New poll --- "Terrorism tops list of key 04 issues"

[MIMStigator]

We nominate Clark or we lose.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031229.asp

[killbotfactory]

1. Bush has been horrible on that front.

Bush loses.

[MIMStigator]

3. He gets good ratings on terrorism

That means most voters are idiots so we need a candidate who will be a good president who can also appeal to idiots because of his military expeirence.

[killbotfactory]

8. No, it means our party leadership has been too chickenshit to confront him

Because the polls say Bush is strong on terrorism.

And they want to be popular, so they best not do anything that disagree with the majority of those polled.

It's a self-defeating cycle.

The democratic candidate has to take a stand against Bush and his idiocy.

[WiseMen]

53. Kerry Led Senate in '90s to try to deal with rising threat of Terrorism

In his book, “The New War,” (1997), on the urgent need to new threats to U.S. gobal interest and nation security. But who really cares?
Dean will hire an advisor to fill that hole in his resume.

[killbotfactory]

55. So why did he support invading a middle eastern country

Unilaterally, without seeing a post-war plan, which will undoubtably create more terrorists?

Why was he so gung-ho on trying to attack Iraq? I have only done online research into the subject, but pretty much figured out that taking over a middle eastern country with loose borders that's surrounded by terrorist supporting nations, on a continent brimming with anti-american sentiment, which would take hundreds of thousands of troops to stabalize, was not a good idea.

Did he think it would "drain the swamp"? If so, he must of had his head where the sun don't shine during most of the 90's.

[CWebster]

14. We need a candidate who isn't compromised by his support

of Smirk, so he can stand and call Smirk on his bullshit.

[Justice]

24. No, We Need A Candidate Who Can Get The Job Done

In the end people want to feel safe - economically and security wise. I don't see your tune playing in the general election. I think people will focus on who are we more confident in to make us safer.

[CWebster]

54. Missing the point again

If Democrats weren't so busy bending over for Bush and had stood up to and challenged him, instead of going along so as to not appear unpatriotic, they could be ripping the chimp a new one from Harkin to Halliburton, from 911 to Iraq from the deficit to the education, from the environment to employment. Instead, like well-programmed yes men, they adhere to the Republican game plan.

[Justice]

68. Didn't Miss The Point At All

I am a democrat - Howard Dean is a democrat - what the heck are you talking about lumping all democrats into one group?

My response to your point was that people want a better economy and better security. They will respond to the candidate who they believe can give them that - rather than out of anger at the past.

[HFishbine]

20. "Vote for X -- The Candidate for Idiots"

Most people are not idiots, and it's a sorry appeal to suggest that we nominate someone because he can best win the idiot vote.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. the very point I keep trying to make

Educate the voters, don't pander to their ignorance.

[MIMStigator]

27. Educate the voters? Lost cause

If they still support * they are lost causes so why gamble they can be educated.

[CWebster]

56. And your alternative?

cater to their ignorance? How about, for once, we have a strong and effective spokesman for what our side stands for--who opposes the exposes the lies and corruption of the Right?

[w4rma]

60. If folks gave "good ratings" to jumping off a cliff would you do so, also?

Are we lemmings or leaders?

[ibegurpard]

2. Please explain to me how Clark's sterling military credentials

will protect him from GOP smears. Didn't help Max Cleland a bit.

[MIMStigator]

5. Max didn't fight back like Clark does

Clark will "beat the shit out of them" if they question his patriotism.

[mikehiggins]

43. There is no defense against the kind of smears the GOP used

against Max, except a total offensive. That is what the Invisible Airman will be facing as the year rolls along, between MoveOn and other groups "unaffiliated" with the party, but hammering the pResident unmercifully.

Additionally Clark will be on national tv and in the papers, with his "sterling" credentials out there for all to see along with his medals and his citation, etc., etc. The image will not match up with the smear, just like Bill and Hillary stomped the stories about his infidelities on national TV. Further, Clark will not stop for a moment his criticisms of the IA, whether its a critique of his sorta military service to praise for his overcoming alcoholism and substance abuse.

Again, as I've said before in other threads, the genius idea is to entice the voters to "trade up" to a better President, without rubbing their noses in just how thoroughly duped they've been for the last few years. "I told you so," as someone else said, is not a policy, nor is it a good strategy for winning the hearts and minds and votes of the general public.

Max and others were not prepared for just how low the GOP could go in their sacred mission to drag America back into the 19th century. Now we are.

[quinnox]

4. Dean was done the moment Hussein was captured

But I don't agree that Clark is the only one who can win, Edwards and Gephardt have a shot also.

[TexasPatriot]

9. Kerry could too (nt)

[killbotfactory]

12. Yeah, catching Saddam sure made us safer, huh?

Oh, what's that.. the violence is escalating and the Bush admin are pulling back on attempts to make Iraq a democracy?

Oh... nevermind.

[Justice]

38. Saddam and Safety

Catching Saddam made us safer in the sense that his supporters who held out hope that he would come back into power now have no hope.

I don't think there is a relationship between catching Saddam and the increasing violence and announced pullback on making Iraq a democracy.

IMO, the people that are escalating the violence are not Saddam loyalists. They have various reasons for supporting violence, but with one common objective - to hurt the US as much as possible and gain control of Iraq for themselves.

[Justice]

19. I DisAgree

I don't think Dean was done the moment Hussein was captured. I frankly don't see the link. Can you explain that to me?

I think Dean has alot to offer, on domestic issues and on healthcare.

What I think Dean lacks is foreign policy experience. If terrorism and Iraq are two of the four top issues next year - Dean has a challenge ahead of him to convince voters that he has the profile to handle these issues. I don't think it is enough to say he will appoint a strong foreign policy VP.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. I agree.......

He is the one candidate who can take it to Mr. AWOL shrub. The WH knows it too. That's why RW, WH asskissing talking head pundits are forever defending Dean. They want him. I have never heard any one of those pundits defending Clark. They FEAR him. Big time.

[MIMStigator]

10. Most are not "anti war" or anti Iraq war

Clark can criticize Iraq war and convince people it was wrong because he will not be seen as anti war peacenik flake

[HFishbine]

22. The American idio... I mean people, don't need convincing

"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?" (12/21 -- post Saddam capture)

Worth it: 42%
Not worth it: 47%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[CWebster]

23. anti war peacenik flake, eh

like the UN and the rest of the world while the US parades it machismo around the globe like a jack-booted thug gone astray. Yesiree that is the sentiment we must appeal to in a dumbed-down populus, worrying about their children's future and making ends meet, but still needing to identify with symbols of power instead of antiwar peacenik flakes like Christ.Yep.

[CWebster]

17. no they aren't

All they have to do is get every General to smear him on Pristina and insubordination, for starters.

[Justice]

42. Just Keeping Making It Up

Every general -- I don't think so. Like Who? And don't name Shelton, Franks or Norman - cuz they have all been discredited.

Jackson? - he is on record as saying the whole thing was blown out of proportion.

So who? You know, for starters.

[CWebster]

51. I am not making it up, BUT

that ain't stoppping them from making anything up and Clark will be thrown on the defense, perennially forced to explain himself. In fact, I already saw him trying to explain it away on Tweety's show, and it was pathetic. He requested the subject be changed. They will hang him out to dry. Easy.

[mikehiggins]

58. Even better

Do you realise that you are probably the very first person to ever post that insight on DU? 99% of the folks that saw that interview were impressed by Clark.

Explain it AWAY? I don't think so. He refused to let Matthews do his hit-and-run stunt, unlike most of his guests.

Pathetic?

I'm sure that sequence is on file somewhere. Maybe you ought to look at it again.

[CWebster]

61. I will never forget it

It will be the albatross hung around his neck just like Kerry's IWR vote.

[mikehiggins]

What won't you ever forget?

Pristina or Chris Matthews?

Seriously, CW, do you really think these things through?

Visualize this:

You go to the average american and tell him that Wes Clark almost started WWIII by standing up to the Russians at the Pristina airport.

They'll wonder why he didn't get another medal.

They'll also wonder why the British refused a direct order from a four star US general to move onto the runways.

Yeah, THAT'll hurt Clark's chances with the general population.

Silly, silly, silly.

[Justice]

62. But Nothing

Elsewhere today you posted that you used to be more supportive of Clark, but that his supporters turned you off of Clark.

This post by you reveals the truth. No one who was the tiniest bit supportive of Clark would post something as completely dishonest as this. You stand alone in this dishonesty, because no one will join you.

You do make it up - I asked you to name the Generals and you couldn't. You made it up.

Of course the RW politicans will throw everything at the GE. No one expects any different. But there are no "all the generals" who will get up and throw stuff at Clark. You made that up. Completely baseless.

[CWebster]

64. No I didn't

but it is true, I don't care for his supporters...except Tom. As a matter of fact, I don't dislike Clark, I just don't trust him and the swamp from which he emerged. ;-)

[Justice]

66. Unfortunate

That you cannot support your statements.

[mikehiggins]

57. LOL Did you ever try to herd cats?

Where are all these generals you are talking about?

Shelton? One shot and he disappears. Next heard from running a company getting big contracts in Iraq.

Schwartzkopf? One quick remark (IF Shelton is right, I wouldn't vote for Clark) and several strategic retreats subsequently.

Sec-Def Cohen? Now a D.C. lobbyist? "No comment." "No comment." "What part of no comment don't you understand." (actually I made that last one up for the anti-Clark crew on DU)

General Tommy Franks? Uh, no, I wasn't there. Clark never served under me. I can't really speak to that...etc

General Colin Powell? Clark is a fine officer.

Sec-State Colin Powell? I don't think I want to comment on that.

British General Mike Jackson? Hey, we had some heated words in the middle of an argument. No big deal. (paraphrased from his book that included this incident)

Milosovic. On trial for genocide in the Hague. Yeah, Clark has no integrity or character (Ooops! Shelton is the only other person on earth on record as having said that)

And so on and so forth. Keep in mind that there are no five star generals anymore, and there are only eight four star generals in the US Army at one time. Its a small, elite club that is harder to get into than Skull and Bones. It's very rare to hear one member knock another. Its just not done. I'm sure that Shelton heard about his remarks at their annual picnic and he sure doesn't seem anxious to mix it up anymore.

[eileen_d]

7. I really wish I would stop hearing this on DU

"We nominate Clark or we lose"

I don't anybody making threats to get my vote, even if I do support the same candidate and even if I do agree with the logic behind their statement.

So, to channel Bob Boudelang for a moment: "STOP SAYING THAT!"

[mikehiggins]

59. There is a difference between a threat and a warning

For example: If Dean is not the nominee, the Greens will run our own candidate. That is a threat.

If I'm not nominated, I can't predict what my supporters will do. That is a warning.

If Clark isn't nominated we will lose. That is a prediction.

From what I know about politics and human nature, I subscribe to that prediction. It is nothing like a threat.

[Justice]

11. Terrorism and Iraq are Two of Top Four Issues

The other two are education and the economy. What about health care?

What was done to Max Cleland was horrible. I see Cleland and Clark a little differently though.

First, geograghy. We are talking Georgia versus the US. What sells in GA won't sell nationwide.

Second, rank and status. Cleland was not a 4 star general, head of NATO and SACEUR, with a 34 year career and twenty something medals from nations around the world. Cleland lost 3 limbs yes, but Clark was also wounded.

Third, Timing - the attacks on Cleland were before the truth was known about Iraq, before the bloodsheed, before the lies came out (even if people here knew about the lies).

Fourth, forcefulness. I see Clark as a much strong forceful person than Cleland. I think Cleland didn't fight - where Clark has fought and indicated he will challenge any accusation that he is unpatriotic.

[MIMStigator]

15. Great post

eom

[gulliver]

13. I agree.

With Clark we get the national security and foreign policy issues. We also get a strong position on the AWOL and Cheney Energy Papers issues.

[HFishbine]

16. 2 Newer Polls Contradict

The Harris poll (12/10 - 16)

"What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?"

The Economy: 28%
The War: 17%
Healt Care (other than Medicare): 16%
Employment/Jobs: 12%
Education: 11%

CBS News/New York Times Poll. (Dec. 14-15)

"Which ONE issue would you most like to hear the candidates for president discuss during the 2004 presidential campaign?"

Economy and Jobs: 25%
Health care/Medicare: 16%
War in Iraq: 6%

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

(on edit: spelling)

[Justice]

21. Thanks Good Info

All the polls show these same issues again and again.

Economy (sometimes lumped with jobs, sometimes not - I think people equate the two as the same thing).

Education

Healthcare

The War in Iraq (which people equate with terrrorism b/c it is our front against terrorism right now)

[windansea]

18. "it's the bombs, stupid" n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

26. It is alway "the economy stupid"

it always is and it always will be

[LuminousX]

32. The war is abstract for most people, their paychecks and jobs aren't

Something is happening somewhere that may be good or bad for me, but I know if my job is insecure, if my paycheck is shrinking or growing, or if my investments are shrinking or growing.

[windansea]

45. what's on TV every night?

truck bombs & suicide bombers or job reports?

[TexasPatriot]

36. it wasnt 2 years ago

the economy was in the shitter, Bush went out and made the midterm elections about the war on tearr - and he kicked our ass. 4 years ago the election wasnt about the economy either - because Clinton/Gore had done a damned fine job on that front.

I think some of those 'vote with your pocketbook' rules have changed.

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. Do you think Clark will be Tougher on Terror than Dean?

or any of the others?

[MIMStigator]

30. No but think voters will think he will be tougher

they think * is tougher than Dean and it will take someone like Clark to be seen as tougher than *. It doesn't matter if * is a miserable failure it matters what voters think.

[DancingBear]

34. I think he'll be able to walk the walk better,

and so does my "friend" the gorilla. He doesn't want to see Clark looking back at him. :hi:

[Justice]

35. Clark Will Be Smarter About Combating Terror

Clark has the relationships with other countries, he has the historical on the ground knowledge about what makes the terrorists tick. I think he thinks broadly and has insight that no other candidate has when it comes to figuring out the best course of action, the best path to combat terror.

You hear that in Clark very detailed, very knowledgeable answers about where to try OBL, and why OBL should be tried at the Hague. You hear that as Clark talks about going to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries for assistance. Clinton showed us that negotiating with Libya can be successful - that the carrot can work. Clark understands that in a way that no other candidate does.

[LuminousX]

37. What non-military mechanisms will Clark employ to fight terror?

What makes him better at using those mechanisms than Dean or Kerry (my #1 and #2?)

[Justice]

41. Non-Military Mechanisms

First of all, Dean has admitted he is in need of someone else to help him with foreign plicy. So, I am not sure what Dean will be doing.

As I've said, Clark has relationships with countries all over the world. He has negotiated with countries already - he can put together and keep together coalitions. That real life experience makes him better. Clark has already said that war should be a last, last, last resort.

What Kerry has is knowledge, but not real on the ground experience.

If you disagree, please tell me why you think Kerry or Dean would be better able to fight terror.

[LuminousX]

49. Kerry/Dean

Kerry is the easier one. Kerry has already been fighting terror since the 80's. He has participated in the process and he has the top expert regarding the issue (Gary Hart) on his team.

Dean, in my opinion, sees beyond the military aspect of the 'war' and is already looking at things on the level I prefer to deal with - the political/economic/social level.

The 'best director of the war' isn't going to be someone with a military background because that person isn't bringing anything new to the mix. The current military and intelligence leaders are going to keep doing what they are doing.

Foreign policy experience really isn't an essential thing either, because the inertia of foreign policy is kept in the State Dept.

What changes is the focus. Much of Dean's trade plans are also plans against terror. Increasing the standard of living in foreign countries makes those places less likely to be breeding grounds for terror.

I don't believe the War on Terror will be on people's minds after March. It will become too abastract. An Administrator like Dean will be a greater asset than a General.

[Justice]

65. Good Input - Thanks.

What you call political/economic/social - I call foreign policy. So,
I don't see that what you say about Dean or Kerry is different than what Clark has talked about. Clark has talked in political/economic/social terms as well. He has been on the ground in these countries, so has first hand knowledge of the difference that can be made.

On footnote - even Dean says foreign policy experience is essential. He acknowledges a hole - and he isn't relying on the State Dept to fill that bill - he wants his VP to fill that bill.

Edit to correct typo in last sentence

[DuctapeFatwa]

47. Yes, and how will they root out the sleeper cells in the US?

The voters are very concerned about terrorists that may be lurking right there in their backyards.

I haven't heard any of the candidates tell how they will crack down on that.

[TexasPatriot]

48. i'll try this

first off, Clark has established relationships with many european leaders - and will be able to repair a lot of the damage that I believe we can agree Bush has done to the atlantic alliance.

I think Clark's perception as a tough military leader will evoke a respect from foreign rogue states that we may not get with some other candidates. Electing a general will make a statement to nations like North Korea that just because we've thrown * out, their BS will not be tolerated.

Clark may well be able to take us into the international community in ways that will be hard for the republicans on the hill who would oppose such moves to do so effectively. A 4 star general can say 'we should be accountable for our actions in international courts' and make it stick in the military politic. Kerry might well be able to leverage his hill relationships to deflect some of those attacks, but I doubt Dean would enjoy the same success.

[LuminousX]

52. It is interesting Clark's positions

all seem to boil down to 'they won't attack him' or 'he will deflect their attacks' which I hear as 'The Titanic won't sink.'

[Justice]

69. Not What I've Read Here

What I've read is several people going into alot of detail to explain why they believe a certain way on this particular point. When I read something positive or detailed about another candidate I acknowledge it as such.

I appreciated this discussion - very enlightening.

[mikehiggins]

70. Oh, that smacks of intellectual dishonesty

We are talking about the campaign here. If you want to see what Clark's positions on various subjects, simply go to his website and read them. They are interesting and varied and just as legitimate as any of the positions put forth on any of the other candidates websites and press releases.

You are not talking to Clark here, or even anyone working on his campaign. You are talking to Clark supporters and discussing why he would seem a better bet as a winning candidate than the others would. That is what we're talking about here.

In my experience, voters don't give a crap about position papers or things like that. What they care about is what they see and hear of the man (or woman) running for office.

Nobody expects that Clark will not be attacked but at this point the discussion about attacks comes all but universally from folks who want to point out how this or that in Clark's record or this or that thing that he said will be used to attack him and destroy all chances of victory. This leads to Clark supporters zipping back with stuff about other candidates. Then the discussion falls into the "you guys can dish it out but you can't take it" and then we do the Nyah, nyah, nyah...my candidate can beat your candidate" and the cycle starts all over again.

Whoop de do.

Yes, Clark will get attacked on Shelton, and his statements about the Bush administration, and his hair, and all that stuff. We know that and we're ready for it. Its a fight, you see. That's why 99% of the things that come out of the Clark camp are aimed at the Invisible Airman, not the other democrats. Check the record. We know who the enemy is, we know how he plays the game. If given the chance, Clark will whip his ass and send him packing back to Crawford.
Maybe.

We still could lose it, even with Clark as a candidate and with all the various other campaign supporters signing on for the battle. We just happen to believe that in terms of character, training and personality, Clark happens to be the best candidate for this race at this time. We all know its a slim chance; we just believe its our only chance.

Why waste you time trying to change our minds?

[TexasPatriot]

71. it's not that they wont attack him

its that he'll have the ability to do things that others cant. Imagine Dean trying to have the military revisit dont ask dont tell.

I believe there are aspects of each candidates resume, from Lieberman to DK, that give them some advantage over other candidates. Clark has strong positives on this subject, and the public perception of feeling comfortable with Clark taking over from Bush 'in time of war' will play.

They'll try to smear Clark on the economy and try to create a perception of Clark as lacking the capacity to govern. This is a strength for Kerry/Gephardt much more so than Dean - as they'll try the similar slams on Dean. But that leaves the topic at hand.

The Titanic was a great ship captained by an egocentric man convinced he could do no wrong, and challenge the world with a ship representing a revolutionary change in approach (and thus had the ship run at 22 1/2 knots at night so he could beat the speed record). When i see this campaign, I see the democratic party as that great ship... but alas I see a candidate other than Clark barrelling it headlong into the ice fields.

[mikehiggins]

67. Non military?

Economic assistance to impoverished nations.

Economic sanctions against regimes that encourage terrorists.

Intelligence agencies across the globe, including greater coordination and information sharing with our allies.

And so on and so forth.

How about Dean or Kerry?

[mikehiggins]

63. I don't know how you define "tougher"

I do believe he will be much more effective.

His preexisting relationships with many of our allies will open many doors to cooperation that BushCo slammed shut when they put on their cowboy hats and headed to Iraq.

His knowledge of how government agencies such as Defense and State, as well as how the FBI, NSA and CIA actually operate in the world will mean he won't have to learn "on the job" how to coordinate the efforts of his administration in this arena.

His recognition that international relations with unfriendly states, such as forms the basis for neocon thinking, is not the same thing as fighting terrorists, and that the "war on terror" will stop being the umbrella excuse for assaults on unpopular regimes abroad, and civil liberties at home.

So yeah, I think he'd be better than the others because he knows the job going in.

[LuminousX]

29. The War on Terror is too abstract

and can be fought on many different fronts using many different tactics. I think the mere fact people can't switch gears from the military model and think of different ways of confronting terror is disturbing, especially on a progressive website.

Do we need a cohesive military strategy? Yes. But I trust our military leaders to do their thing no matter who is in the oval office. What we need more is a President capable of rebuilding our relations globally, who can think out of the box and address terror issues in 'the third way.'

A President willing to actively engage Israel and Palestinians to create stability there will be taking one giant step at ending terrorism. A President willing to see that terrorism doesn't just come from the Middle East will be a more effective warrior against it.

Keep trying to shove Clark down my f***ing throat in this fashion and you will reap what you sow. The best way to promote Clark is to keep reiterating his credentials, the validity of his plans, and your own personal feelings for him. Claim he is 'the only one' and you trigger the stubborness gene and only make me and people like me want to prove you wrong.

[Justice]

46. Sigh

No one is trying to shove anyone down your throat. It is a little troublesome to keep reading anti-Clark posts that say Clark is a one issue man, and then on a post discussing terrorism - seeing people suggest that Dean is better able to handle fighting terror than Clark.

I don't trust our military leaders - remember these are Rumsfield, and the folks at the Pentagon - who sent us to Iraq on false evidence. You trust this people over Clark?

Clark can rebuild our relations globally - he is highly regarded ALREADY by many of our allies and other countries around the world. Clark thinks out of the box.

[mikehiggins]

73. But that IS the point, L

If we didn't think Clark is the only one, why would we bother supporting him? Because of his great hair? We support him because we have looked at the other candidates and cannot visualize a scenario in which any of them are likely to beat George Bush in November.

It is just that simple. Decent regard for the feelings of the other folks around here can lead to courtesy and decorum (mostly). That does not lessen in anyway our belief that someone like Clark is needed at this time, at this place in our history.

Do you think it shoving Clark down your throat to refuse to lie about what we think? Certainly we can, and will, support whomever the Democratic Party nominates. And we will work hard for him (or her) but it just isn't in the cards, in our opinions, that any of them have much of a chance, and we're not going to lie about that to anyone.

What should happen, actually, is that everyone should stop taking every opportunity to aim a barb at an opponent. We are not evil spawn of the devil because we do not support Dean or Kerry. We are grown people who have made a political judgement that you might not agree with.

Let the voters decide.

The answer will be here soon enough.

[Padraig18]

31. Meadow muffins!

Clark has just as many negatives as any other candidate, MIMS. :eyes:

[MIMStigator]

33. Clark has no negatives n/t

nt

[Padraig18]

44. Of course he does!

Clark has just as many as anyone else.

[mikehiggins]

74. Not as many as some, Paddy, but some for sure

They aren't negatives that can be played all that easily, however.

Most of them are sort of esoteric and hard to break down into a 30 second ad.

"Not a politician". Not really a good argument to make after Bloomberg became Mayor of NYC and Arnold became governor of California. People don't want "politicians" to replace the incumbent. They want a leader, not someone selling the same old snake oil.

"General Shelton said..." Not really that good unless they can get Shelton to say it. Now that Milosevic has used that quote in his own defense at a war crimes trial the counter is obvious.

"No domestic experience..." Not really that good since he has about the same level of experience as the head of the Red Cross, or Planned Parenthood, or United Way. Those folks never were elected to an office either, but it'd be seriously weird to think they didn't know about domestic policy. Even the head of the NRA knows how to work with elected officials to get what they want.

"Weak on the economy..." Clark knows how to work with multi-billion dollar budgets. He is unfamiliar with multi-trillion dollar deficits. He does know they are destructive, however, and harmful to our nation's future. He taught economics, after all. (although teaching economics might count as a negative in some circles. I never got higher than a C in it)

"Against the war..." Not really that good either. Clark is against the Iraq war, not the pursuit of OBL. In fact his main brief against the BushCo war on terror is that it has been used as an excuse to follow the old neocon agenda to project US force into the Middle East. He's also opposed to the over-commitment of US troops to these foriegn adventures and I gather he's in favor of scaling down some of our commitments overseas, such as in Europe and Korea.

So, yeah, there are issues. Clark seems really dense on the whole depleted uranium issue, for example. In general, however, he seems really solid and those issues which do exist can be identified and dealt with.

And, at the least, he has many, many fewer negatives than BushCo and the Invisible Airman do.

[Capn Sunshine]

39. Because Clark will do....

WHAT? Use Depleted Uranium on them?
Your premise is fatally flawed.

[MIMStigator]

40. Because Clark will be trusted to be strong on terror

Dean won't be trusted as strong on terror.

[Capn Sunshine]

50. and your source to this is.....

besides your own Clark website?
Defnes Dept war mcahine lobbyist= strong on SOMETHING, but not terror. Maybe strong on SPENDING MONEY ON TERROR. we have a jackass in office doing that right now. Imagine the domestic societal cost after ten years of this. Do you think it might produce a few "domestic terrorists?"

I don't want to find out. We get off the Merry Go Round before we throw up. That's MY plan.

[adadem]

72. This is exactly

what I figured this latest terrorism alert was all about. Over the holidays...worried instead of having fun...one remembers that. I have a gut feeling that the Rovian plan is to "convince" voters that they are safer under king george.