|
Sep. 2003 - 8 Dec. 2003
|
|
Sep. 2003 - 8 Dec. 2003
| Last update 15 Jan. 2004 |
|
|
Here: Sizing up the Wesley Clark effect KNIGHT OR BLIGHT? Clark to announce his bid for president Clark Tied for 2nd in New Hampshire WES CLARK'S TEN PLEDGES Front-runner Dean gets major boost with surprise Gore endorsement |
Wesley Clark's official sites: |
| MSNBC News |
By Tom Curry
MSNBC
|
|
| Gen. Wesley K. Clark (ret.) |
Sept. 16 — With the cool audacity of a commander who isn’t intimidated by catastrophes that might unfold on the battlefield, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is poised to announce Wednesday that he’ll enter the race for the Democratic nomination. Despite his late leap into a crowded field, Clark should prove a formidable candidate who will have a serious impact on the race, even if he doesn’t win.
HIS TIMING is a case in point. Clark had the self-confidence to wait
to jump in the race, past the point at which the patience of some
political pundits had been exhausted.
“You’re telling me
it’s so late?” said one Democratic consultant Tuesday. “Look,
if the other Democratic contenders were good, it would be too late. But they
invited the Clark candidacy,” he said, by running mediocre campaigns so
far.
MSNBC.com's Politics section
Clark’s delayed entry may prove to have been a shrewd move.
The retired general waited long enough that that the attacks on
Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean could intensify and Dean himself
could stumble his way into some unforced errors, such as his making
conflicting statements on whether U.S. troops can be pulled out of
Iraq (“ours need to come home” or whether, as he said
four days later, “ We have to stay there for the
duration….. We need to reduce our troop strength in Iraq, we
cannot do that until we get foreign
replacements.”
Dean has a devoted group of followers
and, as the third-quarter finance reports will likely indicate at the end of
this month, has raised the most money of any Democratic contender.
Fineman: The un-Dean
But he has had to spend more and more time in recent days on the defensive,
clarifying his views and fending off attacks from his rivals.
And Dean has appeared
starchy and argumentative in some recent appearances. On ABC’s
“This Week” with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Dean
scolded the former White House staffer-turned-newsman who confronted
him with evidence of his support for the North American Free Trade
Agreement in 1993.
Clark
brings to the race his crisp, no-nonsense television skills honed in
many appearances on CNN as a military commentator. His rhetorical
style is not trapped in the baroque stylistic excesses of the United
States Senate, where several of his competitors hail from.
Although the full range
of his military record has not yet been subjected to detailed
scrutiny by the national news media, Clark spent his life in a
profession that many Americans admire, especially just two years after
the United States was
attacked. Any soldier
who can rise to become a four-star general has already proven that
he’s an adept politician, even if he has never been elected
mayor or county supervisor.
Clark’s military persona has the potential to help
the Democratic Party overcome its chronic deficiency on national
defense issues among male voters and married mothers with
children. Democratic Leadership Council pollster Mark Penn, reporting in
July on a survey of 1,225 likely 2004 voters, said that among
married voters with children, Democrats are 41 percentage points
behind Republicans when voters are asked, “Who does a better job
on this
issue?”
One immediate effect of Clark’s entry is that his military
credentials will outshine those of Kerry, the Democratic contender
who had staked his candidacy on being the only decorated Vietnam
veteran in the race.
A few
weeks ago, the Draft Wesley Clark movement asked pollster John Zogby
to test Clark’s appeal. Zogby used a “blind
biography” method in which a thumbnail of Clark’s career
— without his name attached — was read to poll
respondents who were then asked whether they’d vote for the
unnamed military man or for President Bush.
The general beat Bush in a
trial heat, 49 percent to 40
percent.
Democratic Party
leaders were cautiously respectful in their reaction to the imminent
Clark entry into the race. Mark Brewer, executive chairman of the
Michigan Democratic Party, said Tuesday, Clark “is a fine
candidate who is well-qualified and a good addition to the
field.” And Brewer noted that the Democratic race is
“very fluid, wide open. A lot of the support (for the declared
candidates) is pretty
soft.”
A GOP SKEPTIC
But Republican pollster Whit Ayres sounded a note of skepticism.
“He is way, way behind in money and in organization.”
While acknowledging that
some Democrats are discontented with the current crop of contenders,
Ayres said a late entry by a celebrity candidate only has the chance
to work if the candidate is famous. “It can work for someone
who is already a national figure such as Hillary Clinton or Al Gore.
But nobody outside of political junkies has ever heard of Wesley
Clark.”
Ayres
contended that it was “completely irrelevant” how Clark
or a blind biography of Clark performed in trial-heat runs against
Bush
“The only
relevant question is how well he will perform in the Democratic
caucuses in Iowa, the Democratic primary in New Hampshire and the
Democratic primary in South Carolina.” Ayres predicted that in
six weeks, in polls in Iowa, Clark would be in single digits.
He said Clark’s
dilemma was ideological as well: “If he is a liberal,
there’s no more room left in the race for a liberal. If
he’s a moderate, there are not enough moderate voters in the
Democratic primaries for him to finish
first.”
EARLY STATES
The other nine
Democratic contenders have been raising funds and placing operatives
in the key early states of Iowa and New Hampshire for more than nine
months.
For instance,
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry had a war chest of $11 million as of
late June. One Democratic consultant said Clark must raise $4
million in the next month to establish his credibility as a
candidate. That’s no easy task; Clark would have to receive
maximum $2,000 contributions from 2,000 donors.
If, however, Clark were to pull off
an improbable series of victories in some early primaries, Republicans could
face the need to run against a most unusual Democrat, the kind of Democrat
that no GOP consultant has experience running against, a four-star general, instead of running against a former
governor of one of the nation’s most socially liberal states.
| top |
| New York Post |
by Eric Fettman
|
September 17, 2003 CAN a former general who's largely unknown to the public and has no political experience (as candidate or office-holder) sweep his way into the White House? Wesley Clark thinks so: Today, he'll formally enter the already crowded Democratic presidential field.
That someone like Clark can generate so much attention and speculation from the pundits is less a testament to the former NATO commander's political skills than a case of the never-ending campaign meeting the 24-hour news cycle.
Something's got to fill the time on all those news channels - and Wesley Clark has become the new flavor of the month, now that the novelty of upstart front-runner Howard Dean is starting to wear thin.
Sure, to some Clark is the answer to the Democrats' dreams - a candidate who will be carried ahead by a wave of popular sentiment to sweep George W. Bush back to Texas. But we've heard this one before: Remember all those stories about how first John Edwards and then John Kerry had the nomination sewn up the moment they entered the race?
Actually, Clark's primary political function is to serve as the Democrats' beard on national security (the party's Achilles heel since George McGovern), a candidate-in-shining-armor who can be credibly anti-war thanks to his military career.
Indeed, Clark won conservatives' praise back in 1999 when the Clinton Pentagon cut short his tenure at NATO after he'd publicly questioned the political strategy of the Kosovo war, including the administration's refusal to commit to ground troops.
A Post editorial said: "Wesley Clark's problem is that he did his job too well, felt his responsibility too deeply . . . Clark committed the crime of honesty, and honesty just can't be tolerated in Clinton-land." (Ironically, the ex-president has emerged as a Clark strategist.)
Of course, there were some unsettling signs. For example, Clark reportedly ordered an airborne assault to seize the Kosovo airport in order to block Russian troops. (His British deputy, Gen. Mike Jackson, refused, saying: "I'm not going to start World War III for you.")
Some in Congress also complained of his bellicosity and penchant for abrasive, self-righteous pronouncements. And at times, his behavior has been downright bizarre - as when, last June, he charged that "I got a call at my home" prior to a CNN appearance demanding that he link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq.
Since then, his story has changed - often. The mysterious call came "from the White House." Or from "people around the White House." Or from "all over" or "a fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank" or someone "connected to Israeli intelligence" or "a man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium."
With such Oliver Stone-like charges, it's little surprise that those enthusiastic for his candidacy are people like filmmaker Michael Moore, legislators like Rep. Charles Rangel and publications like The Nation.
Whether the rest of the party will come on board is another story. For one thing, despite insisting "I'm a centrist on most issues," the few positions he's taken on nonmilitary issues are as far left as the most rabidly partisan Democrat could hope for.
And he's moved beyond simply stating that President Bush's war and postwar plans were flawed. Clark now insists, "We went into Iraq under false pretenses," comparing it to "deceptive advertising."
That may be the biggest risk for Democrats. A Clark candidacy would mean a campaign based solely on the war at a time when many in the party believe Bush's biggest weakness is the economy - an area in which, like every other domestic issue, Clark has no track record.
Worse, it may mean challenging the very basis of the Iraq campaign - a military action that, polls show, Americans have consistently and overwhelmingly supported, even if they may have growing doubts about how the peace is being won.
In which case, Wesley Clark may end up copying the career not of Dwight Eisenhower, but of another Little Rock native with a glowing military record: Douglas MacArthur, whose dreams of a political movement that would carry him into the White House vanished in public disinterest and disdain.
| The Washington Times |
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
|
|
| Gen. Wesley K. Clark (ret.) |
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, at the strong urging of
former President Bill Clinton, will announce today that he has decided to seek
the Democratic presidential nomination.
The former NATO
commander, who graduated first in his class at West Point and became a Rhodes
scholar, is a Vietnam War combat veteran and rose through the ranks to lead U.S.
forces in the 1999 war in Kosovo, will make the announcement in his hometown of
Little Rock, Ark. He is expected to use the backdrop of MacArthur Park, site of
the old U.S. Army Arsenal, where Gen. Douglas MacArthur, a hero of World War II,
was born in 1880.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
is expected to serve as his campaign co-chairman, Fox News reports. There has
been published speculation that if Mrs. Clinton decides later this year to enter
the race herself she would choose Mr. Clark as her running mate. She has said
emphatically that she will not run in 2004.
Mr. Clark,
who was born in Illinois but grew up in Little Rock, has assembled a growing
circle of aides drawn from both the Clinton and Gore campaigns to brief him on
issues and set up a campaign organization to replace a draft-Clark group that
has been working in his behalf for months.
That circle
includes former Clinton campaign strategist Mark Fabiani, who was Mr. Gore's
communications director in his 2000 presidential bid; Ron Klain, Mr. Gore's
chief of staff; Washington lawyer Bill Oldaker; Skip Rutherford, a Clinton
fund-raiser in Little Rock who has helped raise donations for the Clinton
presidential library; Bruce Lindsey, a top Clinton White House aide; George
Bruno, a New Hampshire party activist; Vanessa Weaver, a Clinton appointee; and
Peter Knight, a Washington lobbyist and Clinton/Gore campaign fund-raiser.
Mr. Clark, who helped negotiate the Bosnia peace process
in 1995, had several meetings with Mr. Clinton about his campaign. The former
president has been unusually generous in his praise for Mr. Clark. "He has
always exceeded in every endeavor," Mr. Clinton said earlier this summer.
"He understands America's security challenges and domestic priorities. I
believe he would make a good president."
Mr. Clark,
who has been a CNN analyst, has leveled sharp criticism on Mr. Bush's war
policies in Iraq, calling the U.S. military offensive to topple Saddam Hussein a
"voluntary, elective, discretionary war."
"He is putting together a stellar campaign team that knows the political
landscape," Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who managed Vice President
Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said last night. "You have other
members of Congress who are ready to get on board. It's more than just the
Arkansas delegation."
Although Mr. Clark is a
political novice, not well-known in the party at large, and a late entry in the
crowded field of nine who have been campaigning for months, some party
strategists say he could be the fresh face that Democrats are seeking in a
contest that has yet to produce a strong, national front-runner to challenge
President Bush in 2004.
Polls show that two-thirds of
Democratic voters cannot name any of their party's candidates and one-third say
they want other choices.
"He is a fresh face and
there are many Democratic activists who like what they see in Gen. Clark. He has
political juice," Miss Brazile said.
Other
Democratic strategists say that Mr. Clark's opposition to the war in Iraq,
together with his four-star military credentials in a party that polls show
rates low with voters on issues of national security and fighting terrorism,
could draw support away from several top Democratic contenders, including former
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Richard A.
Gephardt of Missouri.
Mr. Dean has surged into the lead
in Iowa and New Hampshire as a result of a wave of antiwar anger in the party's
liberal base. Some polls show that Mr. Clark could undermine some of Mr. Dean's
support and Mr. Kerry's, as well.
The news of Mr. Clark's
long-awaited decision overshadowed the formal announcement yesterday by Sen.
John Edwards of North Carolina, whose presidential candidacy had yet to get off
the ground. Mr. Edwards remains stuck in the low single digits in most national
polls, though he has a slight lead in the South Carolina primary.
Mr. Clark has four months to raise his profile before the
party caucuses and primaries begin in January, and his war chest of no more than
$1 million in campaign pledges is far less than the $20 million or more that
some of his rivals expect to raise this year.
"It's
not too late to get into the race if I decide to run," he said, still
striking a coy note. "We'll make an announcement in Little Rock tomorrow.
We're tremendously excited."
Mr. Clinton did not
begin his race for the 1992 presidential nomination until Oct. 1, 1991, although
he had been campaigning around the country for two years as chairman of the
Democratic Leadership Council.
Mr. Clark told the
Associated Press that he still has "a lot of learning to do,"
especially on domestic issues where his views are all but unknown. "I'll do
my best, but there will be a lot of things that I don't know right away. I want
to learn. I've got a whole period of time. I want to talk to people about the
issues."
| top |
| Press release #107 | http://clark04.com/press/release/107/ |
Press Room
For Immediate Release
Date: December 4, 2003
Clark Tied for 2nd in New Hampshire
|
As the campaign's days grow longer, Clark grows stronger.
Two polls released on Thursday show General Wesley Clark is in a statistical dead heat for 2nd place in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary.
According to an American Research Group poll, Clark is now polling at 11 percent, up from 7 percent last month. John Kerry is polling at 13 percent, down from 17 percent last month. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 4 percentage points.
In the Zogby Poll, Clark is polling at 9 percent, up from 6 percent in October. John Kerry is polling at 12 percent, down from 17 percent in October. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 4.5 percent.
|
| top |
|
10 Pledges |
http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/ |
|
|
Dec. 5, 2003
Thursday, at Daniel Webster College in New Hampshire, Wes Clark set forth his guidelines for the use of force in a Clark administration.
Clark pledged, "I will bring our soldiers home with success in Iraq assured and America standing strong."
Clark's success strategy in Iraq calls for ending the American monopoly on the occupation, changing the force mix so our troops can succeed and giving the Iraqis a rising stake in our success.
He also pledged:
Never to ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice or ask their families to pay the ultimate price of patriotism except as an absolute last resort.
Never to send American soldiers into combat without a realistic strategy to win, and without the forces necessary for victory.
The statements and actions of a Clark administration will restore America's moral authority as a leader.
Never to challenge the patriotism of Americans who oppose my policies or aggressively express their disapproval.
America will always have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.
America's military will complement, not replace, diplomacy, law, and enlightened leadership in the conduct of our international affairs.
To use his experience and determination to fight the terrorists who have attacked our country, to defeat them and to prevent them from rising again.
To make America more secure than it is today.
"In less than a year, one Democrat will be facing George Bush for the presidency, and the paramount issue will be security," Clark concluded. "To win in 2004 we need a candidate with the standing and the experience to take the argument right to George W. Bush."
My strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:
End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Bush
Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction
and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other
nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American
monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and
throughout the world.
Change the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to
formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without
substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, I
would approach the problem as follows: consider adding troops; adapt to
guerrilla war; better use intelligence resources, train Iraqi security
forces, free up U.S. troops; engage neighbours for better border security;
and secure ammunition.
Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. Iraqis will be more
likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our
success. That means establishing a sovereign government in Iraq right away.
Because Americans chose the current governing council, many Iraqis see it as
illegitimate. I believe we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before
they have the capacity to succeed, but we should help the Iraqis quickly
establish their own government to replace the existing council.
As President, I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances
which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve
problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not
our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military,
financial, and moral resources of others.
Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my
broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created
a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as
the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark
Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as
a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive
force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and
international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the
use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible
and alone only if we must.
The Administration failed to plan realistically for post-war Iraq.
Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout
the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they
relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate,
hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security, hope that
Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction, and hope that we would be
treated as liberators. How wrong they were -- you can't build a plan on
hope.
Meanwhile, the President rejected the advice of the uniformed military
that we deploy enough troops not only to defeat Saddam's military but also
to secure Iraq after Saddam's defeat.
As a result, we saw chaos, we lost the trust of the Iraqi people -- and
the enemy was emboldened.
The Bush Administration has squandered in two years the moral authority
America spent generations building. It started when President Bush said to
the world, "you're either with us or against us." As a result,
even some of those who were with us are now against us. And those, like Tony
Blair, who are still with us pay a political price for it. America is hurt
as well. We are less secure when our friends suffer for standing by our
side. With fewer partners, we are left to meet dangers alone.
Even in Eastern Europe, there is dismay. These were some of the first
countries in the world to support the Bush administration in Iraq. And what
does this Administration do to its friends? In July, it suspends all U.S.
military assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria
because they have not yet promised Americans blanket immunity from the
International Criminal Court.
One after another, American presidents have laid a foundation of moral
authority for the United States. That foundation was built through our
leadership in containing Communism, in promoting human rights, in helping
the poor and the sick, and in promoting international law. That foundation
has been splintered in a few short years.
Also, a key part of my strategy of preventive engagement is to lead the
global fight against rising tide of AIDS. Although AIDS is a preventable and
treatable disease, in 2003, 5 million people worldwide were newly infected
with HIV and a record 3 million people died of AIDS -- more than all the
deaths from wars and terrorism in the world combined.
I have a four-part Global AIDS Security Strategy:
My Global AIDS Security Strategy will:
This Administration has been all bully and no pulpit.
Simply put, this Administration is wrecking NATO -- and thereby doing
incalculable damage to our security and well being. They have alienated our
friends, dismissed their concerns, rejected their advice, and left America
an isolated nation. I served in NATO twice, last as Supreme Allied
Commander, Europe. I know its value, see its promise, and if elected, I
won't let it be destroyed.
General Eisenhower once said leadership is "persuading the other
fellow to want to do what you want him to do." When America led the
world for the last half century, others followed -- not because we compelled
them, but because we convinced them. America needs a President who can lead.
As President, that's what I will do. I will rebuild our relationships
abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so
that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is
our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can
call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.
In a recent ad, the Republican National Committee claimed: "Some are
now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists."
The Republicans have tried to monopolize patriotism; I will not permit
the Republican Party to steal patriotism.
I am not critical of President Bush because he is attacking terrorists;
I'm critical of the President because he is NOT attacking terrorists.
During my 34 years of service in the United States Army, I held numerous
staff and command positions - including Commander in Chief of the United
States Southern Command and Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the
Joint Chiefs of Staff - rising to the rank of four-star general and NATO
Supreme Allied Commander.
As SACEUR, I led Operation Allied Force, NATO's first major combat
action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo
and did not result in the loss of a single American soldier.
I know the utility of a well-prepared U.S. military, and I know what it
takes to make sure that the U.S. has the best military in the world.
As Commander in Chief of the United States, I will carefully examine our
defense budget to ensure that we are providing our military the money and
support it needs to adapt to the new challenges America faces and to have
the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.
We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the
economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. When we use the
power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results,
even without decisive force.
A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a
reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to
rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic
power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would
reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together
if possible and alone only if we must.
The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that
is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to
assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it
the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and
developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us
bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation,
misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of
warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise
to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will
be far easier to gain international support for our concerns when other
countries see us helping them on theirs.
I will go after terrorists wherever they are - in Afghanistan or any
other country. As a result of the Bush Administration's inadequate and
misguided efforts, Osama bin Laden and many of the leaders of al Qaeda are
still at large and continue to pose a great threat to the United States, our
friends and allies, and various other states. I propose the following
three-pronged strategy to refocus our energies on hunting down bin Laden and
destroying the al Qaeda network.
Press Saudi Arabia to join U.S. forces in creating a U.S.-Saudi
commando force to work the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is
thought to be hiding. It's time for Saudi Arabia to take real action to
destroy al Qaeda from the top down. It's not enough for them to pursue
terrorism within their own borders. They need to join us in the battle
worldwide.
Fully utilize the assets we already have on hand to hunt down bin
Laden and destroy the al Qaeda network. Too many of our intelligence
specialists, linguists, and special operations personnel are investing too
much time and energy in Iraq in a fruitless search for weapons of mass
destruction -- a task that could better be handled by international weapons
inspectors. These inspectors are ready, willing, and able to perform this
mission. This is a clear case where getting help from the international
community to share the burden in Iraq will free up crucial resources to
allow us to better fight the most significant threat to our homeland.
Repair our relationships with our allies and friends, and rely on
international and regional institutions, like the United Nations and
NATO. These institutions can provide vital support to American
diplomacy, bringing in others to share the burdens and risks that we would
otherwise carry alone.
As President, I will ensure that we succeed in Iraq, that we focus our
intelligence, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement and military resources
on defeating al Qaeda, that we restore respect and support for America, and
that we re-orient our foreign policy to meet the challenges of terrorism,
weapons of mass destruction, international crime, and environment threats.
Taken together, all of these steps will make America more secure.
| top |
| boston.com/news |
By Ron Fournier, Associated Press, 12/9/2003
NEW YORK -- Former Vice President Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean for the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, adding momentum and political prestige to Dean's front-running campaign.
Gore said Dean "really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire at the grassroots level all over the country." He said the former Vermont governor also was the only Democratic candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war.
"Our country has been weakened in its ability to fight the war against terror because of the catastrophic mistake the Bush administration made in taking us to war in Iraq," Gore said.
Dean said it was an honor and a privilege to receive Gore's endorsement.
Five weeks before Iowa's kickoff caucuses, Gore and Dean appeared in Harlem before flying to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where Dean is locked in a tight race with Rep. Richard Gephardt in the Jan. 19 Democratic caucuses.
Dean will then fly to New Hampshire in time for the final Democratic debate of the year.
Dean told a crowd of several hundred supporters gathered Monday night at New York's Roseland Ballroom that he could "neither confirm nor deny" reports of Gore's endorsement.
Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes in 2000 but conceded to Republican George W. Bush after a tumultuous 36-day recount in Florida and a 5-4 Supreme Court vote against him. The election still rankles Democratic activists, many of whom are still loyal to Gore.
The approval of Bill Clinton's No. 2 bolsters Dean's case that he can carry the party's mantle next November and represents more than an Internet-driven outsider relying on the support of largely white, upscale voters.
Dean hopes the coveted endorsement also eases concerns among party leaders about his lack of foreign policy experience, testy temperament, policy flip-flops, campaign miscues and edgy anti-war, anti-establishment message.
"What this says is that all these Washington insiders who have been gnashing their teeth, wringing their hands and clinging to their cocktail cups can relax now. Dean's been knighted by the ultimate insider," said Democratic consultant Dean Strother of Washington. "It's game, set and match. It's over."
Other Democrats offered more cautious appraisals, but the overwhelming consensus was that Dean's coup makes him the overwhelming favorite to claim the nomination. Even advisers to Dean's rivals conceded they were stunned and disheartened by the news.
"I was caught completely off-guard," Sen. Joe Liberman, Gore's running mate in 2000 and a hopeful for the nomination, said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. That many of Gore's positions are opposite to those of Dean made the decision a surprise to him, Lieberman said.
"Al Gore has endorsed someone here who has taken positions diametrically opposite" of the former vice president, Lieberman said. "What really bothers me is that Al is supporting a candidate who is so fundamentally opposed to the basic transformation that Bill Clinton brought to this party in 1992," moving it to a more middle-of-the-road stance on economic policy and other areas, he said.
Asked on "Today" whether he felt betrayed by the former vice president, Lieberman said, "I'm not going to talk about Al Gore's sense of loyalty this morning."
"This sends a clear signal that Dean is bringing together two major forces -- Democratic insiders and outsiders. Gore is the ultimate insider," said Democratic strategist Steve Jarding of Virginia, adding that Dean can still be beaten "but it just got a ton harder."
Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist from Washington, said Gore will help Dean gain access to "some key constituencies, African-Americans and women and organized labor, and in Iowa."
But while Dean leads in polls in New Hampshire and Iowa, the race has not taken shape beyond the initial voting states and Gore's endorsement will not erase every doubt about the former Vermont governor. Analysts noted that Gore's uneven performance in 2000 alienated many party leaders, thus his endorsement has limited appeal, and they predicted an anti-Dean movement will eventually form behind one of his eight rivals.
In choosing Dean, Gore bypassed his own vice presidential pick in 2000, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is struggling in his bid to capture the nomination. The Lieberman campaign issued a terse statement Monday, saying, "I was proud to have been chosen by Al Gore in 2000 to be a heartbeat away from the presidency."
Some rank-and-file Democrats were stung by Gore's decision.
"It isn't fair that he turned his back on Lieberman," said Mohammed Islam, a New York taxi driver and longtime Democratic voter. "If he was good enough for him in 2000, why not now?"
In an unusual response, Democratic candidate Wesley Clark issued a statement touting the number of former Gore staffers working on his campaign.
In 1998, Dean considered challenging Gore for the Democratic nomination in 2000 but backed away amid pressure from the vice president's office, and opposition in Vermont. He quietly lobbied to be mentioned as a vice presidential candidate, but did not make Gore's short list.
The pair have differed on many key issues, such as gun control. While Gore fought the National Rifle Association, Dean was embraced by the lobby.
Gore is pre-eminent among the party's establishment, second only to former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. Officials close to both Clintons said Monday that they would not endorse in the primary race.
Gore announced Dec. 15, 2002, that he would not make another run for the White House, saying a rematch with Bush would force him to revisit the recount ordeal of 2000.
| top |
|
| HOME |
