown. They were shameless.

It may have been better for Kerry that the media thought they took him out months before the primary (reporting Kerry's campaign is dead) so they turned their attention to the others.

Out of everyone, though, I loathed the way the press treated Kucinich the most.

One thing's for sure - they all learned ALOT about what the media is prepared to do to protect BushInc.

From one of my colleagues....
(please forgive any derogatory comments made about any other candidates....as this is not my writing ....but still an excellent sypnosis of '04 Clark's campaign and the possible future)

"Clark did skip out on Iowa. He came in late and had no organization and had to allocate his incipient funds where they would do best. Even so, he has admitted he should not have skipped Iowa and will not do so again.

In NH where favorite New England sons were running Clark was rocketing up in the polls and was set to pass Dean (they were both hovering around 22% well behind Kerry steamrolling out of Iowa. Then the Jennings-FOX hit at the last debate on a Thursday before the election. Jennings gave a long rant about no evidence to support the charges about Bush and the Air National Guard, charges Clark had not made but which later became an issue to all. All the candidates were softballed except Clark who was hit hard on gotcha questions over and over again. He did his best against the withering questions while the other candidates smiled inwardly.

Then Kerry grabbed hold of the Dole dis about Clark dumping on lower ranking officers - something he has NEVER done and Dean and Lieberman were shouting about him being a Republican, something he had not been for over a decade. The concerted attacks dropped him in the polls over the weekend without Clark having time to regroup.

In the next race the Republican meme is out the window because he campaigned more for Kerry than any other former candidate and gave a barn burning speech at the Democratic Convention. The poor campaigner meme was never true as crowds were flocking to hear him. The major networks turned the cameras off Kerry to listen to Clark on the Oklahoma win - the only state not involving a regional "favorite son" to be won by anyone (Dean and Edwards won only one state, both "favorite son" status).

Clark came in third in NH above Edwards, despite the Iowa punch that Edwards had. And, yes, Edwards was BORN in South Carolina. It is his birth state. Clark had campaigned hard there and was rising in the polls, but he saw that it was a foregone conclusion that Edwards would win. In Oklahoma, Edwards had campaigned longer and more often than any other candidate. A last minute robo-call by a well-known sports figure kept Edwards from being disgraced, but by sheer hard campaigning, grassroots work, and appeal to the voters, Clark won out of expectation. CNN refused to announce Clark the winner for about a week!

Clark came in second far ahead of all other candidates in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota, showing his appeal in so-called Red States that candidates other than Kerry garnered few votes.

Given time to organize, campaign aids that do not mislead him with their own agendas, and the grassroots support that Clark has over and above any other potential candidate (only Dean has widespread grassroots support, and he would seem not to be in the running), Clark will make a great presidential run.

It is ironic that while many acknowledge that Clark would make a good presidential candidate, they think he will have tough going getting the nomination. This is mainly because beltway Dems want to commit suicide once again by nominating one of their own.

Please, no more beltway politicians, no dynasties (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton no thanks), no inside favorites who will polarize the vote, no legislator without executive or foreign affairs and national security credentials, and no governor who did not pull his own state for the Dems in 2004.We need a candidate who can pull in independents and moderate and rebellious Republicans and unite our country, turning Red States into Blue.

Clark is southern, strong on national security and international relations, is strong in so-called Red States, and, thank God, is not an "elected" burnt waffle politician but a candidate who says it like it is right in FOX's face or anywhere else."
by noelschutz on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 15:36:52 PDT

The big mistake was not contesting Iowa. Once Kerry won, and the Newsweek poll came out later in the week that Kerry could beat the Chimp, it was all over, thanks to the compressed primary schedule.

AGAIN!

the race too late

his candidacy, and his wife was a bigtime 'puke fundraiser back in the day....
I liked him. He did not have enough time to mature as a democrat.

I think he was Democratic enough.

Perhaps he was a babe in the woods politically, and it showed in how he tried to express himself, esp. on domestic issues.

"Primary Time".
I will have no such qualms by '08...

he didn't know domestic issues as well as he could have, but then he'd been away and all.

for which he was paid means "Bigtime 'puke fundraiser"? He did the exact same thing for a Democratic fundraiser the same month. So did that make him a "Bigtime 'Dem fundraiser" as well?

Glad you liked him though!

not Wes.

Because I am not familiar. Thank you.

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON!

The Clarks saw themselves as partners at Army posts, she said: She was his eyes and ears among the rank and file, telling him about military families' concerns. They were envoys together when he headed the European Command, mingling with royalty at elegant dinners. They supported Republican candidates together, before their Democratic conversion; when he worked at the Pentagon in the mid-1990s, she volunteered almost daily for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas. Gert Clark even describes a political change of heart in lockstep with her husband's.

From Hutchison's office, where she worked on constituent services and military families' issues, she says, "I started seeing the rise of Tom DeLay and other people. For me, at least, I think that the Republican Party was too far to the right." As for her husband's increasingly harsh rhetoric against the Republican Party -- she agrees with him there, too. "I think the things that Wes is criticizing, I'm comfortable with, yes," she said.

Edited to add link (scroll down for story on Gert):
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/presidence4.htm

When she went from a Republican husband to a Democratic one. No one seemed to mind....

No Puke fundraisers for Gert, which is what I thought.

for one thing.

He didn't have the infrastructure the other did who'd been at it for 2 or 3 years.

I was stunned at how fast he picked up the rhythm.

He was my first choice last year, he is my first choice in 2008.

I still hope for a Clark/Obama ticket.

all averaged into one candidate and it was Kerry.

And I can't disagree with the math.

Kerry has NO "best" part.

Sorry. Not of Clark, he doesn't, any way.

Whatever.

John Kerry was a Congressional Black General from the South who denounced the war? :shrug:

or Maybe it's because he was "safe" to those Dems who don't like to offend :scared:

?

Because you attempt to denigrate Clark via every post? And so you think others are like you?

Where do you spot some hate from my posts?....please do tell.

2-3 Kerry supporters are determined to piss on every Clark thread they can find.

,

It would be appreciated.

during the primaries, can't really tell you why except I was a Deaniac... Now I'm rooting for Clark in 2008


Basically, he entered the race to late, dropped out too soon, and was horribly attacked by the left

:hi:

:toast: :hi:

contrary to what a bunch of people here believe

I KNOW he's a progressive.

I've read his policies.

YOU are just reading right-wing talking points.

Opinion.

Watch this! The world is flat.

Does that make it so?

Didn't think so!

There is no one like Wes Clark. I read some of these threads (most are started by non-Clarkies, but not all), and I feel as though I've fallen down a rabbit hole into an alternate universe. The Wes Clark of which some here speak is just so distorted and false as to be painful for someone who has been "with him" for the duration. I thought I'd take one last stab at trying to introduce you to the Wes Clark I have come to know. If you knew him as I do, as many here do, you would be a true believer, too.

To start off, I am giving you my favorite excerpt from one of my favotite pre-announcement articles. He was still thinking of running when this was written. I am especially fond of the last paragraph, because it describes perfectly how I felt, and why I supported the draft of Wes Clark. I hope you get as much out of it as I do every time I read it. I've included a link, so you can read the entire thing if you wish. Here is The General from Esquire Magazine:

The General

By Tom Junod, Esquire (2003)

Excerpt:

THEY WILL COME AT HIM, of course. Once he announces, they will come after him. General Wesley Clark? Isn't he the guy on TV? Isn't he one of those retired generals Rummy talks about? Wasn't he disliked by his own service? Wasn't he forced to retire? Wasn't he a little . . . reckless over there in Kosovo? General Clark came up in an era when we were fighting other people's wars. We're fighting our own war now. Let Goliath fight it; give the sword and spear and shield to a man who is unambivalent about the task. Yes, they will come at him, all right. And the thrust of their attack will make it clear that of all the general's multifarious gifts, a lack of complication is not one of them. He is a warrior who holds out the dream of peace; he is a man who worked for the Pentagon and who now espouses the values of state; he was too political for the military and too military for the politicians . . . too dovish for the hawks and too hawkish for the doves . . . too NATO for the Americans and too American for NATO. He is not even free of religious complication: Raised a Baptist, he converted to his wife's Catholicism in Vietnam, and he found out later in life that the father who died when he was almost four, Benjamin Kanne, was the first-generation son of Russian Jews.

Now look at him, this putative David, on an unseasonably cold and rainy spring day in Manchester, New Hampshire. He came up here on business for WaveCrest, but he took the time to visit a daycare center at a YMCA and then to speak to a meeting of Manchester's Rotary club; now he is visiting the Merrimack, a restaurant on Manchester's main drag that has become a place of pilgrimage for presidential aspirants. Yes, look at him, leaning over the counter and shaking the hand of the proprietor; look at him, blithely oblivious to the lights and cameras that surround him; look at him, squired by a bow-tied Manchester lawyer, George Bruno, who is known in Manchester as one of the first Democrats to get behind Clinton; look at him, heading over to a back booth to talk to local Democrats who have not yet committed their support to any of the nine Democratic contenders. He is the candidate who is the noncandidate, and vice versa, and he has not resolved any of his ambivalences into a declaration.

What is he here for then? Oh, that's right—dialogue . . . but that's not what the woman standing by, waiting to present him with a thousand e-mails culled from a Web site called draftwesleyclark.com, wants; not what the people who wrote the e-mails urging him to run on their behalf want; not even what the Democrats in the booth want. One of them says as much: Though self-described as "an old Leftie," she says, "This year I'm not standing on principle. This year I want to go with the guy who has the best chance of beating George Bush. And I want to know what it is that makes you think you can. I know this is an unfair question, because you're not a candidate. But I'm assuming you're not in New Hampshire for our wonderful spring weather."

The general answers that, no, he is not a candidate, that he has neither organized nor raised money. He doesn't want to declare himself a candidate because he wants to stay a warrior as long as he possibly can. But can't he see what's in her eyes? She is sore afraid. She doesn't want him to run for president so much as she wants him to run against the president. She wants him to stay a warrior by becoming a candidate, for she doesn't need another candidate so much as she needs something else: a champion. Leftie that she is, peacenik that she is, liberal that she is, Democrat that she is, she's ready to invest her last best hope in the prospect of Wesley Clark waging one more war.

http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=9&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2003%2F030801_mfe_clark.html&x=56&y=10

If you would like to know more about Wes, this link is invaluable...

Clark, on the Issues

Everything about Wes Clark's stands on the issues. Everything is here:

http://www.clark04.com/issues/

After you read what's here, I defy you to tell me he's anywhere near Republican. If this isn't a Liberal, Left-leaning, for-the-little-guy (the DLC would have never allowed one of theirs to have a tax plan like Wes's, for instance), dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I'll be damned.

To imply he came into the 2004 race without grassroots support is to insult and disrespect every single dedicated person who worked to draft, and then to elect him. He had/has one of the most devoted grassroots organizations of any Democrat today.

To imply he was "DLC" is, first, wrong. As I said, if you read his tax plan, his economic stimulus plan, his environmental plan, you will see they are at odds with the DLC in a major way. Wes, of course, if you ask him, will tell you he supports all Democrats. And, he does. But, he's no "politician". And, those of us who support him so faithfully will tell you, it's one of the reasons we do support him. He's a good, decent, honest, intelligent, plain-talking, courageous person. If you ask me, that's wht we need in the White House next time out. I honestly do not believe there is another Democrat who can deliver those goods.

Get to know Wes Clark, and all the inaccurate impressions, false assumptions, and needless suspicions will fall away. Whether or not you end up supporting him after that is up to you, but I doubt you'll be able to disrespect him, suspect him, or say the things some here say any longer.

Thanks for reading.

It's been a long time since I read that.

thanks to Reagan (a former Democrat)? Of course not because the Republicans like to win.

He was a general. So what? You expect that would jump him to the head of the pack when no one had ever heard him utter a word before in public about his political views? Why is that surprising? The whole point of his running in 04 was to get public exposure. Surely you don't think he believed he would win at that point.

I guess as a Northeastern liberal I need to respond to your view that as a "general" in the army, Clark is somehow out of whatever you mean by the "pack." And I do understand your meaning of the "pack' as being outside of the general group of candidates.

Clark struck me as intelligent. He probably knew something about war, since I believe he went to West Point, and they have courses there on the wars that finished empires (look up "Melian Dialogues" just to get a warm up). And didn't he have something to do with running NATO forces?

Look, Eisenhower had not run any state nor had held any office in government before he ran for President. But he had stature at a time when that was important. I would not have voted for him (not that I could because I was a kid), but at least Eisenhower had the wisdom and dignity not to present himself in public in uniform when he was president, out of deference to the honored tradition of our civilian Commander in Chief. He would have been appalled at what Bush did on the aircraft carrier(don't even get me started there).

The Eisenhower reference makes me wonder if Clark doesn't have a message and a base for a possible victory in 2008. Clark stumbled on some domestic issues, such as choice (where I found him somewhat incoherent and hastily briefed). But now, as I hear him on liberal talk radio shows, and on Fox (being REALLY good), I can't help but admire him.

"Attack"? I am not attacking Clark, just stating the obvious - no one knew him, he was a brand new Democrat and unless your kid served under him in Kosovo most people probably had no fucking idea who he was.

Comparing him to Ike is ridiculous.

PS - I too am a "northeastern liberal". That and the proper fare will get you on the NYC subway system. So what?

Is he the guy that wins all the "election" polls on DU?

Seriously, I think he lacks a certain "it" factor for President, though I also think he might be a strong candidate for a position in a Democratic Administration.

:hide:

Jesus Christ, EVERYONE knew who Ike was! Clark? Who the hell was he is probably what most people were asking.

in my county, in my state. He started losing the media after he became a serious contender, he would have gotten the cross over vote that Kerry did not get, and I'm not being critical of Kerry, I donated over a 1000.00 dollars to his campaign and also hosted a breakfast for his Vietnam buddy (Rassmanson) with other Veterans. Over and over again I have been told "I wish he would have stayed in the race", because I have a Clark bumper sticker on my car, that does not mean i would not have been absolutely delighted if Kerry would have won, I trust that General Clark and his lovely wife Gert have the true best interest of their country in mind not there own self interest. If they were only out for themselves he would not have served in the military for so long and he would not have given up a budding lucrative career in the private sector. He made some mistakes and they have been well documented but surley you don't believe that he would not have made a far superior President than *, so quit with the "experience" in elected office bs, anyone with enough money can buy their way into office, we have that today. Let's just be thankful that there are people like General Clark willing to continue to be of service to their country, and that goes for many other candidates, Clark just happens to be my choice.

If Clark were nominated he'd have my full support. But the original question was why he didn't do better in 2004 and I gave an honest answer. He got in too late and nobody (at least not me) had any idea who the hell he was. It was just too much to overcome. I am not saying he could not win me over given a full shot at it, just that his effort was too little and too late.

Frankly I thought (and still think) he never expected to win and was just introducing himself to the game in 2004, certainly a smart thing to do.

And was not comfortable with interviews.

He has rectified the latter vastly, annd IMO will declare in early 07.

Truth is Democrats were not that ideologically at war - main issue was the Iraq War and by the time of the primaries it was largely coalescing into the question "who can best handle the war NOW."

At that point the race was Dean v. somebody else. Dean's support stalled (though very few realized it at the time) and the rest of the Democrats were largely looking for someone else. When Kerry won Iowa, he was seen as all-around good and acceptable to most and he quickly gobbled up most of the support.

Had Dean won Iowa, it could have been a VERY different story vis-a-vis Clark.

Main thing is he got in too late, was unprepared, made a number of gaffes (such as saying he would have voted for the IWR) and squandered any initial momentum.

I'm keeping an eye on him in '08 though. Right now I'm leaning towards Edwards, but I'm interested in Clark and Kerry after that. (Yes, I'm willing to give Kerry another chance - so sue me).

expletive!

I'm a pessimist tonight

& I may have misinterpreted your original remark.

I thought you were implying that Clark was DLC--which he's not--but maybe you meant that the DLC was at least partially to blame for his (and others') primary woes.

and think we ought to get back to our base for a change.

Clark would have been a huge improvement over Kerry, IMO. But the DLC wanted an experienced politician. So that's what you get, nowadays. I like Kerry, but not enough charisma to beat Jesus W. Bush.

he just wasn't polished at all and made some mistakes on the stump. He got much better as the year went on. He'll do better next time.

Iowa turned out to be extremely significant in last year's primaries. Clark entered too late to campaign there, and sort of placed a bet that Dean would take that state. That would have hurt Kerry in New Hampshire. And the southern states to follow would likely have gone to Clark.

But instead, Kerry and Edwards came out of Iowa with HUGE momentum, and Kerry just steamrolled everybody from there on out.

until the primary process is changed to be more inclusive,
Clark should stay on the talking-heads circuit.

Not the Ike vs. JFK part...

but we'll see....won't we? :hi:

n/t

No one else has mentioned a major reason for his failure - there were so many people who had worked with him who didn't like him. He moved up in the Army because Clinton liked him, not because other generals liked him.

Some of that could be attributed to Army brass being conservatives, and some could be attributed to jealousy about his intellect. But I am still suspicious of someone who has made that many enemies.

Soon after he announced, one of the major Washington Post columnists wrote an article saying that almost everyone he talked to about Clark, who had worked with him, didn't like the guy.

I supported Clark at first based upon his resume. However, he fell flat when he gave a speech. At that point, I switched over to Kerry, because at least we knew what we were getting. That is the benefit of supporting a Presidential candidate who has many years of political experience on a broad range of issues.

Because he showed that he believed in TALKING TO A DICTATOR FIRST, INSTEAD OF JUST DOING REGIME CHANGE WITHOUT DOING DIPLOMACY. He did say that taking a picture doing a hat exchange was something he should most likely not have done.

However, trying to talk to the enemy prior to bombing them has never been a bad idea. Doncha think?

So no, the hat exchange did not hurt him.

If Kerry had lost Iowa, Clark would have won New Hampshire and would have been off to the races.