Why is Wes Clark not the front-runner?

[rpf113]

In poll after poll it is obvious that Clark is the most popular candidate on the DU. Not only that but it seems that the vast majority of the more 'mainstream' Democrats favor him over Kerry. So why is Kerry the one steamrolling through the primaries?

Do you think there is going to be a Clark surprise on Feb. 3rd? Do us more 'mainstream' DUers represent the real Dem population?

Somebody, throw me a bone here!

[displacedtexan]

1. Did you read the Zogby breakdown posted earlier?

I was really surprised that Clark isn't polling as well as I thought he would. I don't get it, either.

[Skittles]

2. Clark is their worst nightmare

the corporate press is doing its duty - ignoring Clark.

[piece sine]

3. Mr. Clark's positions and soundbites

leave at LOT to be desired. He has a bewildered, "deer-caught-in-the headlights," stare we haven't seen since Dan Quayle. And folks around here don't want another Dan Quayle.

[laruemtt]

6. he happens to have the most gorgeous eyes

that have come down the political pike in a long while. just

because they're unusual in their intensity, don't confuse with:

"bewildered, "deer-caught-in-the headlights," stare" - dan quayle could only dream of having those eyes!

[bowens43]

12. Yes, gorgeous eyes

are certainly an important quality for the presidency.......LOL.

[laruemtt]

15. "gorgeous" as in

alive with depth and intensity. that's what i call gorgeous!

[MoonRiver]

18. Doesn't hurt during a campaign though!

:loveya:

[hlthe2b]

8. For heaven's sakes.....

NO matter who you support, you can't honestly make a comparison between Clark, an intelligent, accomplished Rhodes Scholar and four star general and Dan Quayle-- the frat boy whose lack of intelligence was as much a lack of desire to apply himself as a lack of intellect (much like someone else we know).

Such a ridiculous statement...

[piece sine]

62. here's the rub....

Both Quayle and Clark are hollow pretty-boys. Clark has literally no chance, even with the so-called most gorgeous eyes... an honor which belongs to Paul Newman, by the way, NOT Wesley Clark.

All this doesn't matter...by the middle of February, Clark will be history. He stands no chance whatsoever..why waste your breath defending him?! Can't you find a REAL Democrat to champion?

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. If there's ONE person

in this race who cannot be compared to Dan Quale, it's Wesley Clark. Dan Quayle is of the George Bush intelligience or LACK thereof...not very bright...IMO. Wesley Clark is NOT a Dan Quayle. :eyes:

How does General Wesley Clark compare to legendary West Point Generals? See for yourself.

1. General Robert E. Lee - Class of 1829 #2 in class of 46
(Civil War)
2. General Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 #21 in class of 39
(Civil War)
3. General John J. Pershing - Class of 1886 #30 in class of 76
(World War I)
4. General Douglas MacArthur - Class of 1903 #1 in class of 94
(World War II + Korea)
5. General George S. Patton -Class of 1909 #46 in class of 153
(World War II)
6. General Dwight Eisenhower - Class of 1915 #61 in class of 164
(World War II)
7. General William Westmoreland - Class of 1936 #112 in class of 276
(Vietnam)
8. General Norman Schwarzkopf - Class of 1956 #43 in class of 480
(Dessert Storm)
9. General Wesley Clark - Class of 1966 #1 in class of 579
(NATO/Kosovo)

Definitely one of the smartest generals in U.S. history.

General Wesley K. Clark
• West Point Valedictorian
• Oxford University Masters Degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics
• Rhodes Scholar
• Vietnam Veteran
• Four Star General
• NATO Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) - Kosovo
• Board Chairman Wavecrest
Technologies
• CNN Analyst
• Author

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. Let's not forget: Speaks 4 languages, 3 Masters degrees

n/t

[digno dave]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

you funny!!!

[digno dave]

57. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

you funny!!!

[xrepub]

69. comparison

Comparing Clark to Quayle is like comparing Dean to Bush. Probably the most ridiculous comment I've heard here.

[mikehiggins]

4. Clark is climbing uphill in the face of an avalanche

Having more adherents on DU means absolutely squat out there in the real world. This board gets "watched" by outsiders to get an idea what the more leftist leaning Dems are saying among themselves but the actual impact of what goes on here is negligible.

We fight among ourselves like a herd of cats, and it is interesting to take part in the battles, but those battles are essentially of little concern outside our halls.

We prevail here because we have simply outnumbered our opponents, by and large (and they are wrong, of course), and that is that.

In the big world, most of the people have not even paid attention to the process, and won't sign on until the primaries are long over. The people who fear Clark's candidacy--and we all know who they are--do not consider him much of a threat BUT take time out of their busy schedules to blast him because he attacks their boy from an area that they long felt secure in, i.e. national security.

The only other candidate with similar credentials is Kerry but he carries along with him a decades-long resume that will be all but impossible to sell to the majority of voters in November, no matter how validating it might be to DU'ers. The only threat from the national security side--the traditional safe haven for the GOP--is Clark.

Soooo...

You get what you saw on Thursday night, and other times, when the only mention made of Clark is to hammer him.

George Bush could, as the old saying goes, get caught in bed with a dead woman AND a live boy AND still be preferable to the corporate whores than Wes Clark.

So we have a real fight on our hands and the odds are against us.

On the other hand, I cannot remember seeing Clark so relaxed and in command as he was at the debate. It was as if the nervous, tense guy of the last four months had gone off on a six month cruise and come back tanned, relaxed and very, very, very on message. Good to see, even if the media bullshit artists went after him again.

I am optimistic for the 3rd. I even sent out postcards to Missouri. Let's hope it all helps, and keep on believing.

[vi5]

5. I think there are a few reason....

First off, I like Clark. A lot. I'd be super happy if he were our nominee.

But I think there is some trepidation about a few things. People say they want outsiders and people who aren't career politicians. However, I think it's like the Seinfeld bit about men and having two women at the same time. In theory it sounds great but in reality most of us could never do it. Political outsiders are the same thing. In theory we all love the idea. However, when it comes time to elect someone who doesn't have full and thorough experience in politics then they get scared and run from it.

I think the other thing is that his interest in politics is relatively new. It is good for generating interest and I think his image has bolstered the democratic party where we needed it most. But for someone who had never talked about politics previously to suddenly start with the highest office in the land.....Well I give Clark credit for getting as far as he did, but people are always going to be suspicious of that.

Like I said, I like Clark. And I hope he has some place in the next administration if he doesn't end up pulling through with the nomination.

[Skwmom]

11. The Republicans are going to have a field day

constantly repeating that the Democratic party would not elect someone like Clark who is strong on defense because they are a party of people who are weak on national defense.

[bowens43]

24. So we need to become like them to beat them?

How would that be a win? You want to let the repugs pick our candidate for us? I don't.

[Bread and Circus]

36. Also a very good post, and I think you are so right.

[democratreformed]

71. OMG, I hadn't though of this one.

And I can definitely see it happening.

[Bread and Circus]

35. Very good post

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Knee-jerk reaction to his being in the military, I think

Especially when we're mired down in the war on "terra".

He needs to REALLY get out the message about how wrong the war in Iraq is. But h's going to have a tough sell for the crowd who thinks all war is wrong and who will hold Bosnia over his head.

[bowens43]

9. DU is the ONLY place I see support for Clark.

It amazes me that so many here support him. I don't know a single Democrat outside of DU who will vote for him the primaries. He has no record of supporting our party or our causes , this makes people justifiably suspicious. He has no relevant experience, this makes people leary. His policy positions have absolutely no chance of passing in a republican controlled congress, this makes people wonder if he actually understands how our government functions, he had lavish praise for republican administration both past and present, this makes people question his judgment, he flip flopped on the Iraq war issue, this makes people question his sincerity.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that mainstream democrats favor him over Kerry, almost all of the polls say otherwise. Will Clark surprise us on the 3rd? I doubt it. I expect him to do well in Oklahoma, maybe second place and to bomb everywhere else.

[Eurobabe]

19. total BS

I know many Democrats and others outside of this silly little world here on DU that support Clark. Don't forget, a month ago, this place was crawling with Dean supporters and Kerry was declared dead. We know nothing.

[bowens43]

23. No, it's not BS.

Like I said, I (that's I, Me as in myself) have not met or talked to a single Democrat who will vote for Clark in the primaries. Not one, zip, zero. I talk to a lot of Democrats on a regular basis, none of them want to see Clark get the nomination. Most of them will vote for him in the general election ( I won't) if by some unexpected twist of fate he gets the nomination, but no one I associate with will vote for him in the primaries for the reasons I have stated in the other post. Call it BS if you must but that's my experience.

[MoonRiver]

26. I suspect your information comes from a very limited and biased sample.

A better cross section is DU, where few of us know each other personally and where we hail from all over the country.

[bowens43]

31. My sample is comprised of about 30 people

(friends, family and co-workers) from Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virgina and Arizona. All life long Democrats. Biased? Why , because we don't believe Clark is good for our party? We don't agree on much , some of us are for Dean, some for Kerry some for Edwards and a couple (my Ohio family members)are for Kucinich but we do agree that Clark is not someone we want representing our party or running our country.

DU is certainly NOT a better cross section. DU is made up , for the most part, of hard core political junkies. We are the nerds of politics. We do NOT represent mainstream Democrats.

[Nashyra]

75. Glad I don't know or talk to the people you do

Clark has the largest organization where I live although we are a small town and has a large organization only behind Dean in Reno and I have only talked to one or two who regularly log on to DU. For the most part these are very smart well informed voters..Enviromentalist, retired military, blue collar and from where I live moderate Republicans. There is a large meeting happening on the 2nd up here with quite a few moderates who are actively campaigning for Clark. Their reason for voting for Clark whether they are Democrat or Repuke is pure and simple National Security. My dad has a group of Veteran, Combat Veterans from Korea who will most definitely support him in the primaries and in the General Election. I to have talked to many many many Democrats and they support whole heartedly Clark. Their biggest complaint is that the media does not give him enough press coverage.
If you don't plan to vote for him in the General Election obviously that is your choice and no one should condemn anyone who votes period, however after the election and * is re elected you should probably keep your complaints of the re elected * administration to a minimum. Change at times is painful, however it is change none the least and has the potential for greater and better things rather than continuing the status quo. To not vote for the Dem candidate whoever that might be IMO is worse than voting for the *. This idiot needs to be tossed from office for the unnecessary death of over 500 young women and men. He needs to held accountable and every person who takes office after him needs to know that they will be tossed out for lying and deceiving the majority of the American people. ABB is not only a political statement it is a survival statement for Democracy.

[mikehiggins]

27. Aww, someone might get the impression you don't like Clark n/t

[bowens43]

32. Really?

I think the only thing worse then Clark getting the nomination would be Clark in the oval office.

[GiovanniC]

49. Wow, Really?

Because I can't think of ANYTHING worse than the evil chimpanzee in the White House getting signed on for four more years.

If you think Chimp-boy is evil now, think of this -- he has had to tone it down so that he has a chance at re-election. If we don't win back the White House in November, we'll have four more years of an evil madman having more power than any other individual in the world -- WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO VOTERS.

If you think that electing General Clark would be worse than that, then you're delusional, quite frankly.

[Bread and Circus]

38. Your Us vs Them talk does more harm than good.

And it sounds just like what we are trying to remove from the WH.

[Auntie Bush]

64. You sound like a Republican!

[Justice]

78. Clark Has WideSpread Support

Your strident repeated statements smearing Clark sound more like Major Garrett of Faux News than statements of a truly unbiased individual reporting on what he or she sees out in their neck of the woods.

Said another way, your repeated bias against Clark makes statements like this highly suspect and untrustworthy. I don't believe what you say.

[MoonRiver]

10. I've wondered about all the above too.

I think it comes down to hatred of * outweighing Clark's appeal. Clark has only been visible a very short time, and hasn't a proven track record for winning. Dems want * out so much that when push comes to shove they're more willing to bet on a known quantity, Kerry, whose won numerous elections, and seems to have the 'momentum' to storm right on to the WH. Of course this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy at some point, but nonetheless it appears to be happening.

Here's my take on what's happening on DU. We're hard core activists, who are really sold on our chosen candidates. Clark, especially, seems to have a magnetic appeal that that not only sticks but grows as one learns more about him. But the average Dem is mainly thinking about how badly things suck under *. I know Clark could beat the &%$# out of His Lowness, and make an absolutely awesome leader, but I've researched and studied the candidates intensely. It's different outside this activist beltway.

[Indiana Democrat]

14. He's an amature...

...and it's painfully obvious.

[mikehiggins]

33. It wasn't that obvious during the last debate, was it?

Our guy came off pretty good compared to the rest of the people on the stage, and that's after four months of campaigning, as opposed to years and years and years.

Clark brings a certain authenticity to the campaign that is missing in the "professional politicians" that make up the rest of the field.

And before you jump on me about it, I know Sharpton is not an elected official. To deny he is a "pro" would be silly, however.

The early front-loaded primary season works against us, of course. Clark is a new face and the ABB folks among the general population are looking for a more established contender, despite the dangers involved in nominating Kerry.

The stakes this time are just too high to nominate Kerry, but that is what seems to be happening. Too bad, since this may be the very last time we get the chance to vote in an election. Tommy Franks has warned that another successful terrorist attack within the US could lead to the collapse of civilian government and the establishment of a military command to run the nation.

The fact that he would even say something like in public that shows how serious the threat we face from this regime really is.

It can't happen here? Don't believe it for a second. We are the longest lived democracy on the planet. That doesn't mean the US will stay that way forever. This isn't just another election.

[BootinUp]

42. sp tip: amateur :)

and I disagree, he is better than people are giving him credit for.

[Shanty Oilish]

16. His idea of an entry-level position

---is not mine!
It's like if someone new in town ran for mayor, what would you think? What if he decided to run first and moved there second?

[mikehiggins]

37. Would that be like Arnold? Or Mike Bloomberg?

Both of them started out running for big time political office, and won.

Governor of the biggest state in the Union?

Mayor of the premier city in America?

I guess they don't count, right?

Experience is good, but most guys don't want to marry whores. Your belief that professional politicians, the people who put us in this mess, can be trusted to lead us out of it is touching and charming, sort of like a kid's belief in the tooth fairy.

Unfortunately, this tooth fairy in Washington is punching our teeth out and keeping the money people hope to find under the pillow.

What we need is someone new, and Clark fits the bill exactly.

[Shanty Oilish]

41. Projecting, aren't you?

"Sort of like a kid's belief in the tooth fairy." Your belief in the unknown merchandise that is General Clark, is of that character.

Your condescension gave me leave to respond in kind, I would not be the one to initiate that sort of tactic. But was it really the best you could do?

[mikehiggins]

43. What is unknown? What is known?

Clark's record is pretty much an open book.

I am looking for a candidate who can beat George Bush with a story that can be sold to the American public in terms palatable to them.

Clark fills that bill.

I once got called, right here on DU, one of the most cynical people around. It may well be the truth. I've been doing this political stuff for a long, long time and if you think my comment is condescending, well maybe it was. It was not meant as a personal attack on you as an individual, but as a comment on the position you are posting on this board.

On the other hand, even if my "condescension" was the only thing you took from what I wrote, I believe I made my point fairly clearly.

[Shanty Oilish]

45. As a matter of fact

There WAS one other thing that stood out in your comments. Equating professional politicians with whores. Broad brush there.
How do you feel about lobbyists?

[dogman]

53. Who's earning there money?

A politician's job is to represent the people, a lobbyist's job is to represent his client. Not all lobbyists pay but these politicians all take.

[Shanty Oilish]

56. Professionals

I'm thinking if professional politicians are whores, professional lobbyists must be whores with health certificates.

And I wonder if soldiers aren't professional killers, too.

For the record (and the obtuse), I don't believe they are.

[dogman]

63. I guess that's why he lost the job.

Since he would not support Bush he was let go. I guess he just wasn't a pro. I still don't understand how a lobbyist is a whore since they aren't taking money to sell out there sworn interests. By your definition any who works for a living is a whore.

[Shanty Oilish]

68. Not my definition

Read upwards in the thread. I was making counterpoint to another's comments.

[xultar]

17. How can you be a frontrunner if the

mediawhores continue to pronounce you dead and continue to ignore your candidacy? I have never been more digusted than I am right now . The media bias exists againt Clark has been target for destruction by kkkarl rove It is more clear every day. What is depressing me the most is we , the candidates and the establishment bought into it.
:grr:

[MidwestMomma]

20. I think the media would ignore hime

If he painted his body blue and dressed up in a kilt like a Celtic warrior.

Xultar do you have the 'I've been looking at the latest polls' blues? I know I do.

I need a smack of optimism this morning. Any takers?

[Indiana Democrat]

21. THE BIG BAD MEDIA!!

It's pretty amazing, really...

They are against Dean.

They are against Kucinich.

They are against Edwards.

Hell, the pukes say they are against them.


EXCUSES, ESCUSES, EXCUSES!

I'm starting to wonder if "The Media" even exists at all.

[MidwestMomma]

22. Yes the media's manipulation of our primaries is amazing

I'm glad you agree!

[mikehiggins]

39. Cute, Indy, but come back in a day or so and see if you have the

same attitude.

I would remind you that Clark came in third in New Hampshire but the media only cares to discuss Kerry, Dean and Edwards. It has been like that for a long time.

Last night I listened to an in-depth assessment of the campaign in which everyone still running was discussed, yet somehow Clark's name never came up.

I have watched political talk shows dealing with the primaries in which Clark's name was not even mentioned once in a complete hour.

You may think that is accidental. You may also believe in the Easter Bunny.

Now its Kerry's turn in the barrel.

[Jerseycoa]

60. Spank you, too

:spank:

[Auntie Bush]

70. "Buck up and Suck Up" We're going to win.

At least in a few states...then the media will have to mention him and who knows...maybe Kerry will stumble on something. Look what happened to Dean. Maybe the Repubs will do a little damage to Kerry since he seems the winner. Then Clark will be there ready to pick up the pieces. If, a big if, Edwards doesn't do well in SC and drops out maybe his Southern supporters will vote for Clark. So cheer up! And I'll try and take my own advice.

[Jerseycoa]

59. Spank you

:spank:

[peaches2003]

25. Because

his positions have changed- he appears to be a Republican who supported Bush who now changes everything he said to be a Dem; because he is awful in the debates- doesn't appear to know a damn thing about domestic policy or have much knowledge about these topics; because you need political experience to run in a Presidential election; because he is 'deer in the headlights'; because he is an amateur at this. He needs experience in politics.

[Auntie Bush]

72. Doesn't say anything about domestic issues in the debate because

know one asks him a policy question. When the moderator says, "When did you discover you were a Democrat" or "Do you think the POTUS is a deserter?" How can he talk about policy? Don't criticize him...critisize the cooperate media who scared to death of him. You are only helping republicans with their job.

[JPJones]

28. Clark has grassroots support...

Dean has tremendous support but I think they aren't posting as often now.

When Kerry came to St. Louis, the mayor had to call his own supporters so that the room wouldn't be empty.

But grassroots doesn't win elections. Good TV wins elections. Clark has stumbled here.

As someone on local radio said, "I heard how brilliant Clark was, but on TV he hasn't come across as brilliant yet".

[NicRic]

29. Because he can win !

Thats right ,Clark scares the repugs out of their skin ! So of course since they own the media ,they are going to do everything possible to convince the Dems someone else has a better chance, and ignore Clark ! Hopefully the Dems will see thru this and pick a winner ,that being Wes Clark ! With all of the professional politicians running ,its so refreshing to have a Dem to pick that is not a professional politician , a brilliant man , who will actually make change for the better ! Wake up Dems ,we must get bush out in 2004 ,we must pick Wes Clark to do so !

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicRic]

34. Clark voted for Gore in 2000 !

So how does that make him a reepug ! Check your facts out ,and listen to his stand on the issuses , then think about your twisted opinion of Clark .The media has you thinking exactly what they want you to about Clark ! Wrong wrong and wrong ! Clark and Clinton are buddies , Iam sure they have talked , and I believe Clark when he says he has Dem values and best interest at heart !

[mikehiggins]

40. This is beyond that point, Nic

There are some folks on DU that are beyond reaching, beyond discussion. They trot out the same old lines, the same old distortions and simply refuse to consider any refutations you might give them.

Charly Rangel, David Dinkins, Bill Clinton, George McGovern and slews of others accept Clark as a Democrat. Still, the same old, same old charges keep coming up.

Richard Perle testifies in Congress that Clark is against the war, but the same old, same old charges of waffling come up time and time again. Who would know better who opposed the war than one of the folks who created it in the first place?

And so on and so forth. Don't even bother with them.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

44. The media has a lot to do with choosing our candidates. Clark didn't

live up to the media's very high expectations so they "slammed" him -then ignored him. Clark's performances have been uneven also. He'll be great at one appearance then less than brilliant at the next.

The media does choose our canidates for us. A candidate has to "court" them, win them over and impress them.

A candidate cannot overcome the media ignoring him - then constantly "slamming" him.

Same thing has happened to Dean. At first, they loved him THEN when he failed to live up to their expectations - they turned on him with a vengeance.

The same thing will happen to Kerry if he fails to live up to their expectations or if he "falters." They will turn on someone in a minute.

[union_maid]

47. The RW did its job

The Media is an Ass, to paraphrase. There are some idealogically driven media outlets, of course - Faux being the king in that category. Most of them just have a pack mentality with real reporting being by and large a thing of the past. When Clark first declared he was getting coverage and the RW sent out a barrage of talking points, many of which were picked up by some on the left. Since that time most questions addressed to him in interviews and debates have been of the "Gotcha" variety and very little time has been left for subsantive discussion, which is where he shines.

[Bad Thoughts]

48. His military career

After talking to a lot of NH voters, I know that people are suspicious of Clark as a man with a long military career. Democrats who vote in primaries tend not to know what the military does. They like soldiers--heroes with chivalric stories--who put down their guns to follow other paths in life. In their minds, Kerry fought the good fight and left to do something more productive, but Clark never quite left the jungles of Viet man. Furthermore, there is little appreciation of how Clark's service to America required him to deal with shady people and institutions. How many times must we hear questions or read posts about the hat exchange or SOA? Furthermore, there has been little appreciation of the non-partisan traditions of military men (I have yet to find one person who can tell me why asking soldiers to choose a party is a good idea).

One of the reasons why we should respect and appreciate Clark and other veterans is that they do things for us that demean their own spirits. It is not just that they put themselves in harms way. They must deal with corrupt people in foreign governments. They must deal with people inside our own government who want to politicize the army. And they must kill. Yes, every politicians and candidate whom we celebrate is responsible for the death of others. Clark, Kerry, Rangel, Cleland, Carter, Kennedy, ... . This service to their country does not translate to the minds of voters.

[Shanty Oilish]

50. Civilian authority in American tradition

In post 33 here: "Tommy Franks has warned that another successful terrorist attack within the US could lead to the collapse of civilian government and the establishment of a military command to run the nation."

I agree this is a serious concern.

You write that military "service to their country does not translate to the minds of voters." If you haven't read it I recommend The Right of the People by William O. Douglas. His discussion of "the civilian authority" in particular.

[Bad Thoughts]

54. Thanks. I'll check it out. eom.

[mmonk]

51. I have an independent friend

who usually votes repub nationally and dem locally. At first, he said he didn't know enough about him. He watched two debates. He saw last night's and now thinks Clark is the best one for the job. He said he seemed to have his head on his shoulders and wasn't sitting there promising everything to everybody. He said he appeared informed and smart. The problem is exposure, mostly. Not much and media critics cut him down. This independent southerner says he WILL NOT vote bush this time. He likes primarily Clark, then Dean. He has the most problem with Edwards and Kerry. Just giving you an example of an independent's view from NC.

[mmonk]

61. Also

my Independent friend thinks Lieberman will bow out next.

[John_H]

52. FEAR. The GOP knows Clark would end their reign of terra.

[Clark Can WIN]

55. Familiarity factor

It's taken people a while to get to know him, and to understand that he DOES have a great handle on domestic issues as well. As familiarity grows, the poll numbers continue to rise.

After Feb. 3 they just won't be able to ignore us anymore.

GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK ! GO CLARK !

[sendero]

58. I like Clark a lot...

... and every time I've seen him on TV he was on top of the interview and would not let some dickhead "journalist" corner him.

I think his difficulties stem from:

1) He was talking up Bush* not that long ago. This election is going to be a referendum of anger over Bush whether the white house or the media likes it or not.

2) He putzed around and wasted precious time "deciding" whether or not to get in the race. I thought then and think now that was a mistake.

3) And lastly - this one is tough for me. Clark seems like a very sincere person to me. But some people can fake that really well. When he talks about policies and priorities, I agree with damn near every word he says. His 'liberal' voice is well-honed. But I do sometimes wonder how a 4-star general can really think this way. I know it shows a certain bias on my part, but sometimes I wonder if I'm being played. I'm not saying I *think* I am, I am putting forth the possiblity. And suspecting that I'm not the only one.

I'd take Clark over the current front-runner in a heartbeat, even with my doubts. But honestly, it will take a miracle for his campaign to really take off at this point IMHO.

[mmonk]

66. Time will tell

Everybody thought Kerry was done not very long ago. His problem is exposure and the media attempts to dismiss him as much as anything. A victory in a state or strong showing could turn the whole complexion of the race (ie: Edwards).

[LoneStarLiberal]

65. We're Not Representative

DU isn't a representative sample of the wider national Democratic population. That's why we see anomalies of support here that don't translate into the wider populace.

[On the Road]

67. I Think ALL FOUR Major Candidates

are underestimating the importance of economic and domestic issues. All the talk is on Iraq, terror, and security. But elections are won on pocketbook issues. Clark unfortunately has the least experience, even if his platform is good.

[copithorne]

74. It baffles me, as well

It baffles me, too. People are looking for electability. There's only one candidate I see who can beat George Bush like a drum.

My reasons why he's not the frontrunner:

1. 'He's not a Democrat.' We're talking about Democratic primary voters here being asked to trust a four star general who used to vote for Republicans. For me, as someone who trusts Wesley Clark, these factors about Wesley Clark are powerful political virtues. They will help him attract millions of voters to our progressive platform. For people who don't trust Wesley Clark; he's not a Democrat.

2. People don't know how to judge character. They don't know what it looks like. They don't trust their ability to see it. The overwhelming majority of people are lost in the world of image and appearance and so Clark's character and integrity just can't be seen and appreciated.

3. The media is doing a coordinated hit on Wesley Clark because he is the strongest, most electable Democrat. That makes a huge difference.

4. Kerry's numbers are inflated by momentum. It hardly seems like hard support. If that momentum can be arrested, a new frontrunner can emerge. Or, if we can make it a two man race, Clark's virtues will stand out more.

[edzontar]

73. DU support for Clark has always been skewed

There was a flood os supporters all at once afeter Clark declared.

Now that Clark is fading, I notice some are switching to Kerry.

[Fleshdancer]

76. I think Clark should have jumped in the ring earlier

other than that, he's just not getting the media attention he needs.

[TexasPatriot]

77. Because the press was prepared for a 2 man race

and Dean is still considered tenable. When he fails to win a state next week, he wont be - but then the press will assume that means its over. Clark can and will win states next week - its the only way we avoid a Kerry nomination.