It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why not Gen. Wesley Clark?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 15 2005 @ 04:44 AM
Why wasn't it Wesley Clark who received the nomination of the Democratic Party for candidature for the Presidency? Why John Kerry seemed to be a better candidate? In the elections John Kerry lost.

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 08:58 AM
Kerry won the primaries, and became the Democratic Candidate.

As for why, well, he was perceived as a better candidate by most people. IMO, his ideas, what you think about them, were better developed and more solid than Clark's.

Just 'cause Kerry lost doesn't mean Clark would've won - Odds are he'd have lost by even more.

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 09:18 AM
Clark entered late and never really had time to build a base...that and he looks like a gecko.

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Clark entered late and never really had time to build a base...that and he looks like a gecko.

Clark '08!!!!

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:38 PM
First in his class at West Point
Rhodes Scholar, Oxford graduate
Master’s Degree in economics
Combat veteran - Bronze Star, Silver Star, Purple Heart, Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom
4-star general
NATO Supreme Allied Commander

Voting America simply determined such qualities in a POTUS should be abhored. Clark did enter late in the game and IMO the Iowa & Missouri caucuses is where the grave mistake in judgement occured. Prior to the elections Clark served as a CNN war correspondent covering the intial Iraq invasion, but once he entered the race CNN went a little overboard in distancing themselves to quell any perceived conflicts of interest, making sure Clark received the absolute minimum in campaign coverage, with other networks following suit. You could almost see the jealousy & wounded pride in Judy Wood'drift's eyes when she dug into him.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by Vajrayana]

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 09:52 PM
Yeah, but Churchill was a drunkard who used opium, and didn't FDR fail at the rest of life and use coc aine? Hitler was, iirc, a stellar student, a model citizen, and an honorable military man.

It's not the credentials, but what you do with em, and he wasn't doin' enough.

posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 12:40 PM
You got to remember that the Clintons did not want a viable candidate for the 2004 Presidential election. Hillary wanted 2008 to herself, she did not want to oppose an incumbent Democrat President.

Clark was a last minute choice of the Clintons. The Clintons knew that Dean had momentum, and they had to stop him. They threw Clark in the mix hoping to slow down Dean. They also knew their was no way Clark would get elected, and they knew Kerry was not a threat either. They were scared of Dean though.

It's almost the same thing the Democrats did to AL Sharpton by throwing in Mosely-Braun. They wanted to split the black vote.

So basically you got 8 years of Bush, because of Hillary Clinton. That and the American people know a leader when they see one!

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 05:35 AM

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Moretti]

new topics

top topics


log in