February 11, 2004
Clark quits presidential race
Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark called it quits today after never really gaining the traction he expected. A retired General, many thought Clark would match up nicely with Bush in foreign affairs. But it was not meant to be.
“This is the end of the campaign for the presidency,” Clark said today.
After finishing a disappointing third in Virginia and Tennessee on Tuesday, Clark finally realized he never caught on with the American people. Maybe it was the flip-flopping.
Not only is Clark on record saying he voted for Republican and Democratic presidents, his outrageous claims can hardly be believed. His support of, and opposition to, the Iraq war is also suspect.
Certainly, the reason Clark never caught on is because the American people never could get a handle on who, exactly, Wesley Clark is.
He even managed to confuse fringe "documentarian" Michael Moore.
"[Clark's] actually slightly to the left of Dean," Moore said on CNN.
And because Clark never repudiated Moore's endorsement, it's yet another reason why the voters went running.
So bye-bye, Wesley. And for some reason I don't think the voters will miss your two faces.
Posted by Deleted Author at February 11, 2004 06:14 PM“So bye-bye, Wesley. And for some reason I don’t think the voters will miss your two faces.”
The same may be said of President Bush in November, save for changing the “two” to “numerous”.
Seriously, all of the candidates fumbled for their issue stances and their campaign voice. No winning candidate is going to campaign on the message and issues they thought of before they decided to run. Campaigners a very much like stage actors, they use dress rehearsals with guest audiences to shape their performance on opening night.
Clark, was doing dress rehearsal on opening night and got caught as you say, in conflicting messages before a paying audience.
President Bush has only lived up to 42% of his campaign promises and he is still flip flopping on Mars, Immigration, Deficit spending, rationale for invading Iraq, need for the U.N., and a few other items I am sure others could come up with.
There is no question in my mind such flip flopping will stick to the President as well. Only question is, by how many voters or no-shows at the polls?
Posted by: David R Remer at February 11, 2004 07:13 PM“Seriously, all of the candidates fumbled for their issue stances and their campaign voice.”
That’s the nature of politicians. But you’ve got to admit that Clark has been one of the worst in recent history. Some of his stances have been diametrically opposed to each other, for example being on record both supporting and opposing the Iraq war.
“[Bush] is still flip flopping on Mars, Immigration, Deficit spending, rationale for invading Iraq, need for the U.N., and a few other items I am sure others could come up with.”
Yes, but those flip-flops are based merely on gaining public support of his policies—Bush’s ideology has remained fairly constant.
Posted by: Dustin at February 12, 2004 01:21 AMI think they both flip-flopped for votes, It backfired on Clark, and I am reasonably confident it is going to backfire on Bush as well, as polls seem to be indicating.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2004 10:14 PM All candidates have trouble at first. At least Clark would attempt to clarify his answers. Bush the candidate simply hid behind answers like: “That’s fuzzy math.” Hey, and atleast Clark never asked: “Is our children learning?”, or got confused over wheteher social security was a federal program.
For a novice polititcian a certain amount of flip-flopping is to be expected as his national political theroy evolves; that’s why I was willing to give candidate Bush the benefit of the doubt in 2000. Unfortunately, Bush’s flip flops in the oval office show no political evolution whatsoever. His positions and policy statements simply reflect the views of the hard-right idealouge that has his attention at the time.
