Wesley Clark Eyes '08 White House Run

(AP)  Wesley Clark said Tuesday he wants to avoid waiting too late to make a decision on whether to run for president — a mistake he made in his failed 2004 bid.

"I think it was clear that I got in too late last time," the retired general and former NATO commander told The Associated Press in an interview.

Clark announced his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in September 2003, just four months before the first votes were cast. He dropped out of the race the following February, with his only victory in 14 caucuses and primaries coming in Oklahoma.

Clark is considering running again, but he said the late start was one of the mistakes he learned from in his last attempt.

"(There was) an inability to create a staff in a timely fashion," Clark said. "I didn't have a campaign manager until the end of November. I had no money. I had no strategy when I started. It was my only faith-based initiative.... It's one of several mistakes that if I were to run that I would hope I wouldn't repeat."

Clark said one factor that has changed is the number of candidates who have announced their intentions or have formed exploratory campaigns for president this early.

"There's no doubt it's moved earlier," Clark said. "Some people have never stopped running.... It's just a factor that has to be considered."

Clark says he believes his military background has special resonance during this campaign because of the national security issues that face the country, including the war in Iraq.

"I think that it's more clear than ever before that the country is an era of profound national security challenges," Clark said.

Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

"It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels," Clark said. "It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out."

Clark was a popular surrogate on the campaign trail during the midterm elections and has visited New Hampshire in the past month.

He said he hasn't set a deadline for making a decision on the presidential race.

"I don't deal with timelines," Clark said. "For me, it's talking to people and working separate related issues."

[bushrocks1]

Hey gang!!!

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[sandy5274]

Hey Gang so how about a Wes Clark & John Edwards
Ticket Or John Edwards & Wes Clark one for the
Democrats in 2008? I just cannot see what anyone
sees in Barack Obaman and who cannot understand
Obama has no real experience yet that even very
remotely would qualify him to be President,
whereas, both Wes Clark & John Edwards sure do
so, and I'm an Independent Voter,who will just
stay home in 2008,if the Democrats nominated
another Windsurfer John Kerry Idiot Loser in 2008
or someone who cannot get elected like Obama or
Hillary or God Forbid Joe Lieberman type!

[radiob-2009]

More information about Wesley Clark's positions can be found here http://securingamerica.com/
He has my vote again.

[energyecon]

Wes Clark is the real deal and hands down the best leader in the Democratic field today. He has the actual experience in national security and foreign affairs that has been so desperately lacking in the White House for the last six years.

And consider this, while the MSM will belittle his "one win in 14 caucuses and primaries" there was a field of what, nine nationally known politicos running for the nomination in 2004? Of that field, only three won ANY states and Kerry won all but two... the other two were both one state pickups by Wes Clark and John Edwards.

So Clark, with his late entry, no staff, and no money came into the game and won as many states as John Edwards did in 2004! THAT is the real story of Clark in 2004.

After working on the Draft Clark movement and the Clark campaign in 2003 adn 2004 its full speed ahead - Go Wes in 2008!

[tibu987]

Wesley Clark would be a better choice for President than either Hillary or Obama. I could not vote for either of the latter.
I will, as all of you should, look more closely at his actions, ideas, and past experience. It may be, may be, that he would be too pro-military.
Do some research before you decide for whom to vote.
We'll see.

[changeit4]

Getserious1,

Regarding bashing the president: After the rape of the middle class by W and his cronies, every platform is one on which he should be soundly bashed.

The typically Republican ignorance of his failures and the arrogance in repeatedly staying to a failing course is testament to that party's ability to get you to vote with your emotions, not your brains. Now look where that got us.

[observantx]

I listened on more than one occasion to Wesley Clark in debates and other nonsoundbite formats. It seemed to me he had a strong grasp of the fundamental responsibility of the executive branch of our government to uphold and defend the Constitution of this nation. He also spoke in realistic terms of the meaning of the conflict in Bosnia and Serbia and the role of the UN in that region. In all, head and shoulders above Fearless Leader. As to whether he is the right man for the job that requires more listening to the man and examining his past deeds in a strong, clear light.

In the upcoming election, our task is to force real debates, with questions from average American citizens on any and all candidates. No prepared lists of softball questions designed to prompt a soundbite answer. We need moderators empowered to haul the candidate back to the question asked, if they soundbite it, try to twist it toward another subject or just plain duck it. Anything less is showbiz and not democracy in action.

We must demand real debate to the hard questions. How do we prevent another debacle like Iraq? How would you address Iran%u2019s nuclear ambitions? What is your plan for stopping the slaughter in Darfur? Do you consider the Chinese a threat to our security or an ally, and why? There are plenty of questions. There are very few concrete, objective and realistic answers. We need to discover who has those answers and elect them into office.

[jn122736]

And to jn122736:

You dems have been doing it for 6 years.
Posted by getserious1 at 10:05 AM : Nov 29, 2006

getserious1, You have a problem there. I am not a Dem. Should I ***-u-me that you are a Repub?

[ademeyer]

Americans have a hard time imagining a President who isn't a career politician and partisan operator.

Personally, I'd like to see the country lead by people with a proven track record of success in something beside pandering to special interests. Looks Like Gen. Clark has real world experience, and a clear record of competency in foreign affairs. Eisenhower anyone?