Looks like we’ll be able to add the former supreme allied commander of NATO to the ranks of Dem presidential candidates within about 24 hours. Barring any last-minute changes, Wesley Clark is in.
The former general has scheduled an announcement for tomorrow in Arkansas. All indications are he will make his campaign official at that time.
The announcement will come just one day after Clark hosts a confab in Little Rock with potential political, fundraising, and legal advisors. The Washington Post reported the purpose of the meeting is for Clark to size up the strength of his “presidential-caliber team.”
Among those expected at today’s strategy session are Ron Klain, a strategist for former vice president Al Gore; Mark Fabiani, a communications specialist for Clinton and Gore; Skip Rutherford, a Clinton fundraiser; and D. Vanessa Weaver, a Clinton appointee. Former Clinton White House lawyer Bruce Lindsey also backs Clark, confirming earlier reports.
Also following up on reports from last week, U.S. News & World Report’s suggestion that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), a highly-influential Dem House member, will be supporting Clark appears to be much more than just a rumor.
Rangel told the Post yesterday, “Nobody believed me when I said Hillary Clinton would be the next senator from New York. And nobody believes me now. But Wesley Clark will be the next president of the United States.”
Indeed, the raspy-voiced Harlem lawmaker appears poised to be Clark’s most enthusiastic House supporter.
Newsday reported that “Rangel set meetings with members of Congress this week to round up support for Clark.”
While Rangel said he likes the current field of Dem candidates, he sees Clark as the one who can win because “the general takes the defense issue off the table.”
Asked about Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has been endorsed by 31 House Democrats, Rangel said Gephardt’s support of the war in Iraq is a problem.
“I can give my heart and mind and body to Dick Gephardt,” Rangel said. “But personally, the way he handled the war and support of the president makes it difficult. I feel comfortable we can go with the general.”
So do I.
Rangel raises an interesting point, though, beyond just supporting Clark. As progress in Iraq continues to go slowly, and the costs — both in human lives and U.S. dollars — continuing to rise, it will be increasingly difficult for Dem candidates to persuade primary voters to support those who backed the war before the invasion began.
With Clark, there are 10 candidates. Four of the 10 — Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry — voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to wage war when he deemed appropriate. Is it possible that Dem primary voters will rule out backing these four simply because of the war? Maybe. For Dems, the war is incredibly unpopular. Giving Bush a blank check to invade Iraq was tantamount to heresy.
I know one thing for sure, if there was no Iraqi invasion, Howard Dean would never have been able to gain so much traction, so quickly, among Dems who were frustrated by the war and the Dems’ complacency in going along with it. Opposing the war, and hammering rivals for voting for the war resolution, catapulted Dean from no-name governor of a tiny state to Dem hero.
If one removes the non-competitive candidates, this leaves Dean, Clark, and Bob Graham as the serious Dem presidential candidates that opposed the war. Considering Graham’s troubles organizing a serious base of support, the nomination would appear to come down to Dean and Clark.
Should be interesting.