Styles 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 No article up yet, but Foxnews is reporting it as breaking news. Next comes Dean I guess. Kucinich will still be in this until he travels back to whatever planet he came from and Sharpton has said he'll be in it until the very end so he can use his delegates to get speaking time (yeah, good luck with that). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Well, it's not like he had a chance anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JHawk 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 I wish Kucunich would get the hint that even his own state won't vote for him and quit already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 I like Kucunich -- he looks so much like a friend of mine back in high school it's not even funny... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Here's some more info for all you...um...Clark supporters... MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark (search) will drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Fox News has confirmed. Clark will make a formal announcement on Wednesday at 3 p.m. EST. from his hometown of Little Rock, Ark., sources told Fox News. The novice politician, who had hoped to cash in on his Southern roots, saw another round of disappointing third-place primary returns on Tuesday in Virginia and Tennessee. Campaign aides, who had not been paid for more than a week, said after the primary results that they were packing their bags and going home. Sources told Fox News that Clark lacked the funds to advertise aggressively in next week's Wisconsin primary (search), and that campaigning there would all but wipe him out. Clark will pledge to work closely with the Democratic Party to support the nominee and other candidates across the country, an adviser told The Associated Press. Clark, 59, entered the race in September, a late start for a neophyte campaigner, but he quickly rose to the top of polls of Democrats and others considering an alternative to President Bush (search). He decided to skip the Iowa caucuses to focus all of his efforts on New Hampshire. In appealing to voters, Clark relied almost entirely on his 34 years in military service, which included serving as supreme allied commander of NATO. He promoted his wartime record, from being wounded in Vietnam in 1970 to running the bombing campaign in the war in Kosovo in 1999, as the kind of experience needed with American soldiers in Iraq and concerns about security at home. Supporters touted other qualities — his Southern roots and his status as a Washington outsider — they contended that made Clark the candidate most likely to defeat Bush. Plus, he provided another forceful voice in condemning the war in Iraq, which he frequently called unnecessary, reckless and wrong. "I would not have gone into Iraq in the first place," he said. "My position was that Iraq was not an imminent threat. I would have concentrated on Usama bin Laden." For a latecomer, Clark had enormous fund-raising success. He raised nearly $15 million in 2003 and started January with at least $10 million left and the prospect of raising nearly $1 million per week as the first elections neared. Yet Clark's inexperience as a candidate caused him problems. On the first full day of his campaign, Clark said he probably would have voted for the Bush-backed Iraq resolution but then, a day later, insisted he never would have voted "for this war." His supporters were left confused while his detractors grew elated. Questions about his stand on the war in Iraq never ceased. "I bobbled the question," he later told The Associated Press. "Even Rhodes scholars make mistakes." Still, he won Oklahoma's primary, finished second in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, shining a light on what Democrats' believe is Bush's vulnerability on foreign policy. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Before too long, I expect most of them to drop out, so no surprise here. I think it's fairly obvious who is taking this one. Now begins the talk of Kerry's running mate. A Kerry/Edwards ticket could be something else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 By the fall Wesly Clark will be telling everyone the Democratic Party bretrayed him, and tell everyone he's always been a Republican. The smaller the field becomes. The more and more heat John Kerry will face. Especially know from the Republicans. It will be interesting to see if he can keep up this momentum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 "Even Rhodes scholars make mistakes." Like, say, trying to start a fight with the Russians at Kosovo? Fucking psychotic egomaniac... oh well, 4 down, 6 to go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Edwards has affirmed many times that he will not accept the VP nod. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Clark's campaign was almost as remarkable as Dean's to me. I'll admit that I got caught up in the excitement when he entered (of course his complete lack of substanced quickly soured me). I can't think of any other candidates that campaigns peaked at the start and then went slowly downhill the rest of the way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Clark's campaign was almost as remarkable as Dean's to me. I'll admit that I got caught up in the excitement when he entered (of course his complete lack of substanced quickly soured me). I can't think of any other candidates that campaigns peaked at the start and then went slowly downhill the rest of the way. His campaign HAD a peak? "I bobbled the question," he later told The Associated Press. "Even Rhodes scholars make mistakes." Within 5 years, he'll be referring to himself in the 3rd person. Edwards has affirmed many times that he will not accept the VP nod. Somehow, I think he might change that stance should he be offered. Call it a hunch. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Clark's campaign was almost as remarkable as Dean's to me. I'll admit that I got caught up in the excitement when he entered (of course his complete lack of substanced quickly soured me). I can't think of any other candidates that campaigns peaked at the start and then went slowly downhill the rest of the way. His campaign HAD a peak? Well, yes, at the beginning when he joined in and every damn newspaper I read said he was steamrolling the other Dems and would murder (figuratively) Bush in the election. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Edwards has affirmed many times that he will not accept the VP nod. Somehow, I think he might change that stance should he be offered. Call it a hunch. -=Mike I agree. You really can't say that you'd like to be VP will you're still running for President. After he officially drops out I think he'll take the position if it's offered. I think that the fact he hasn't really trashed Kerry this past week is a sign that he will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Edwards has affirmed many times that he will not accept the VP nod. That means nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Neither does anything you post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Austin3164life 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Good. It was pretty lame that he got involved. No disrespect to him, since he's a retired General, but he took a lot of votes away from Edwards, I feel, who could be a good president. Now it's a lock that Kerry will win the nomination. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Neither does anything you post. How cute, you can't actually respond to something so you post something like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Austin3164life 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 If Edwards were to accept the VP nomination, he'd be a good candidate after Kerry. He's young enough to last a two-term period, assuming Kerry wins (highly doubtful). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) No, I'm just so sick of Republicans coming up with randomly stupid comments about Democrat issues that they have no clue about. How many times has the "HILARY IS RUNNING IN 2004, JUST WAIT!" rumor surfaced? And how many times has she said "No, I'm not running" and you guys discounted it like so: That means nothing. Edwards has firmly and repeatedly stated that he's not going to accept a VP nod, but you and several others on the boards have used shit pulled out of your ass to back up an assertion that he's just DUPING us all and he's really running for the VP nod. Uh, okay. Whatever. Edited February 11, 2004 by Tyler McClelland Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 You are the one who obviously doesnt have a clue...and that's not counting what I assume was your apparent belief that Deadn was going all the way. Edwards wants to sound as if he still believes that he is going to win the nomination. He still says that he will not consider VP, simply because he STILL says that he will win the nomination himself, and will go on to square off against Bush. He's trying to still sound strong, it wouldn't do much good if he was already talking about being a VP to one of the other candidates that he is currently in a race with. This isn't that complicated. What do you expect the guy to say? "Hey everyone, I'm going to be Kerry's VP because I know that I'm not actually going to win the nomination, yuck yuck". It wouldn't be very bright at all to do so. Just for the record, I never once sayd that Clinton would be running this year, 2008 is her year and I've believed that since day one. So don't lump me in with everyone else, for whatever reasons you have. It's fine, be sick of whatever, but at least know what you are talking about, instead of acting like some sort of child. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 You are the one who obviously doesnt have a clue...and that's not counting what I assume was your apparent belief that Deadn was going all the way. Edwards wants to sound as if he still believes that he is going to win the nomination. He still says that he will not consider VP, simply because he STILL says that he will win the nomination himself, and will go on to square off against Bush. He's trying to still sound strong, it wouldn't do much good if he was already talking about being a VP to one of the other candidates that he is currently in a race with. This isn't that complicated. Except you're IGNORING the fact that the man is currently in the Senate. If he's not the presidential nominee, he has no reason to want to lose that senate seat for the democrats, and he'd provide AT BEST marginal geographical advantage as a VP candidate. If Kerry or Dean is the nominee, they'll pick a democratic governor in a red state (likely Richardson from NM or Mark Warner from VA). If Edwards is the nominee, he has a lot more freedom and could pick someone like Clark, Bob Graham from Flordia, or even Dean (who has said he'll accept a VP nod -- see the difference?). He could also choose the aforementioned red state democratic governor, but that's less of a necessity in an Edwards campaign. But hey, because ALL DEMOCRATS ARE LIARS, you should DEFINITELY NOT take Edwards at his word. Because, y'know, that'd be silly. God, you're a moron. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted February 11, 2004 You are the one who obviously doesnt have a clue...and that's not counting what I assume was your apparent belief that Deadn was going all the way. Edwards wants to sound as if he still believes that he is going to win the nomination. He still says that he will not consider VP, simply because he STILL says that he will win the nomination himself, and will go on to square off against Bush. He's trying to still sound strong, it wouldn't do much good if he was already talking about being a VP to one of the other candidates that he is currently in a race with. This isn't that complicated. Except you're IGNORING the fact that the man is currently in the Senate. If he's not the presidential nominee, he has no reason to want to lose that senate seat for the democrats, and he'd provide AT BEST marginal geographical advantage as a VP candidate. If Kerry or Dean is the nominee, they'll pick a democratic governor in a red state (likely Richardson from NM or Mark Warner from VA). If Edwards is the nominee, he has a lot more freedom and could pick someone like Clark, Bob Graham from Flordia, or even Dean (who has said he'll accept a VP nod -- see the difference?). He could also choose the aforementioned red state democratic governor, but that's less of a necessity in an Edwards campaign. But hey, because ALL DEMOCRATS ARE LIARS, you should DEFINITELY NOT take Edwards at his word. Because, y'know, that'd be silly. God, you're a moron. Easy there, Killer... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Oh, SHUT UP! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Another name being thrown around -- albeit less than Richardson or Warner -- is Tom Harkin, the senator from Iowa. The reason it's being thrown around less, though, is the same as the reason why Edwards won't take the nomination: we don't want to lose more seats in the Senate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 You are totally ignoring what I said as well. Edwards wants to remain strong, he want's to look determined, and he wants everyone to understand that his ONLY goal right now is to be the President, not some VP to the guy he's currently running against. I'd be willing to actually bet that Edwards will be a frontrunner as Kerry's VP on the ticket, and I assure you that Edwards wouldn't actually turn it down if it was brought up after he drops out and all is said and done. I also don't appriciate you lumping me together with anyone who would just blindly hate on Edwards, Kerry, and all the rest just because they are a Democrats, believe it or not, I'm not like that at all. I happen to like Edwards a great deal. And it's NOT just because his home town is mine as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Fair enough, I apologize for that. I understand the percieved weakness of "running" for the VP nod, but I don't think that's the case at all. The Democrats are trying to take over the Senate, and they don't want to lose more seats than they have to. There are other people out there that would offer the same -- even a greater -- geographical advantage than Edwards. It just doesn't make sense, and people should just take the guy for his word. He's not gonna accept the VP nod. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Well I disagree, and that's ok. A Kerry/Edwards ticket just feels really strong to me, and I'm sure it will at least be discussed with those "in the know". Do you deny even that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Isn't there talk about Gephardt joining Kerry? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 He endorsed Kerry, but Gep would make a terrible VP nominee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 11, 2004 Neither does anything you post. How cute, you can't actually respond to something so you post something like that. Don't be an idiot. Edwards won't take the VP slot because his political career is so young that it would be foolish to risk getting wrapped up in an administration that would, most likely, receive as much hostility in DC as the Bush administration has. If he just goes back to his Senator seat, he has good chances for 2008. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
