Here's why I think Clark is ahead of the pack, in less than a week.

[MoonRiver]

1.) He possesses Democratic values and goals, yet also has the credentials many Indys and Repubs like. This equates to: HE CAN BEAT *,

2.) He's incredibly charismatic, likeable, and good looking (sorry folks, but that does matter),

3.) He's a straight shooter, maybe even too much of one. Many people were ambivalent and confused about what the f... the * cabal was going to do in Iraq. The bottom line is that long before Iraq was an obvious quagmire, and even longer before he announced his candidacy, Clark made it clear that he opposed this illegal war. NUFF SAID.

4.) He stood up against the military/industrial complex, for the good of persecuted people and international law, despite being turned on by "his betters" in the Pentagon.

In summary, I believe General Wesley Clark deserves the Democratic nomination, and would make a wonderful U.S. president.

edited for grammar

[w13rd0]

1. So we can chalk you up as a Clark supporter...

...great, now on to the primary process where we actually make a misbeggoten stab at letting the people choose the candidate...we do still do that, don't we?

[MoonRiver]

2. Yep, but I also really like Dean. He'd get 100% of my support

if he won the nomination. I just hope that whichever one wins, the other will become VP. Pollyannaish? Maybe. Maybe not.

[w13rd0]

3. I understand...

...I think I've made my thoughts known in other threads. I can certainly see Clark getting alot of support from a broad swatch, and I think that's great. He may be just the guy to reach the dissaffected Republican and the Reagan Democrat (or the NASCAR dad as the DLC puts it)...

[bushclipper]

4. Chris Matthews just made a similar comment about the CA debate...

Referring to the JFK/Nixon debate, he said if you heard the debate on the radio, Nixon won. If you read it in the paper, Nixon won. But if you saw it on TV, Kennedy won. Appearance does matter.

[Romberry]

5. Well, let's take that one at a time

You wrote

1.) He possesses Democratic values and goals, yet also has the credentials many Indys and Repubs like. This equates to: HE CAN BEAT

So far I don't see how anyone knows exactly what values and goals Clark possesses. He hasn't made it exactly clear although I am sure he will. So the short answer to number 1 is that you are assuming facts for which there is not yet any real evidence.

2.) He's incredibly charismatic, likeable, and good looking (sorry folks, but that does matter)

You may find Clark "incredibly charismatic" but I don't. He's OK but he's no Bill Clinton. For that matter, he's no John Edwards or Howard Dean.

When I look at Clark I see a general officer. As a former enlisted man, that is not necessarily a good thing.

3.) He's a straight shooter, maybe even too much of one. Many people were ambivalent and confused about what the f... the * cabal was going to do in Iraq. The bottom line is that long before Iraq was an obvious quagmire, and even longer before he announced his candidacy, Clark made it clear that he opposed this illegal war. NUFF SAID.

Clark *may be* a straight shooter but he hasn't shown it yet. As far as Iraq, he has been anything but clear.

4.) He stood up against the military/industrial complex, for the good of persecuted people and international law, despite being turned on by "his betters" in the Pentagon.

Now that is just silly. Clark has been making his living with the MIC since he left the service. Where you get the "stood up to" part is a mystery to me. Like any other person that has attained the rank of general officer in this day and age, Clark had to buy into the whole MIC. If he hadn't, he never would have seen the first star, much less the second, third or fourth.

[marshmellow]

6. Fresh meat always looks better.

The great demonizing media machine of the right hasn't had time enough to drag him down. Republican moderates really do not like GW but are influenced by the demonizers. The demonizers like IMUS, TWEETY, RUSH, etc, will work extra hard to pull up the negatives on Clark.

[Bertrand]

7. The reason Clark has a nearly 2-1 lead over the next candidate

is because people believe he has the best chance of winning in the general election. They feel he is progressive on alot of issues while not being to the point of where he can be marginalized as an "extremist" candidate by the Bush Machine. They feel he has the resume and backround to neutralize the Bush Machine on the only issue where he has major support, that on the "war on terra" and foreign policy. Because of that, he could lead the debate on Domestic issues which is Dem territory. I think these reasons are pretty valid, since he has already polled the best against Bush since entering the race.

[DrBB]

8. Succinctly put. I think it really is that simple.

Thanks Bertrand.

[mpsteve]

10. me too!!!

[Bertrand]

11. Sure

:D And to think i thought i was a cancer here...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. Is Clark the only Democrat left from the military officer corp?

It seems the people running the military have become more and more Republican, and anti-Democratic. It's dangerous for our country to have the military in the hands of one party. Regardless of whatever fictions of self-government we affirm, the obvious dangers of such a situations should be considered carefully.

Clark will play to the left until he wins the primary, and make a sharp right turn in the generals. In the next year I expect patriots will be inclined to vote Democratic, at least because of the television commericals. That is, if the Democratic party is serious about winning.