I admit it--Gen. Clark is now the front runner for nomination

[CMT]

I am in Dr. Dean's corner, but I now have come to the conclusion that at this early stage that Gen. Clark has now emerged as the "front-runner" for the 2004 Democratic nomination. This is not to say that he will definitely get it. But in the few days since he has announced he has now taken leads in two national polls, the latest released today giving him a nine-point lead nationally over second place Dean.

Of course, it is Lieberman who appears to have been affected most since for much of the year he has led most polls nationally--even as he has been dropping like a rock most every place else. But this just goes to show how fickle the Democratic vote is right now. The real test will be if Clark will sustain this initial burst of popularity.

Of course, I'm actually happy that Dean is not running first in the polls. The front runner status has some positives, but at this early stage it also has lots of negatives such as constant sniping at by your primary competition. Oh, I'm sure Dean will still get that, but now it will, most probably, be divided between the Doctor and the General.

It's looking like the ride to the nomination will be like a rollercoaster. It should be fun to watch and participate in.

[deutsey]

1. Let's hope at the end of the ride we won't want to

:puke:

:evilgrin:

[CMT]

6. I agree

and I think Dean still has a good shot at the nomination. His supporters are committed and his message is strong. He and we will work hard to achieve it. Look, he was at 2% with little chance of winning nomination in January and see where he is now. He is also going to out raise everyone (with small donations) this quarter raising (probably) over $20 million which will help us compete hard in early primary and caucus states. I just think it is a good thing that Dean has this--I would rather he came on strong in January.

[Mz Pip]

2. I thought Clark had

a rough start, but I guess I was being too critical. It just goes to reinforce the growing dislike for Bush. If a candidate with no political experience who is being trashed by the press can some out of nowhere and poll ahead of a sitting war time president I think we may have a a chance of ousting Bush regardless of who the nominee is. :-)

MzPip
:dem:

[Julien Sorel]

4. He did have a rough start, but the public isn't watching

closely, plus they know people make mistakes, and are generally willing to cut folks some slack. Look at what they've done with Bush. It's one of the better (and worse) traits of our countrymen.

[Larkspur]

3. Clark's front-runner status is based on a bubble

Let's see how he handles the ardorous race for the nomination. So far, I'm not impressed.

[davidinalameda]

12. he hasn't been running since 2000 unlike some candidates

he doesn't have the campaign experience that some do since they've been running since December 2000

[Larkspur]

26. No, but he's gotten free publicity from his CNN stint

so his bubble is based more on name recognition than merit. Dean's support is very loyal because he's had to work hard for it since he didn't have the name recognition that the other top-tier candidates and Wesley Clark have.

[Speck Tater]

5. At this stage it's all just name recognition

When the voters start watching Clark shoot himself in the foot, and start hearing more about where he stands on the issues, or doesn't stand, or stood yesterday but not today, or stands on odd-numbered days, ...

I don't see how any voter can take this guy seriously.

And if rumors of his monumental ego are true I can't see Clark standing still for being scripted. At some point he will chafe at the puppet-master's string pulling and self-destruct by shooting off his mouth in some very damaging way.

[Mz Pip]

8. Fair enough

but I've been watching Clark for sometime now and have yet to see the arrogant, hot headed egotist that many of his detractors have described. If none of these "rumors" manifest themselves on the campaign trail the allegations mean diddly squat.

MzPip
:dem:

[returnable]

13. A bit overdone

Clark had a rough couple days, but geez, ALL of the candidates have tripped over their own words in this campaign.

I mean, Dean has practically made an art of saying one thing, only to have someone in his camp issue a retraction or a qualifier immediately after.

That's not a bash. It's just an observation. And everyone is guilty of the same.

People making a mountain out of Clark's so-called "flip-flops" aren't paying enough attention to their own candidates.

[Zero Gravitas]

7. Clark can beat Bush

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-09-22-bush-poll.htm

Clark 49%
Smirk 46%

Of course more than a year out from the election anything can happen. If Clark plays his cards right he can beat Bush*. And thats all I care about, getting Bush* out of the White House. I don't need a candidate that I agree with 100% on every issue, I want a candidate that will save our country from these loonies.

[grasswire]

10. I predicted months ago...

...that when people were presented with someone who would make them feel safer than sticking with Bush, his numbers would drop dramatically.

That has happened. Clark steals the security issue immediately.

[phegger]

25. Agreed..

Haven't seen the numbers on this part yet, but apparently the big shift has been among male voters.


-ph B-)

[mlawson]

9. I can not believe that powerful Dems like Kerry and Gep

will allow themselves to be cast aside by a 'newcomer' like Gen Clark. They have so many connections with the power brokers and those who control the Party war chest, that they (esp Kerry) can easily get themselves installed as nominee, once the primary season actually begins. IMO, Clark is running for VP, and thus hurts Edwards the most.

I am still absolutely convinced that Kerry will be nominated, and Clark and Edwards will have to fight it out for VP.

[Kahuna]

14. the voters have more to say about that than Gep and Kerry.

Unless they can vote for themselves over and over, it's still up to us individuals.

[mlawson]

18. Individuals are subject to manipulation

by the party machine, which can inject tremendous amounts of funding and other advantages to their picked candidate. This is nothing new, but is something very old. Both parties do it; it's the system.

Recent examples: Mondale in 1984; Dole in 1996; Carter in 1980.

Kerry or Gep in 2004, I would wager.

[janekat]

19. But it already happened to them with Dean....

don't get what you mean by that.

The only person who's numbers are going down are Dean's. Kerry's numbers have gone up slightly.

[mlawson]

23. I am reminded of gary Hart in 1984.

We thought he had it all sewn up. Then *something* changed, Mondale mysteriously began to soar, the party fell in line behind him, and Hart was dismissed publicly by Tip O'Neil: "It's okay, Son, you can have your chance in 1988". BTW, this was way before the Donna Rice affair.

[starscape]

11. Airing my uneasiness... on Clark - do I worry too much?

I was going to make this a new thread, but in the efforts of keeping the thread count low, I will post it here. Please indulge me and let me know your thoughts.. thanks.
------------


Let me preface this by saying that I like General Clark a lot, and I have stated it on this web site often recently. I also am appalled by the level of character attacks and cheap shots that have been taken at him here, especially last week (Friday was especially bad if I remember). Most of it seemed to come from Deanies, though there was a healthy variety of people from other camps joining in the "trash-the-candidate" bandwagon.

Now.. with that out of the way.. I want to offer an honest take on an uneasy feeling I am getting around the Clark campaign. If he really is "anointed" by the Clintons, that bothers me, because strategically, I don't see how they favor putting a winning candidate up there in 2004.

I like Clinton.. I like both Clintons, but there is no doubt they play the game. B.C. has made some statements that raised my eyebrows, not the least of him recently mentioning that he was sure NY voters would "forgive" Hillary if she entered the race (which meant, to me, that she might still). Sorry I cannot provide the link - if I find it I will.

But also concerning me is the fact that the Clark strategists, if they did come out of the Clinton machine, seem to be making some questionable moves. The first was putting Clark on his plane with three top political reporters: Adam Nagourney of the New York Times, the Washington Post's Joanna Weiss and Johanna Neuman of the Los Angeles Times… right after he announced his candidacy. They grilled him, he dodged or said "I don't know," and that in-flight interview was where the alleged and now-infamous "Mary, help!" statement came from.

Why would his consultants allow this to happen? And why is his web site slow to present his stance on the issues (which I've seen in his transcripts and are in the right direction, in my opinion)…

Is there any possibility of a strange Clinton sabotage move, wherein they want Clark to get the nomination, only to lose the office? Or.. just as bad.. they want him to weaken the field in the case of Hillary jumping in?

I know this is kind of sounding crazy.. I guess you can tell, I don't really trust people that much. I'm not really a conspiracy nut, but I see anything involved in politics as being inherently dirty, until proven otherwise.

Any thoughts?

[TLM]

15. National polls test name recognition at this stage...

Just look at Lieberman’s positions on those national polls vs he positions on likely voter polls in the upcoming primary states.

Clark has great name recognition. But at this stage, I wouldn’t call him the front runner.

[grasswire]

21. sorry

I don't think your premise is correct. A poll issued Friday showed that most people could not identify Clark. His name recognition was very low. I think it's a newsweek poll. Of course, things could have changed dramatically between the time of that poll and the time of this new CNN poll.

[phegger]

27. the same poll also said...

...that while 38% had a favorable impression of Clark, 45%? (not positive, am doing this from memory) said they were unfamiliar with him. So I'm not sure that it is name recognition.

It's early...I'm not ready to annoint anyone yet, nor break out the champagne. I believe * and co. would do just about anything for re-election, and I don't put it past them to try.

But man, it sure looks like he's toast, doesn't it??!


-ph B-) B-)

[Pepperbelly]

16. Clark's timing has been impeccable ...

and if his campaign begins to catch due to its own activities rather than hype, he will be peaking at exactly the right time.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Impeccable timing the way Clark overshadowed Edwards' announcement

Impeccable also how people are cheering Clark for who they think he is, rather than for who he really is.

Clark won't denounce Ronald Reagan, Reagan's Administration, or even Reagan's policies. Even a DINO like Evan Bayh would criticize Reagan.

Clark is to the right of Lieberman!

[gully]

24. Clark: In like a Lion, out like a Lamb...

That's my prediction...

[Pepperbelly]

34. mine differs ...

I think he will peak at exactly the right time while Dean peaked a few weeks back. On time. Just as I predicted he would do when he hit the limits of the supporters he could garner with his angry-man thing.

[mlawson]

29. He won't denounce Ronnie, because he wants to WIN.

Big Dog never really slammed Ronnie either; he knew better. The public still just love Ronnie. No, they might not agree with his failed policies, but by golly, they LIKED the Gipper, and would vote for him again. As absurd as we find this, we had better learn it and rememer it.

[Pepperbelly]

33. give it a rest with your ...

slogan shouting. It is tedious.

[IndianaGreen]

37. You ever wonder about Clark's wife?

A non-com veteran would be sitting here like I am wondering if Clark's wife was one of those field grade officer wives that had herself chauffered around by a hapless private.

[Pepperbelly]

38. whatever ...

:eyes:

[Brian Sweat]

40. He's a Green

What do we care what he thinks?
It's like a Republican getting upset because Dean is the leader instead of Zell Miller.

[Pepperbelly]

44. I thought IG was ....

a she.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

50. A she, and a military veteran

with a long association with the military, which is why I am not easily mesmerized by the brass, or generals with Presidential ambitions whose military record can come into question.

Believe me, there are issues about Douglas McArthur own military record, even George Patton. Wesley Clark is no exception!

The man's military record, his command of troops in the field, his tactics, and even the missions that he led, are as legitimate areas of inquiry as a regular politician's voting record. In Clark's case, one also has to consider his business associations after he retired from active duty.

As to my remark about Clark's wife, had any of you served in the military, you would have known exactly were I was coming from because you would have known about, or experienced, how some of the wives of high ranking officers abuse the system having GIs carry grocery bags for them, chauffer them to every conceivable errand, including watching them get their hair done (usually something ghastly), etc.

[Rowdyboy]

22. I agree...

His timing has been excellent. The right man appears just as the bottom drops from under Bush and the public slowly awakens to the mess we're in.

[HFishbine]

17. I

Always thought the addition of Clark to the race would stir things up -- and that's only going to be good for us. Despite the inclination to close ranks behind ABB, our greatest strenght will come from the full debate and vetting of ideas that the primary will provide.

Now, a prediction. Another republican or legitimate right-leaning third party candidate will enter the race. As it starts to look like we dems have a real chance, the right wing will panic and lunge for an alternative to Bush.

[Kahuna]

42. Another prediction: Because Clark looks like he can win...

Nader will run for president. I hope he does. That way the greens will have someone to vote for.

[juajen]

51. Yep, it's Chuck Hagel

N/T

[Dookus]

28. Let's give some credit where it's due...

For months we heard "We don't know if he's even a Democrat". He announced he was.

Then we heard weeks of "Well he's not running yet". Then he announced he was.

Then we heard he was leading the dems. Then we heard "It's all name recognition - he got a lot of press this week."

Now today we hear he's beating Bush in the polls. And we hear the same chorus.

C'mon, guys. Even if he's not your candidate, I find it hard to just explain away EVERY piece of good news for Clark. He appears to be grabbing the white male vote away from Shrub, which is a good thing. He appears to be taking the national security issue away from Bush. Which is a good thing.

I suspect on his inauguration day, we'll hear people say "Well, elections are really just popularity contests - they don't matter."

[Larkspur]

30. Clark has no experience campaigning nor running a civilian political

office.

I do not think that he is qualified to be President. Generals make at best mediocre presidents, and Eisenhower was not a great president.

Since Clark has not really be tested in the campaign, save for his announcement speech, which was uninspiring, this poll is based upon a bubble called name recognition.

[Dookus]

32. That's a perfectly valid opinion.

It seems, though, that many other Democrats don't agree.

My point is simply that we ought to give Clark SOME credit here. He's already done much better than the nay-sayers expected.

Further, I don't think Clark's name recognition is higher than Kerry's, Gephardts, Dean's or even Sharptons. It's not higher than Bushes, that's for sure, and he's beating him in the poll.

[Kahuna]

43. But but..isn't that conceding that national security is an issue?

:eyes: </sarcasm>

Well since Clark is the one in the lead after less than a week, I guess it really is an issue.

[juajen]

52. Hi, Kahuna

Wow, your guy is doing great! I expected this and am happy for the good news the past few days. He certainly has a lot going for him. Has anyone told him not to fly in small planes?

[Orangepeel]

31. I have nothing against Clark. But I want to know more about his stands

Right now, I think that Clark is pretty much the equivalent of "unnamed Democrat" in the polls.

Although I'm a firm Dean supporter, I'm happy to have other strong contenders in the race and I'll listen to what Clark has to say. As of now, though, there are several bread and butter Democratic issues that I'm fuzzy on as to where he stands.

[Bush_has_Parvo]

35. From the latest poll: Ham Sandwich(D) beats Bush*

Media whores have been asking for months whether anyone in the current Democratic field "has what it takes" to defeat Bush.  Of course, the question has always been a ridiculous one.  But as of today, not only is there new evidence that they "have what it takes," but that "what it takes" is a (D) next to one's name, and a pulse (and there is intense disagreement among political prognosticators as to the necessity of meeting the latter criterion).
from Media Whores Online:
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/


Poll results:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-09-22-bush-poll.htm

[Cheswick2.0]

36. he wont stay there, however I agree he has a good chance

If we really care about who wins against Bush in the polls, it is still Al Gore.

[Dookus]

39. sorry...

I think it's important that a candidate actually run for office.

Gore won't win a write-in vote.

[Kahuna]

46. When Gore announces he's running we can discuss that.

Right now, Gore still isn't running and I have moved on and looked to support a candidate who will get revenge for what the bushies did to Gore. Clark is that man. He and Graham are the only candidates who are talking about holding the bushies responsible for 9/11 and the IWR.

[birdman]

41. I think people have projected everything onto Clark that they want

in a candidate and many will be disappointed. He's made
some early gaffes but he's got some powerful supporters.

I don't think he'll get the nomination but if he does he's
still be a hell of lot better than Bush. He'd be surrounded by
Democrats who would pull him in the right direction.


Hell, I'd vote for Douglas fucking MacArthur ahead of Bush.

[Pepperbelly]

45. Hell, I'd vote for JEAN ARTHUR over Bush! nt

[CMT]

47. the actress?

eom. :)

[Pepperbelly]

49. You could pick a name at random from the phone book and ...

still do better than this meglamaniac and the pure, unadulterated evil that is raping our nation.

[Dookus]

48. And I'd vote for...

Gene Autrey, Gene Simmons, Richard Simmons, Richard Lewis, Lewis Black, Jack Black, and Jack Jones over Bush.