Clark surges to lead in South Carolina

Apparently they're missing the media-driven character assassination to which the rest of the nation is being subjected.

You know, the one that says Clark is going to disappear?

It was hilarious, the other day a NY Post columnist practically tap-danced on Clark's supposed casket. Her column was ironically placed right next to the results of a nationwide poll that showed Clark was the strongest Dem candidate against Bush.

Oh, yeah, the sentence about Bush slipping in the polls was set in tiny, tiny type.

Wes Clark is appealing to the military vote!

Wes Clark can be a threat to Bush next year and I hope that he wins the primary and then takes back the White House and we can take back America!

Where the New York Books of Review debunked the whole "KOSOVO/Ralston/cohen/" saga.....

But then Schneider "Goofball" came on to joke about "skeletons in the candidates Closet".... and what did he do, but to show the Clark tape at the May 2001 Lincoln Dinner.....where the last part of his sentence gets cut off!!!

So I got mad and wrote, Judy "you ignorant little Slut" Woodruff a nice, but not so nice letter.

I am venting, so I am posting it here!

Judy, Judy, Judy,
In reference to Wesley Clark, I thank you for having someone to clear up the "Kosovo" "hate him" myth. The New York Book review set this matter straight, and as a Clark supporter, I am grateful that you gave their representative that opportunity.

However, in the "skeleton in the closet" bit by Shneider, he sank low resucitating that "Fundraiser tape" that cuts of the last part of that sentence in which Clark is praising Bush Foreign relations team...which had been called the dream team by most of the media at that time. The part of the sentence that is missing would show Clark saying.... well heck Judy, see for yourself. Please take your time to closely read the Lincoln Day speech:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065
here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE!

Furthermore, if anyone bothered to really quote what he said and the context you would find that Clark was saying things to the Bush Administration that they truly didn't want to hear. Clark, always the diplomat threw in quite a few jabs at that dinner....
Please note the two paragraphs up from the maligned "praise":

------------------------
But we're also extremely vulnerable. Our economy--we're using three times--we've got three times as much foreign investment as we're investing--capital flow--as we're putting out there. They're investing here because they believe in us. We're using energy like it's going out of style. We're using five to eight times as much energy per capita as people in the rest of the world, twice as much as even the Europeans. We're vulnerable to security threats--everything from terrorism to the developing missiles that are--we know rogue states are developing to aim at us.

And so I think we have to have a new strategy, and we have to have a consensus on the strategy, and we have to have a bipartisan consensus, and politics has to stop in America at the water's edge. We've got to reach out, and we've got to find those people in the world and share our values and beliefs--and we've got to reinforce them. We've got to bring them here and let them experience the kind of life that we have. They've got to get an education here. They've got to be able to send their children here. They they've got to go home. And they've got to carry the burdens in their own lands, and to some extent we have to help them.
----------------------------
notice that in the first paragraph clark talks enviromentalism to a republican audience.
also note the warning about terrorism pre-9/11.
notice in the second paragraph he talks about bipartisanship, and reaching out to the world community. two traits that he shares spot on with his positions today.

in the next two paragraphs he further defines the european challenges:
-------------------------
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.
Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. We will get it resolved, and we'll help bring democracy and Westernization to those countries there.
---------------
So Judy, when are you going to do a piece that tells the real story that should have been breaking news...how Clark was telling the Republicans back in May of 2001 what they should really be mindful about....and where his Democratic bent showed much more than any diplomatic praise he used to get his point across.

Thanks for some of your coverage, but no cigar yet.
Regards,

He really needs SC if he's going to make a run for the nomination.

Good news for Clark and somewhat surprising, at least to me.

Should we be surprised that Dean is currently tied for 4th?

...the hammer.

I welcome Clark's popularity. He can attack Bush on all the points that Bush holds out as strengths. Once we establish the Bush is actually less safe for national security, then we can move on to a discussion about who has the best plan for taking America forward. That' is, without a doubt, Edwards (even Clark is copying Edwards's plans).

So, let Clark fly at the front of the 'V' (what's that position called? the __ynx?). When he's taken the other 9 to the point where national security is off the table as a Republican strength, then we'll see who has the best plan.

Of course, they have to do this before super tuesday!

How about this: "Wes Clark and J, Edwards take back America in 04"!

Bush wouldn't stand a chance!

I've worried all along that Dean would be unsalable to the South. It's not fair, of course, because Dean is a good man. It's a cultural thing. I could be wrong.

I lived there for over 20 years and appreciate what a large voting bloc they really are. When they get pissed, they stop thinking demo or repub. They just think about what is best for the military. Right now they might be finding it much easier to identify with Clark as one of their own than to worry about the fact that most voted for * in the last (s)election.

I am so glad to hear this...

That's got to play well in the South.

look at what a mucked up job Bush and his administration has been doing!

Yes, sir....a large hand will do me good.:bounce: :party:

Inspect the large hand even closer...

Now soften up your vision. Widen your focus, centering on the thumb...

I see the virgin mary cradling baby jesus

weird

it's the one that got one of the 4 bullets during Vietnam......

He had to learn to use it again.......the miracle of good health care!

are up for grabs in South Carolina as compared to New Hampshire?
Twice as many?

Remember, the same Capitol Gang that didn't even bother to ask the South Carolina political writer about Clark's chances in South Carolina?

They inquired about Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt. But somehow they forgot about Clark. LOL

all hoping that he would fade away after their volley of attacks. The RW put a big hand over the media's mouth......

Let's just see if they can keep on ignoring him or whether they'll start throwing more hash!

Hope they use all of their ammunition before the General(s) Election!

campaign that Clark is essentially running, but this is good news and a positive sign that it may work after all.

?

... but Edwards hasn't helped himself too much. The boyish persona is out of of place in a presidential race - he ought to get a haircut, a dark blue suit, and come off more serious. All of the journalists down here are beating the terrorist drum and they're not going to relent - if Clark has gone ahead, it's because he looks like he can confront Bush on foreign policy, and his military rank gives him more gravitas.

It's a shame, because Edwards is my second choice behind DK.

Edwards would be a good VP pick for Edwards....(not trying to be condesenting mind you)......

Since he's not running for anything else...and since he would only be 58 in 2012....those problems with his run this time would be totally gone by then........

Would be great to have a photogenic ticket like that......would win the South back too....

Plus Edwards policies are good....

I like Edward....just think that with the Terror War, the war in Iraq and our shaky grounds with our allies, we really need some excellent policy brain heading the ticket.

the one problem I have with a Clark/Edwards ticket is that neither one of them is really an 'insider,' and this could cause them some image problems. Clark is already brand new to politics, and Edwards hasn't even finished one senate term. It's a strange combination of political inexperience. Yet it still might play in today's world, looking at Arnold.

I like Edwards a lot, although I wish he would add more to his campaign than the 'son of a mill worker' thing. The guy was a fabulously successful trial lawyer, and I'm not so sure that's as big a disadvantage as some people would like it to be -- I think he should be out there trumpeting his success in an extremely cutthroat field. That he was able to succeed in that world says a lot more about him to me than his childhood does.

I am curious to see the demographics breakdown!

DTH

NT

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

Jesse was born in Greenville I believe...

Fritz Hollings was the first southern governor to endore JFK...

Or more accurately someone who bashes Kucinich supporters. I'm not sure they support Clark, but from what I've seen it is a safe bet.

SC is the state that kept sending that old corpse to the Senate year after year. If they constantly supported him, then I really doubt that they have any business setting cadence for the Democratic party.

Maybe we shouldn't allow Pennsylvanians to vote cuz they keep on sending Rick Santorum to the Senate...

Pennsylvania shouldn't set the agenda either. But at least we frequently go Democrat. SC is a Republican stronghold. Oh nevermind, keep chasing the votes of those who hate us most, I'm sure it will all work out :eyes:

Democratic primary voters in SC are made up of a HUGE African-American contigent. You're lumping them in the same camp as Strom Thurmond.

Good work, buddy.

The fact is that paying too much attention to South Carolina is chasing a waterfall. We can't win it, so don't base the strategy on appealing to SC.

I doubt Clark will win SC in the general (should he be nominated), but it's not utterly impossible.

But there's absolutely nothing wrong with Democrats who have the misfortune of residing in 'Bush Country' to be setting the tone in the Party just like us blue-staters. They're friends behind enemy lines.

An interesting fact (and non sequiter): the greater the black population is in a Southern State, the better Republicans do there.

in the General.

I sense a revolution underfoot.

And I think that those "behind enemy lines" voters are just fine people. But to carry on the military metaphor, it is more important to send the supplies to the front (states we can win).

Do the Democrats who reside in those states count?

For the primaries a broader selection works in the favor of the nominee come time of the general election.

but the right Dem can be competitive in WV, LA, AK, KY, and FL......

PA and MI are swing states now. We've neglected these states in favor of the South. Trying to pick up a close Southern State is good, but just as much as we need one Southern state, we need all the "Northern States"

in the primary. That added to his southern background should give him a leg up. Will he beat Bush here in November 2004? I'd be stunned if any Democrat takes South Carolina next year but South Carolina is Bush country. Its a good thing to show strength in your opponents backyard. Look at the difference it made when Bush took Tennessee in 2000.

would reveal that the current frontrunner in South Carolina is Notsure Undecided, an extremely popular candidate from Anytown, USA.

Still, it's nice that General Clark is placing second behind Candidate Undecided.

In my mind I'm goin' to Carolina.....


James Taylor.


"Are you ready for War!!!!" -- William Wallace