From the Time magazine (web site) article for the September 29, 2003 edition:
Adding luster to Clark’s aura with dissatisfied Democrats is the perception that he is running with the benediction of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The former President has certainly stoked this impression; he has been talking up Clark’s virtues in public and private for months, and a few weeks ago, he declared that his wife and Clark were the “two stars” of the Democratic Party. And no one could fail to notice that the Clark effort is salted with operatives from the campaigns of Clinton and Al Gore, like Mickey Kantor and Mark Fabiani.
The Clintons have anointed General Clark as their choice for the Democrat ticket. I think it is pretty obvious what is about to happen next in this farce. Clark will “ask” Hillary Clinton to be his running mate for the 2004 election. Clark has come out of nowhere to become the lead candidate. No one but the Clintons have this kind of power over their party.
Once he is close to winning the nomination of the Democratic party, he will call upon Senator Hillary to relinquish her promise for staying a full term as U.S. Senator. She will comply leap-frogging from her lilypad in New York onto the campaign for the U.S. presidency. For her, it’s a no-lose situation. If Clark wins the presidency, she and Bill can shove their hand up Clark’s ass and use him as their puppet. Then, they can have Hillary run in eight years. If Clark loses, Hillary stays in the Senate and runs in 2008 with no loss in face.
Later in the Time article:
For all the excitement he generated with his announcement, Clark’s first days as a candidate were anything but smooth. Besides his waffle on the Iraq vote, he seemed uncertain about how to answer some straightforward questions that more experienced candidates handle with ease. When the Miami Herald asked his position on the death penalty, Clark endorsed a moratorium on executions, then pleaded, “Stop. Stop. I promised I wasn’t going to take a strong position.” His campaign first said he would participate with the nine others in this week’s Democratic debate in New York, then said he wouldn’t because he was committed to making a paid speech in Texas, then reversed again and said he would.
Don’t be fooled. When Clark is asked any opinion on anything, he seems extremely indecisive. Whenever he states a position on an issue, he seems to retract it within a few days. If you want 16 more years of the Clintons, feel free to vote for Clark in November 2004. Personally, I would rather have candidates that actually plan on running the country.
Clark’s a ween.
More later. Too tired from traveling to post meaningfully.
I had to delete a comment from someone calling himself Zacarias Moussaoui. Find some other bathroom wall to write on, Zac, or else I’ll have a chat with your ISP.