greyhound
Member
Clark retreats from his statement of support for Iraq war resolution
Gaffes early in campaign underscore difficulty of late bid for White House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
Originally published September 20, 2003
IOWA CITY, Iowa - 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 yesterday that 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 would likely have supported the resolution. Yesterday, 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 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 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, in a single day, on whether he will participate in a Democratic debate next week. Creating more confusion were Clark's comments on the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to oust Hussein, 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 polish 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 with the early days of Edward M. Kennedy's 1980 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, also a late-starting campaign in which 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."
Also, the nine other Democratic candidates have spent the past few months meeting with Democratic activists across the country, getting feedback on various issues and testing their campaign lines.
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."
Good grief. Another clown to add to the 9 current clowns. Basically will say anything as long as:
a) its critical of George Bush
b) it will get him elected.
I'm not much of a George Bush fan, but he looks like George Washington compared to the crop of Democratic lambs.
Gaffes early in campaign underscore difficulty of late bid for White House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
Originally published September 20, 2003
IOWA CITY, Iowa - 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 yesterday that 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 would likely have supported the resolution. Yesterday, 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 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 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, in a single day, on whether he will participate in a Democratic debate next week. Creating more confusion were Clark's comments on the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to oust Hussein, 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 polish 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 with the early days of Edward M. Kennedy's 1980 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, also a late-starting campaign in which 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."
Also, the nine other Democratic candidates have spent the past few months meeting with Democratic activists across the country, getting feedback on various issues and testing their campaign lines.
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."
Good grief. Another clown to add to the 9 current clowns. Basically will say anything as long as:
a) its critical of George Bush
b) it will get him elected.
I'm not much of a George Bush fan, but he looks like George Washington compared to the crop of Democratic lambs.
