Full Text Of Clark's Home Run

From the DNC, his speech is in the extended entry.

General Wesley Clark’s Speech Before the Democratic National Convention Thursday, July 29, 2004 Final Text as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, my fellow Democrats. I am an American soldier.

Our country was attacked. We are at war. Our nation is at risk, engaged in a life-or- death struggle against terrorists who are seeking nuclear and biological weapons. And as I speak tonight, our armed forces are in combat.

Our freedoms were won in war, and protected by generation after generation of selfless service and sacrifice. From Bunker Hill to Bastogne, from the frozen hills of Korea to the jungles of Vietnam, from Kabul to Baghdad, American men and women in uniform have served with honor; they’ve given us so much, and they’ve asked for so little.

Tonight we honor them: our soldiers, our veterans, their families. I want to thank my wife, Gert, my son Wesley, his wife and son and all the military families who stand behind those who serve. Now I ask you to observe with me a moment of silence to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, so that we could have the freedom we exercise tonight.

War. I’ve been there. Heard the thump of enemy mortars. Seen the tracers fly. Bled on the battlefield. Recovered in hospitals. Received and obeyed orders. Sent men and women into battle. Awarded medals, comforted families, attended funerals. And this soldier has news for you: Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people. Franklin Roosevelt said it best: “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.”

This hall and this party are filled with veterans who have served under this flag - our flag. We rose and stood reveille to this flag. We saluted this flag. We fought for this flag. And we’ve seen brave men and women buried under this flag. This flag is ours! And nobody will take it away from us.

The safety of our country demands urgent and innovative measures to strengthen our armed forces. The safety of our country demands credible intelligence. The safety of our country demands cooperation with our allies. The safety of our country demands making more friends and fewer enemies. The safety of our country demands an end to the doctrinaire, ineffective policies that currently grip Washington.

Enough is enough! A safe America - a just America - that’s what we want, that’s what we need. And with John Kerry and John Edwards, that’s what we will achieve.

John Kerry has lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a Senator. He proved his physical courage under fire. He’s proved his moral courage, too. John Kerry fought a war and came home to fight for peace - his combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need in a Commander-in-Chief.

And John Edwards, with his leadership and competence, will be a great member of this command team. John Kerry is a man who - in times of war - can lead as a warrior, and who - in times of peace - will heed the call of scripture to beat swords into plowshares. John Kerry will lead America with strength and wisdom. He has the will to fight, and the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace.

Under John Kerry we will attack and destroy the terrorist threat to America. He’ll join the pantheon of great wartime Democrats.

Great Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, who led us to victory in World War I. Great Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who turned back the tide of fascism to win World War II. Great Democrats like John Kennedy, who stood firm and steered us safely through the Cuban Missile Crisis. And great Democrats like Bill Clinton, who confronted ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and with diplomacy - backed by force - brought peace to a shattered land.

My fellow Americans, Democrats are leaders. Democrats are fighters. John Kerry is a leader and fighter and he will be a great Commander-in-Chief.

John Kerry knows that the power of America is our values and ideals. John Kerry knows that our soldiers embody the best of America’s values: Service. Sacrifice. Courage. Compassion.

They’re serving to build something greater than themselves. They’re serving to build something worth fighting for. They’re serving to build something worth dying for. They are a company of heroes. Everyone who fights for the best in American life is also a hero: Firefighters. Police officers. Teachers, and so many others.

John Kerry’s time to lead this company of heroes has arrived. Right here. Right now. In this town. Tonight, from this place, we set out together to put our country back on track to security, freedom and opportunity. America: Hear this soldier.

Choose a leader whose physical courage, moral values and sound judgment will - with the grace of God and our determined commitment - strengthen our country, protect our liberty, renew our spirit and secure a future for our children that is worthy of our heritage.

Make John Kerry the next president of the United States.

Thank you, and God bless America.

Source: Democratic National Convention Committee

But …

I was surprised that this line received applause, but tepid applause:

Under John Kerry we will attack and destroy the terrorist threat to America.

That’s from the text (which I’ll post next) … I thought he used the word “kill” when he delivered … If he did indeed say “kill,” he ad libbed it.

Wesley Clark Offically Out

Wes Clark has officially dropped out of the race for President, citing the ‘momentum’ of John Kerry in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark , who finished third in both Tennessee and Virginia, will announce his withdrawal Wednesday afternoon in his hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas.

Via CNN

CNN: Clark Quits The Race

Via CNN TV … no link as of yet.

Clark to drop out?

Daily Kos reports that “a Clark fundraiser in Houston tomorrow has been cancelled. Looks like he’ll be exiting the race soon.” Hat tip to Wonkette, who observes that “the Clark website has no events beyond tonight’s ‘Primary Party.’”

[Cross-posted here. Analysis here.]

Kerry Will Likely Claim Virginia

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on John Kerry’s likely win in Virginia’s primary.

Recent polls have found Kerry with a substantial lead in Virginia over North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who in turn has distanced himself from the remaining candidates.

The likely result is that when Virginians go to the polls today, they will not have as much of an impact on the nomination as had been hoped when state Democratic Party officials sought an early primary.

With Kerry’s early string of primary and caucus victories, Virginia and neighboring Tennessee, which also votes today, are expected to knock down one of the last uncertainties about Kerry - his ability to win in a Southern state.

However, Sen. John Edwards, General Wesley Clark and Rep. Dennis Kucinich continue campaigning in the Commonwealth. Howard Dean is not campaigning in Virginia.

Kerry and Edwards Take to Virginia

Washington Post reports on how John Kerry and John Edwards are trying to woo voters in Virginia.

Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner endorsed Sen. John F. Kerry for president yesterday, as Kerry and Sen. John Edwards campaigned among constituencies that could prove crucial tomorrow in the state’s first Democratic presidential primary since 1988.

The candidates made separate visits to African American churches in the Richmond area, where they appealed for the support of traditionally Democratic black voters. Edwards then traveled to Tennessee, which also holds a primary tomorrow. Kerry, a decorated military veteran, drove on to a rally in Chesapeake, a stronghold of Virginia’s large military community.

Edwards, who is from North Carolina, is looking to Virginia and Tennessee to turn the race for the party’s nomination into a one-on-one battle with Kerry, while the Massachusetts senator, coming off a sweep of the caucuses in Michigan, Washington and Maine this weekend, seeks his first victories in the South.

Wesley Clark has also been making the rounds in Virginia, as has Al Sharpton. Howard Dean was not in Virginia at all, instead focusing on Wisconsin, his “must-win” primary.

VA Primary Important for Edwards and Clark

Washington Post (through Yahoo! News) reports that Edwards and Clark are counting on Virginia keep their campaigns alive.

The campaigns of Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), who is riding a win in South Carolina, and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, coming off a narrow victory in Oklahoma, are focusing on Virginia as a place where they may be able to parry the momentum of the Massachusetts senator, who has won seven states.

Both challengers will be making numerous appearances — Edwards will be in Virginia every day until the primary — and both will put up television advertising in multiple media markets. Clark and Edwards, both born in the South, claim Virginia and neighboring Tennessee, the only other state with a primary Tuesday, as home turf.

Kerry will make his first appearance in the state this year on Saturday night in Richmond and make stops the next day in Richmond, Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia. The Kerry campaign, out to prove that the New Englander can win in the South, is buying television ads across the state.

The Virginia Democratic primary is being held on Tuesday and 82 delegates are at stake.

Clark ad runs before SOU in S.C.

Wesley Clark’s campaign ad runs immediately before the SOU on NBC affiliate in Greenville, S.C.

Busted!

We've all heard accusations that Clark had changed his position on Iraq since he entered the Presidential race. Now the NY Times thinks they've unearthed the proof. Clark apparently made the following remarks in 2002:

Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda ... It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?

Clark Vows No Terrorist Attacks

You want a campaign promise? THIS is a campaign promise. From ED / WaPo:

After two days of jousting over their various tax plans, Democratic presidential candidates crisscrossing the Granite State turned their attention to national security Friday, prompted by a statement from retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark that if he were elected president there would be no further terrorist attacks in America.

Editor: Willing to write that in blood, Wes?

Clark May End Up in Caucuses Afterall

Apparently, a Democratic political consultant, acting independently of the Clark organization, has raised $12 million for a campaign called Draft Clark in Iowa. It is still unclear (at least to me) whether or not Clark will actually be able to participate in the caucuses but considering that the latest Iowa polls shows him at a mere 3% (trailing even John Edwards), he is unlikely to have much affect on the outcome.

Seeking Women's Votes, Clark Changes His Style

Courtesy e-democracy and the NYT: Gen. Wesley K. Clark has begun to show a softer side.

The Case For Wesley Clark

Courtesy e-democracy, this story by J. Peter Scoblic

Well before he officially launched his candidacy in mid-September, Wesley Clark was hailed as the Democrats' savior. Party strategists, convinced that the front-running Howard Dean would flame out against George W. Bush, saw in Clark not only a sensible political alternative but, just as important, an electable one. Clark's 34 years in the Army--which included a heroic tour in Vietnam and culminated in four stars--and his public criticism of the Iraq war had made him a darling among centrist liberals who saw a bemedaled general as the perfect antidote to the GOP's national security dominance.

Picking Apart Clark's Tax Plan

Megan McArdle unpacks Clark's vision for tax reform. Its a must read.

Clark Isn't Running for VP

Surprised? Every election year some journalist asks a candidate who appears to be losing whether or not they would accept a VP spot and every election year they deny it in words remarkably similar to Clark's yesterday on Meet the Press:"I'm running to be the president of the United States, not the vice president, and I will not accept that nomination..."

I wonder why journalists continue to ask these kinds of questions? Do they expect Clark will say something like, "Gee ya know Tim, I've thought long and hard about that. I don't think I have much chance at winning so I might as well keep my options open, right? Afterall a Dean/Clark ticket would make one heck of a match up."

Real questions please.

Clark and Race

Steven Taylor discusses some disturbing race baiting by Gen. Wesley Clark. One expects this sort of thing from Al Sharpton, not someone trying to position himself as the sensible alternative to Howard Dean.

Cross-post from OTB

Clark Says He Would Avoid Pre-Emptive Strikes

The Nashua, NH Telegraph offers an account of Wes Clark's Thursday assault on Bush foriegn policy. Among the noteables:

“I think my first act is to put the pre-emptive strike doctrine into the shredder,” Clark said to applause from a crowd of more than 150 jammed into the college’s lounge.

Clark got emotional after lashing out at Bush’s failure to publicly meet with the families of the more than 400 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq.

“He will go to a dozen fund-raisers for re-election, but he won’t go to one home and put his arms around a mother who has lost a child and that’s wrong,” Clark said, his eyes welling up with tears.

New Yorker On Clark

Once again I haunt this page ... thanks to Michael for doing such a great job of holding down the fort. Peter Boyer has an interesting piece about Wesley Clark in the New Yorker ... including a rich review of Clark's military carreer. One of the more interesting passages:

Soon after Clark entered the race, though, another Clinton-era general, Tommy Franks, who retired this summer after directing the capture of Baghdad, was asked in a private setting whether he believed that Clark would make a good President. "Absolutely not," Franks replied. Retired General Hugh Shelton was asked the same question after giving a talk at a college in California. Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark's boss in 1999 when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. "I've known Wes for a long time," Shelton said. "I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . . Wes won't get my vote." Shelton has refused to explain how he came to his conclusion.

Clark indicated that he was puzzled by such comments. "I've known Hugh Shelton for years," he said, with a tight smile. "I always liked him." The comments of Franks, Shelton, and others in the Clinton-era military and defense establishment suggest a paradox in Wesley Clark's candidacy for President: his military career, the justification for his candidacy, may also be a liability.

Read it all here.

Clark Working on SC Veterans

This report from CNN details Clark's South Carolina efforts. After pulling out of Iowa it seems that Clark is focusing his attention on the state he stands the best chance at winning. Moreover, South Carolina comes right on the heals of the New Hampshire primary, merely a week later. Considering Dean's sounthern problem, Clark stands a good chance even if Dean wins big in New Hampshire. Just like the republican primary of 2000, SC could play a major role in stopping the dark horse.

Wes Clark's Iraq Plan

"If his new plan is any indication, Wes Clark lacks the guts, instincts, and temperament to lead this nation at war."

Vodkapundit links to Wes Clark's Iraq plan, and explains why he thinks so.

More on Clark and 9/11

More commentary on the issue at Oxblog and Chicago Report.

Is Clark Blaming Bush for 9/11?

I am not sure how to take this one (I believe that a reader may have brought this up in the comments but I can't remember where). Clark ended a speech criticizing the Bush administration's foreign policy with this: "And then there is 9/11. There is no way this administration can walk away from its responsibilities. This wasn't something that can be blamed on lower level intelligence officers." (Source)

Does this amount to blaming Bush for 9/11? It's not really clear, but if so Clark is treading dangerous water. The general public is very serious about the issue and I'm not sure they'll take well to finger poining.

Franklin Foer, TNR's Primary, comments "I had high expectations for Wesley Clark, and still do. I think he could be the superior foreign policy candidate in the field. But for now, mere competence would do."

Clark Floundering?

Sorry for the sporadic posting of late. I've been a little bogged down with javascript (which I know nothing about) at my home blog (which you should check out from time to time...shameless plug, I know). At any rate...I finally got it working so now I have that nifty little drop down extended entry thing that seems to be all the rage in the blogosphere these days.

At any rate, the biggest development over the last week or so has been the "stalling" Clark campaign. According to this CNN Article Clark has jumped from clear front runner to not so clear sort of runner-up. Of course, for those of you who read Poliblogger, Steven Taylor, on a regular basis, this comes as no  surprise.

Instapundit has also noticed Clark's trouble, pointing to William Saletan taking him to task over his tractability on Iraq. Glenn thinks this floundering could be a matter of Clark's character, not necessarily his campaigning.

I ultimately don't think its useful to speak of someone tied for front-runner as "floundering". The drop doesn't necessarily reflect mistakes on his part, but is probably just reflection (following Taylor here) that his newness has faded. There is still a lot of time left for mistakes to be made by any candidate, including Dean. Clark is certainly still a contender and things are just starting to get exciting.

William Saletan on the Clark and Lieberman Bail

From Slate:

But imagine how much worse today's media drubbing would have been had Clark or Lieberman pulled out alone. The story would have been that an isolated loser was making himself an isolated quitter. Together, Clark and Lieberman have enough clout to create an alternative, if weaker, story line: The problem isn't them; it's Iowa—and without their participation, the caucuses mean that much less.

Here! Here! The problem is Iowa. The Caucuses are becoming more and more insignificant for presidential elections. Since 1972 the Democratic Caucus winner has only gone on to the presidency once, Jimmy Carter in 1976 (and even here there was a major undecided vote). Furthermore they have a less than stellar record at even picking the candidate that will go on to win the Democratic nomination. So there seems to be no shame in focusing your energies on more important states. Remember, the skip Iowa strategy helped McCain win big in the 2000 NH primary.

Graham Gone but Not Forgotten

Thomas Beaumont of the DesMoines Register is arguing that Graham's departure from the race helps Clark. Primarily because Graham has left behind a pretty healthy campaign staff in Iowa that appear ready and willing for Clark to pick up the charge. But Clark may be thinking otherwise. The Washington Post has an article this morning claiming that the Clark camp is going to forget about Iowa and New Hampshire. They've started too late to catch up in those states, which typically expect candidates to be on their soil for a considerable amount of time during the year prior to the elections. They plan to focus on later but equally important primaries in the South and West. This is a risky decision, Clark might be better advised to try to make a decent showing in NH at least.

Furthermore, Graham's resignation from the race also helps Clark by eliminating one of his very few foreign policy challengers; Graham is Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Finally, Graham might be gone for now but don't count him out as someone's VP candidate. Florida is an extraordinarily important state in the Electoral College (as we all know) and with the President's brother governor of the state, Democrats will need every leg up they can get. Graham, the state's senior senator could be that leg.

Clark May Be in Trouble

From the Washington Post:

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark may have violated federal election laws by discussing his presidential campaign during recent paid appearances, according to campaign finance experts.

Clark, a newcomer to presidential politics, touted his candidacy during paid appearances at DePauw University in Indiana and other campuses after he entered the presidential race on Sept. 17. Under the laws governing the financing of presidential campaigns, candidates cannot be paid by corporations, labor unions, individuals or even universities for campaign-related events. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) considers such paid political appearances akin to a financial contribution to a candidate.

I'm looking for text of the speech so that we can see for ourselves. More later.

A Presidential Poll With A Twist

A CBS News/New York Times poll gave half of the respondents the choice between:

"Howard Dean, John Edwards, Richard Gephardt, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton, or someone else (with the order of the names rotated)."

The other half of the respondents were given the choice between:

"General Wesley Clark, Dr. Howard Dean, Senator John Edwards, Congressman Richard Gephardt, Senator Bob Graham, Senator John Kerry, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Senator Joe Lieberman, former Senator Carol Moseley Braun, Reverend Al Sharpton, or someone else (again, with the names rotated)."

The different results are astonishing... and revealing.
 

Clark Blog

The General has tossed his hat into the blogosphere as well. Here's the link to Generally Speaking, the official Clark blog. The latest post:

News Roundup
Some of the latest news. Feel free to discuss:

The Press Democrat: Clark, Dean lead Democrats
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: Few voters in state list party affiliation
Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Democratic chairwoman gives Clark endorsement
Tallahassee Democrat: Clark may prove that 'centrist' is not a dirty word

The Numbers on Clark

While Clark's debut national poll numbers were quite impressive, two recent polls of NH primary voters, the Marist College Poll and Zogby, show Clark a distant third in that state. By that metric, Howard Dean remains the "front-runner".

Clark's Goes Domestic

Wesley Clark, attacking his perceived weakness on domestic issues, has released a hefty 100 billion dollar jobs plan (link to document). Here's the breakdown of his three pronged approach from CNN:

• A $40 billion fund would focus on improving homeland security by investing in infrastructure, such as hospitals, and training those who are the first to respond in emergencies. That fund would leave hospitals better prepared for potential biological and chemical attacks, provide money to hire more Coast Guard and customs workers, and secure ports, bridges and tunnels, Clark said.

• A $40 billion fund for states and local governments -- many financially strapped -- would bolster public education, health care, local law enforcement and social services, he said. About $20 billion would help public colleges keep tuition down and help state and local governments train workers for new jobs, he said. Local governments would receive $10 billion to cope with rising health-care costs, and $10 billion would help finance local law enforcement programs and social services.

• The third proposal would provide $20 billion for business tax credits and incentives, including tax credits of $5,000 per every new employee hired by a company. There would be incentives for firms to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States and efforts to make companies more competitive in the trade markets, Clark said.

Clark Would Have Been a Republican

From Newsweek:

Last January, at a conference in Switzerland, he happened to chat with two prominent Republicans, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Marc Holtzman, now president of the University of Denver. “I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” Soon thereafter, in fact, Clark quit his day job and began seriously planning to enter the presidential race—as a Democrat. Messaging NEWSWEEK by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a “humorous tweak.” The two others said it was anything but. “He went into detail about his grievances,” Holtzman said. “Clark wasn’t joking. We were really shocked.”

Some Clark Commentary: Megan McArdle, Matthew Continetti (Weely Standard)

Clark Stumbles a Bit, Lieberman Pounces

Is backtracking forgivable if it occurs only a day after the original track is laid? We'll have to see. In an interview on Thursday of last week Clark shocked supporters by mentioning that he probably would have voted for the Iraq resolution. Then on Friday he recanted "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war". (Source: CNN)

Lieberman wasted no time jumping on Clark's misstep, remarking Sunday in an interview with the Des Moines Register:

As commander in chief, as president, you've got to be able to decide what you think is right for the country's future with a clarity of judgment and have the courage to stick with it.

Clark Will Debate

After a little confusion, Clark has signaled that he will debate his Democratic rivals next Thursday. This is a risky but necessary move on Clark's part. As a general rule only a clear front-runner can afford not to debate. The challengers have nothing to lose and therefore are usually more aggressive in going after the leader. The leader, trying to sit on a lead will try to say just enough not to say anything. Clark is neither and must play both parts to a degree. While not technically a front runner, his resume alone gives him that respect and he should not forget that, especially when discussing foreign policy. However, he still has to gain ground on the other candidates and therefore must be bold on domestic policy. Clark needs exposure because, while his poll numbers are not bad for a guy who just started his campaign, he is effectively bringing up the rear. A stellar performance next Thursday could payoff big time, making him a front-runner with rank and file Dems looking for an alternative to Dean.

Moore Supports Clark

This post is for Rachel Lucas:

Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, known as a tough critic of President George W. Bush, globalization's downside and the culture of arms, wants a new man in the White House: Democrat Wesley Clark.

In a letter that begins "Dear General Wesley Clark," of which AFP obtained a copy, Moore encourages the retired general to press hard to win the Democratic Party's nod ...

... "You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your position on gun control: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them," the letter said ...

... "And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the 'last resort' and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is you and your soldiers who have to do the dying," Moore said.

"You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election," he added.

(Source: SIFY; cross-posted here.)

Wesley Clark May Not Be "it"

An interesting column by Elizabeth Sullivan of Cleveland's The Plain Dealer, argues that Clark is his own worst enemy and may not be cut out for presidential politics.

It never occurs to him that he could be wrong or that he might even have helped rope NATO into the wrong war in Kosovo. It was his repeated disagreements with Pentagon brass, as he pushed to expand the Kosovo war effort, that not only earned his early ticket to civilian life but also helped spawn the U.S. suspicion of NATO that persists to this day.
...
The hubris, the thin skin, the blind spots that helped torpedo his military career could hurt him again if he plunges into politics.

Clark Still on the Fence

Excerpt from Clark's CNN Interview with Aaron Brown:

BROWN: General, what say we make news here? Going to run?

CLARK: I haven't made a decision. It's not time to make a decision yet.

BROWN: There are those, general, who, in fact, would say that it is too late to make a decision. ... Are you concerned that if you decide you want to do this, it is too late to put organization and money together?

CLARK: No, I'm not concerned about that.

BROWN: Why?

CLARK: There's a tremendous groundswell of support out there in America for candidates who can offer the promise of leadership. And I see it every day in the mail and phone calls that are coming to me. And it's reflected, really, in the groundswell of support for Howard Dean, it's reflected in the concern of mainstream Democratic Party politicians for John Kerry. It's even reflected in California.

BROWN:... There is a group of people that very much are pushing the idea that you ought to run. They're going to put an ad up soon in a couple of key primary states. ..

General, did you have anything to do with that ad?

CLARK: No, I didn't, Aaron.

BROWN: Are you in contact with the draft-Clark people?

CLARK: No, I'm not. ... Recently opened a headquarters in Little Rock, I guess to make it come closer to home and put more pressure.

BROWN: Did you or anybody that you like a lot say to them, "Hang in there, I'll make a decision by Labor Day"?

CLARK: I certainly didn't say it, and nobody that I know of did. I've said all along that it would be some time -- a couple of months or so from the middle of June. And so people have pegged Labor Day as a logical time. But I haven't made a specific hard date.

BROWN: OK. ... Let's talk about a couple of issues here. Do you believe that a Democratic candidate, yourself or someone else, can use the situation in Iraq, both before, during, and after the war, to his or her political advantage?

CLARK: Well, I'm not thinking in those terms, Aaron. I'm thinking in terms of what's right for the United States. And one of the principles that we operate on in this country is that leaders are held accountable. The simple truth is that we went into Iraq on the basis of some intuition, some fear, and some exaggerated rhetoric and some very, very scanty evidence.

We found a situation that wasn't at all what was predicted. We're in there now, we're committed, we need to do our best. But that's a classic presidential-level misjudgment. And I think the voters have to be aware of that. And they have to appreciate it.

And if democracy means something, then that will be reflected in the ballot box.

BROWN: What was the misjudgment? If there was an exaggeration of the threat, what was the misjudgment?

CLARK: First of all, the idea that this was going to solve the war on terror. The president said this is the centerpiece of the war on terror. Seems to me that the only terrorists we're finding there are the ones who have come back in to attack us since we arrived.

There was a misjudgment about what would happen afterward. The idea that we would go in, be welcomed as liberators. They'd quickly move to the ballot boxes, we'd bring our troops home, out before the heat wave hit.

That didn't happen either. There have been a whole series of issues associated with this campaign, starting from why we went into Iraq, to how we dealt with our allies, to how we prepared for the aftermath, that are very, very troublesome.

BROWN: But just briefly, if you were a candidate, you would not walk away from those issues?

CLARK: I think those issues are at the very center of what America stands for, and what America's future will be.

BROWN: Back to the politics of this. As you debate it in your mind, as you talk to your family, what are your concerns? What is it about making this race that gives you pause?

CLARK: Well, I haven't speculated publicly on this, Aaron. But just to put it in perspective, I've been a career military officer. I've worn U.S. on my collars throughout my entire professional life, from the time I went to West Point at the age of 17, until I retired three years ago.

For me, it's not about partisan politics. ... This is a huge transition. And it's a transition that I'll be making if I should go into this, right after I've just been through another transition ... to go from military to civilian life. So it's a huge change of direction.

BROWN: Is your family supportive of the idea?

CLARK: Well, we've talked about it. And in general, my family's been very supportive of all the things I've done in public service throughout my career.

BROWN: Labor Day seem like a pretty good guess for a decision right around there?

CLARK: We haven't nailed this down. And it depends on a number of factors and discussions and phone calls with people. And just some more heart-to-heart talk and really sitting down and putting pencil to paper and looking at what the future could hold, and what the best way is to make a further contribution to the count

General Clark Poised to Join President Race

So say the IHT:

In the strongest signal yet that General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, is planning to join the Democratic presidential race, Clark told volunteers last week to step up their efforts and prepare for an announcement in early September.

If Clark, 58, who is retired from the army, does take on the nine announced Democratic candidates, supporters say he would offer a strong voice on national security issues and sell himself as a newcomer untainted by the political process.

A Different Kind Of Draft

Jack Beatty of the Atlantic Monthly believes Wesley Clark is The Ideal Candidate.

Of the two candidates who did not support the war, Howard Dean would lose to Bush —his supporters must face political reality. As for Bob Graham, vehement as he has been about the Administration's subversion of democracy, he is a U.S. senator, and in the last hundred years Americans have elected only two senators. To be sure, they have elected only one General during that time. But if you ask which candidate Bush would least like to run against, the answer has to be General Wesley Clark.

Also FYI, here's a link to the Draft Wesley Clark website.