Clark to Quit Presidential Campaign

[IJ Reilly]

Personally, I'm sorry to see him go.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (Reuters) - Former NATO commander Wesley Clark will announce on Wednesday he is pulling out of the race to be the Democratic challenger to President Bush after a poor showing in Virginia and Tennessee primaries.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040211/pl_nm/campaign_clark_dc

[Sayhey]

I saw the story too, and I'm sorry to see him go as well. I had almost convinced myself to vote for the general. I'll be surprised if it isn't a choice between Kerry and Edwards by March 2nd. Oh well, I can support either one.

[zimv20]

there's been some talk around here about a kerry/edwards ticket, which i think is possible, if not probable.

but if cheney _is_ dropped and is indeed replaced by mccain, i wonder if kerry would try to get clark on the ticket.

[Doctor Q]

Will democrats here in California have any choices left when the primary (March 2) rolls around?

[pseudobrit]

I was planning on voting for Clark too. Shame. I hope he returns to politics, he'd make a fine president someday.

[Krizoitz]

There goes my top choice, on to number 2, Edwards.

[mactastic]

Been expecting this for a couple weeks now, my sister kept using words like 'lackluster' to describe the Clark organization. Oh well, maybe another time. With the collapse of Dean and the rise of war-hero Kerry, Clark's reason for being in the race evaporated. It looks like his whole strategy hinged on Dean being strong coming out of IA and NH, and mainstream Democrats needing a candidate with a good military record to innoculate him from charges of being 'soft on terror'.

So now it's down to 5..... but Kerry has been annointed already. By the time I get to vote, it won't matter.

[IJ Reilly]

It's certainly Kerry's race to lose now and short of a major stumble of some sort, I don't see how he can lose. If he was going to be vulnerable in the South, we'd have seen it this week. Edwards is still hanging in, but after yesterday he has to be thinking about what he'll say in his withdrawal speech.

I'm sure he'll try to keep his options open to be selected as Kerry's running-mate, but personally I don't see this happening. Kerry will need to find someone from the South, but Edwards presents the liability of also being a senator, and I suspect the party strategists are going to advise that it's not a great idea to potentially open two currently Democratic Senate seats. The question then becomes, "who's left?" It's not like the Democrats can reach out to a pool of rising young stars in the South. Kerry must have a short list in his own mind, but I'm stumped as to who could be on it.

[mactastic]

Edwards will hang in a little longer in case something explosive comes out about Kerry. Slim chance, but it's all he's got at the moment.

[wwworry]

I would rather see an Edwards/Clark ticket and a longer primary process. I think it helps us all when there is more time for discussion. Plus all the states voting last have less choices.

Maybe if Edwards picked Clark now it would help him though a Kerry/Clark ticket would be good too. Anyone one of them would be better than the nonsence going on in the whitehouse now.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Edwards speech about 2 America's is so true, just look at those Tyco executives,Enron,Martha, Cheney and Haliburton,Bush and Big business. The Democratic party should be hitting the Republicans a lot harder on this. Top Brass making millions while closing factories all across this land of ours and putting Americans into service jobs. Though Clark is out of the Race I think we will see him involved in the next administration in foreign affairs. Kerry Edwards would be a Great ticket. Edwards/Clark would be better.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20
but if cheney _is_ dropped and is indeed replaced by mccain, i wonder if kerry would try to get clark on the ticket.

Has this been discussed as an option? I hadn't seen that before.

Personally that would break my poor, little, political hear, McCain being probably my fav. politician around (so not caught up in partisan politics) and Bush perhaps being my least favorite. If it does happen I'd be shocked - McCain has been a very very vocal critic of the Bush administration this whole time out - criticism beyond just whinning cause he didn't win the primary. It would just be awkward to see him jump aboard a ship he has so many issues with.

That being said, I would be surprised if GW DIDN'T drop Cheney - he seems to cause a lot more problems than he helps (I always thought he was a weird pick anyway). A lot of moderates blame Cheney for Bush's hard line stance on foreign policy, and Halliburton sure doesn't make anyone more excited about their administration.

I had heard rumors of Bush dropping Dick and picking up Rudy Guliani - which I do think would be a worthwhile strategy for the Republicans, and could spell trouble for the Dems. Rudy's pretty well loved around, especially among moderates and independents, the key group here being attracted for a win. I don't know who Kerry could pick up that would be equally attractive - save for maybe Hillary?*

Time will tell.

Davis

*EDIT: I do realize the Repubs and Conservatives would have a field day with that.

[IJ Reilly]

This primary process is about as long as we're going to get anymore. It certainly had more plot twists than most. Did anyone pick Kerry as the front-runner at the beginning? Nobody thought he was going anywhere at all until Iowa, and many figured he could still be beaten in the South until yesterday.

I'm as sorry as anyone to see Clark out (well, except maybe for Clark himself), but he entered the race late, missed Iowa, was an inexperienced candidate with inexperienced staff. That's just not a winning combination these days.

[IJ Reilly]

Rudy Guliani had one, really fine moment after 9-11, but we should not forget, it was a moment of redemption. Before that, he was virtually a dead letter in New York City -- controversial and not well-loved by any means. It's not clear to me at the moment whether he'd be an asset or a liability at this point.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Rudy Guliani had one, really fine moment after 9-11, but we should not forget, it was a moment of redemption. Before that, he was virtually a dead letter in New York City -- controversial and not well-loved by any means. It's not clear to me at the moment whether he'd be an asset or a liability at this point.

Oh no, I certainly realize that, and I haven't historically been a fan of Rudy by any means (his shining moment of piss-Davis-off came when he tried to ban that art exhibit at the Whitney which featured the Virgin Mary contructed out of elephant dung and cut-out pictures of vaginas. Sure, not tasteful, but trying to ban the exhibit seems to me to be overstepping the jurisdiction of being mayor).

However that one shining moment he had after 9-11 is what people outside NYC remember him by. The guy was Person of the Year three years ago - I think that's the taste people have in their mouths that would make him an assets. New Yorkers may know better, but then again, not many New Yorkers would be voting for Bush/Whomever anyway - its the bluest of the blues.

Davis

[IJ Reilly]

If he was chosen as Bush's running-mate, his 9-11 gloss would be quickly dulled. A lot of things would also come up for examination, not the least of which was his messy personal life. Which brings up another problem with Guilani: slipping his selection past the Republican party faithful. A New York Republican isn't exactly mainstream in the GOP these days.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Has this been discussed as an option? I hadn't seen that before.

i read some right-wing column somewhere that mentioned it. wasn't really worth linking to (and now i can't find it).

i think the guiliani thing is dead.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Kerry will need to find someone from the South, but Edwards presents the liability of also being a senator, and I suspect the party strategists are going to advise that it's not a great idea to potentially open two currently Democratic Senate seats. The question then becomes, "who's left?"

"who's left?" very funny :-)

we have been speculating on running mates only from the pool of those who declared candidacy which, clearly, is short-sighted.

i'm not sure max cleland is doing much of anything these days. another war hero, despite what the GOP was able to do to him in georgia.

i'm going to make a bold prediction: in consideration is PA governor Ed Rendell.

why? the dems need PA to win the election. rendell has military service, and it makes sense to not run a pair of senators.

the downsides: PA isn't in the south or the plain states, rendell is jewish (NOTE: i'm not anti-semetic, i'm implying the DNC may see that as a liability)

some info on rendell, from here (http://www.nga.org/governors/1,1169,C_GOVERNOR_INFO^D_410,00.html)

EDWARD G. RENDELL was born in New York City on January 5, 1944. After serving in the U.S. Army, he earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1965 and a juris doctor from Villanova Law School in 1968. Rendell was elected to two terms as district attorney for Philadelphia from 1978 to 1985. From 1992 through 1999, Rendell served as mayor of Philadelphia. Among his many accomplishments as mayor, he eliminated a $250-million deficit; balanced the city's budget, and generated five straight budget surpluses. He also reduced business and income taxes for four consecutive years, implemented new revenue-generating initiatives, and dramatically improved services to the city's neighborhoods. During his tenure, Philadelphia saw the end of a six-year job loss trend, and enjoyed six consecutive years of job gains. The city became nationally and internationally recognized for its enhanced historical tourist attractions, a thriving downtown, and a booming convention center, and under his leadership won the hosting of the 2000 Republican National Convention. Rendell served as the general chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2000 Presidential election. Prior to his election as governor, he was a partner at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP. He also taught two government and politics courses at the University of Pennsylvania, and remains active in the community through membership on a variety of boards.

[DavisBAnimal]

Rendell would be a great pick - I hadn't thought of that. Something tells me, call it a hunch I guess, that his pick (if Kerry gets the nod) has a good chance of being a minority or woman. I don't know why, maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if he went for Hillary (although I doubt Hillary would agree, and the right would go nuts). I remember too discussion of the latino governor of New Mexico as a possibility, but I'm forgetting his name.

But in all honesty, I'll take a page from Mike Moore's book and say flat out his running mate should be Oprah. I mean, if Arnold is right now gov. of one of our biggest states, then Oprah surely has a place in politics. And seriously, who DOESN'T like Oprah? It would be glorious! She'd have us jogging every morning and could host her own presidential book club from the Oval office with world leader and dignitaries (I'd love to see Tony Blair, Vlad Putin or maybe even Kofi Anan debating "The Bluest Eye").

She'd be perfect - unless of course she's a republican (although that didn't stop Wes Clark! Ha! I kid).

All in all I think all this talk is kind of funny, seeing as I'm sure not even Kerry knows who he'd pick, who's up for the job, and we probably won't know until Boston.

Davis

[zimv20]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Something tells me, call it a hunch I guess, that his pick (if Kerry gets the nod) has a good chance of being a minority or woman. [...] I remember too discussion of the latino governor of New Mexico as a possibility, but I'm forgetting his name.


not sure who you mean, bill richardson is gov of NM. janet napolitano, though, is gov of AZ.


In 2002, Napolitano was elected Arizona's 21st governor and America's first woman to succeed a woman as governor. Since taking office, her top priorities have been education, the economy, and the environment. Under her leadership, the state's 2004 budget passed without cuts to education, and she continues to focus on early childhood literacy programs as prevention for high illiteracy and high school dropout rates. She recently created the CoppeRx Card, a free prescription drug discount card mailed to every Medicare-eligible senior in Arizona, offering discounts of 15 to 55 percent. The governor also is working to re-direct Arizona's economy toward high-tech, knowledge-based industry to ensure that graduates continue to have quality job opportunities. Napolitano currently serves as colead governor on forest health issues for the Western Governors' Association and recruitment chair for the Democratic Governors' Association.


link (http://www.nga.org/governors/1,1169,C_GOVERNOR_INFO^D_393,00.html)

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20

the downsides: ... rendell is jewish (NOTE: i'm not anti-semetic, i'm implying the DNC may see that as a liability)


That's a good point, but I don't think the DNC would object much, seeing as Gore's pick of Lieberman wasn't objected to, and the majority of American voters didn't seem to have a problem with Lieb being jewish (although perhaps some of those supreme court justices did!). Also, too, three of the most prominent candidates of this race have strong jewish ties - Lieberman(obviously), Clark, who was raised by a jewish mother (is that right? I think so), and Dean, whose wife is jewish and whose kids were raised jewish as well. I don't think it would be a liability this time around.

Davis

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20
not sure who you mean, bill richardson is gov of NM. janet napolitano, though, is gov of AZ.




Yeah, that's who I was thinking of - Richardson. He's not latino?

[IJ Reilly]

At the risk of changing the topic of this thread: Don't discount the amount of anti-Semitism out there, or the impact bigots can have in a close election. The last election was decided by far fewer voters than the number of anti-Semites in the US.

Anyway, Richardson is being mentioned, but I don't see it. First of all, he's not from the South; second, he's not from an especially valuable state; third, he's a former Clinton staffer.

As for Oprah, that's a laugher. Ok, I'll admit it: I don't like Oprah.

[jelloshotsrule]

i don't like oprah either..

i also didn't really like clark

can some clark fans explain what they found so appealing about him?

after i heard the various quotes about him supporting the war, then denying it, i though of him as a liar... i can deal with someone changing their mind on something, but why not admit it?

and he seems to basically just be a general.... from what i've heard/seen of him, he doesn't really stand for a ton (admittedly, i haven't seen a ton on him), other than anti bush and such...

just curious why you like him so much

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
At the risk of changing the topic of this thread: Don't discount the amount of anti-Semitism out there, or the impact bigots can have in a close election. The last election was decided by far fewer voters than the number of anti-Semites in the US.

Anyway, Richardson is being mentioned, but I don't see it. First of all, he's not from the South; second, he's not from an especially valuable state; third, he's a former Clinton staffer.

As for Oprah, that's a laugher. Ok, I'll admit it: I don't like Oprah.

That's true about biggots and close elections, though remember the jew did come out on top last time (in terms of appeal to Americans). But you're right, you can already see it with Kerry's wife - I've read conservative columns complaining about how she pronounces her own first name (Ter-ay-za not Ter-ee-sa).

You're right, too - NM only has a handful of electoral votes, although if I remember correctly, the last election came out even closer than in Florida (in this case with Gore on top) - so it is a bit of a swing state this time out.

I sometimes wonder about our criteria here, though. Gore chose a jew from the north and a state with 7 electoral votes that's pretty reliably democratic. Bush chose an unknown retired administration head from a non-south republican state with 3 electoral votes. I don't know if the must-be-south/must-be-big-swing-state is a great indicator for VP pick.

Davis

And PS - come on, what's not to like about Oprah?

[numediaman]

Lieberman lost because he was out of touch with the mood of Democratic voters. He was pro-War, pro-tax cuts, etc. The voters out there that support the Democratic Party are angry. Lieberman tried to say that the party needed a "mainstream" alternative to Dean. I think Democrats have been looking for an "electable" alternative to Dean.

I thought Lieberman was an excellent choice for Gore in 2000. Gore ran a horrible campaign, though. Just think, had he simply won Tennessee . . .

I don't think anti-Semitism entered the picture because Lieberman never came close. If he had won some states, then who knows.

To get back on topic: when Clark entered the race I thought he could be a viable candidate. But I think Clark is too green, at this point. It might be very smart, however, for him to take advantage of his experience campaigning for President and run for some other office. I don't think he would add anything to a Kerry ticket -- though Edwards seems a good choice. I think Richardson would make an outstanding V.P. -- but I'm not sure he adds anything, either.

Kerry has been through several really tough Senatorial races -- I think he will play it safe by choosing someone from the south or west -- someone whose record has been scrutinized. Afterall, this may turn to be the dirtiest general election ever.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
can some clark fans explain what they found so appealing about him?


I think Clark's appeal, and chances for getting the nomination, were calculated on Dean giving a much better performance than he has and the Democratic base needing a choice for an anti-Dean. When it looked like Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt were struggling against the Dean machine Clark probably thought his chances of being the anti-Dean were pretty high. With Kerry in the top spot though, the things about Clark that voters found appealing (ie. could stand up to Bush, unimpeachable on security issues) wern't enough to offset his flaws which you spoke of. In addition I would add that Clark's campaign seems to have suffered a Johnny-come-lately problem wherin all the really good consultants/advisors/donors/endorsemsnts were already taken. Having talked to my sister who has now worked in the Clark campaign after working for Gephardt, the Clark campaign seems disorganized and wasteful of it's resources.

[IJ Reilly]

I was less concerned about Clark's perceived "flip-flops" on the war than I was impressed by how he articulated alternatives to the Bush policy and approach, and how he combined this with the background and experience to make it more than just empty political chatter. He came across to me as a very sharp, solid character, and I would have liked to have heard more of what he had to say. But that's all history now.

Speaking of history -- we can't re-run the 2000 election, but as has already been pointed out, Gore's choice of Lieberman probably didn't win him many votes in places where he needed them. Let's not forget why he was chosen -- it was all about finding a Democrat who'd been critical of Bill Clinton. Taking a peek under the hood of American life at some of its less pleasant characteristics, you'll find plenty of people who would never vote for a Jew. Plenty. Enough to turn an election -- and certainly enough to turn the election of 2000.

[Sayhey]

What intrigued me about a Clark candidacy was that he had many things to indicate he would be a good matchup to Bush in a general election. He is a decorated veteran with lots of foreign policy experience that would help take on Bush's preemptive war doctrine. He is a southerner who could challenge Bush in the base of his electoral votes. He is an outsider from Washington politics and lastly he is liberal on most social questions. That was and is a good combination.

He is also not a very skilled politician and it showed far too often. Who ever in his campaign made the decision to skip Iowa should never work in politics again or at least start over at the bottom.

Now when you look to the probable ticket, Clark makes some sense as a running mate, but he brings much less to the ticket than others would. If Kerry wins he doesn't need Clark's military credentials and he has already signaled he might not pursue a "southern strategy." If Kerry goes for southern states then Edwards makes more sense (IJ, Edwards already gave up his run for reelection to his North Carolina Senate seat.) Edwards is a great campaigner and a wonderful speaker - strengths that Clark wouldn't bring to the ticket.

If Kerry gives up on a Southern Strategy then I think New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson makes a lot of sense. He is a Latino (the only Latino Governor) and his ties to Clinton are not a detriment to his inclusion. He would help in states like Arizona and New Mexico that have large latino populations and are critical to a Democratic win if they give up on the South.

Anyway I will be looking to next week in Wisconsin to see if Edwards or Dean give Kerry a scare. If not then March 2nd is likely the coronation of a Kerry nomination.