Clark has faded to first place

They have him in 5th on their dumb "demo derby" and don't even mention him in the latest article.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/950967.asp?0ql=c7p

Apparently, the media (and some DUers) think he'll just go away if they act like he's "fading".

If he fails to win it, will you admit then that he's fading?

So far he's withdrawn from two.

which other one? I only heard about Iowa.

Iowa and New Hampshire are almost all white rural areas. Why should they decide for our racially and culturally diverse mostly urban-suburban constituentency?

i don't have a problem with those two states being early primary states, but i do think maybe they should include another state or two to be included early on which have more diversity maybe. i'm not sure, but just a thought.

But I'm not familiar with any theories etc written for it.

I live next door to Iowa and their prima donna act gets really OLD.

We Arkies get to pick from practically everyone else's leftovers...

The system is simply stupid. I don't understand why we can't have them on the same damm day.

People do get incluenced by who the winner is elsewhere. They get discouraged easily. I'm afraid that if Dean wins Iowa and NH (I think he'll win NH anyways), many Clark and Kerry supporters will close shop and view it as a losing effort (though I think the Clark enthusiasm here on this board and in Natl. polls show that's unlikely to happen and unfortunately Kerry's campaign seems to be in some kind of free fall). Now this isn't because I especially dislike Dean. He's still not my first choice and I'm sceptical if he can beat Bush.

I'm black and I have a problem with it.

Please elaborate.

And if Dean "fails to win" in South Carolina, will you admit his campaign is fading?

Latest Iowa poll has him 7 points behind Gebhardt. Clark leading in SC.

D.C. primary? The primary that lost DNC sanction? The primary that doesn't award any delegates due to that loss of sanction? Pleeeeze.

What does it mean "he's withdrawn from two"? Does that mean his name won't be on the ballot. Seriously, I thought his decision just meant that he would not focus much campaigning in that state.

When you can fade...



And still have a 2% lead (within the margin of error) of the alleged frontrunner, and thus be in a statistical dead heat.

Clark in '04! :kick:

:)

Like Bill Press who keep saying Clark is slipping. We all know Clark got a big bounce when he first announced and we all knew he would come down a little. Just some common sense. Clark is doing fine. Although I dont put much stock in those NBC numbers because they didnt poll likely voters. We all know 54% of adults dont vote, so why should I care what adults think.

Is he openly supporting Dean for the nomination or something? It seems unlike Bill to write off someone this early and without any real evidence. The national polls seem to contradict him.

But I heard him several times say to Buchanon "you just wait Howard Dean will beat Bush.

Believe me, when the media start to pay attention to Clark, it will be non-stop attacks straight from the GOP.

He's doing just fine without them, right now.

If Dean is such a media darling, and he has accomplished a lot to earn the buzz--both positive and negative, then why is Clark, a relative newcomer with glaring inconsistancies and a limited record, given a pass when he is polling is so high? The ommision of critism is just as curious as the casual dismissal if he is most popular. It does shield him in a sense, if he isn't being hurt by lack of attention.

Maybe because they want Dean, heh.

If they attack Clark, people might start to pay attention to him. Just dismissing him as a "never gonna make it" is far more effective than stirring up controversy to discredit him. People might look into it, out of curiosity.

"Clark, a relative newcomer with glaring inconsistancies.."

Unlike that paragon of consistancy, Howard Dean?

He is the target, as if he is the frontrunner, but according to these polls, Clark is the frontrunner and he is sliding by without scrutiny while all the hub-bub is focused on Dean.

What gives?

To ignore someone at this point is more effective than drawing attention to them. Nobody is really paying attention to the polls right now except political junkies and hardcore partisans. If Clark leads the polls when the primaries start, they will go on the attack against him. Right now, Dean has more name recognition and they want to keep it that way.

I don't really believe either Clark or Dean can claim leadership of national polls at this point. It's too close and there are too many candidates for a "lead" to mean much.

He was already a celebrity before he made his dramatic entrance and got his face on the cover of Time for it. He has more name recognition than Kucinich. Foreigners are always gaga over US movie stars.

He has no name recognition. Just that Dean has more. Especially when he has been the declared frontrunner for months, now.

or Norman S. (who's never met him) parroting Shelton's smear.
or the meme that Clark is fading...

So it is NOT just ignore .... it's ignore and smear when it's unavoidable to mention Clark's name.

It seems to me that Clark appeals to Republicans and Independents who DON'T LIKE BUSH!......The Democrats will vote for which ever Democrat is nominated, but if you want to win the White House away from Bush, you have to win over the others and Clark's military history is very appealing to Repubs.....So, why not run a candidate who has broad appeal rather than just appealing to Democrats?....Have I got this all wrong?....:)

perhaps. Why should Democrats have to become more like Republicans to win as Democrats? I wish they would work at strengthening an alternative view rather than try to emulate Republican priorities to sell themselves.

One of the things that has impressed me, as a Canadian, was one of the first things I heard him say when he announced he was running...He said he was appalled by how Bush had alienated your former allies...This is important to me...It effects us in many ways...trade being one of them....He is also very intelligent and informed about the rest of the world....He impresses me as a rather liberal thinker....This is none of my business, but just my opinion..:)

but HE HAS NOT walked the walk.

Who can know?

... while raising money for the repubs.

Bush had not yet alienated his allies which, if what you say is accurate, would have included Clark at that time.

Sounds consistent to me though. Think about it, Bush has shown his true face only in the last two years after 9/11. Any thinking, informed, traditional conservative would have to be outraged at what this administration is trying to pull off.

(I don't need to do the litany here.)

I say, ask most any Bush supporter a few "probing" questions and they will deliver in response little more than that tiresome ascerbic self-righteous jingoism that the Repub leaders are all pandering to, and a few second-hand talking points.

Clark on the other hand, has demonstrated vividly that he has a mind and he's changed it. I think that like many Americans, as more is revealed, Clark has become alarmed at the long term implications of this administration's hubris.

Political parties aren't religions (yet). The Dems are the only political power left in this country who stand a chance of ousting this junta early without bloodshed. It seems to me that Clark, as a trained strategist, has made a thoughtful and necessary change of allegience.

He continues to systematically deliver his positions on all releveent topic and in his rhetoric, unlike the Republicans, he intentionally leaves little room for ambiguity. Clark is clear and assertive on his views.

If you don't agree with his vision, fair enough, but I'm convinced he's the real deal.

Let's not forget that at this point, both Dean's and Clark's populism is rhetorical ONLY. In fact, Clark is pretty much more liberal than Dean. If we can't use Dean's long time pro-corporate conservative record against him, why should you automatically assume that Clark isn't a liberal, just because he's military?

If we are going to compromise (and we have to) why not choose a compromise candidate that is both liberal, and has appeal to moderates and Republicans?

who secured contracts through his military connections and babbled on about what a grand job Bush and Blair did just moments ago?

If too many generals question Clark's "integrity" and bring up his dismissal from the pentagon, and they POUND that ruthlessly and deliberately, Clark's credentials will be looking a little tarnished.

Only if they don't will I wonder about what is going on behind the scenes.

I remembered when I posted the WSJ article about Clark's lobbying for a defense firm. Clark's lobbying was pretty small-time, and you can't find anyone who hasn't done it. Dean did whatever he could to please his corporate lobbyists in Vermont, and came "under the sway of business" during his governorship. Kucinich has the standing to attack Clark on his lobbying, but Dean sure as hell doesn't. Like I said, if we're going to pick a compromise candidate, Clark would make a good choice.

ONE general has questionted Clark's integrity, a Republican Bush supporter, and the only ones bringing that up are Republicans, and Dean fans. I'd like to hear any of them explain what the problem is exactly, other than that a high ranking military officer dares to promote liberal democratic ideals in public and broke from the Bush Republicans.

If Dean supporters expect me to take his 9 month old conversion to populism and liberalism at face value, I expect them to take Clark's populism and liberalism at face value as well. Frankly, Mr. Park Ave. doesn't deserve to tie Clark's shoes in my opinion.

Other non-American DU'ers have expressed a preference for Clark as well. Perhaps the fact that they are able to see the struggle from the outside instead of embroiled in it means they can see more clearly.

I think we need Clark because he has the necessary skill set and experience in international relations and foreign policy to fix the mess Bush put us in. And Clark needs to be president in charge of creating policy, not VP, in order to do that. Clark already knows all the power players in Europe on a personal basis.

He's the only one IMO.

:kick:
DemEx

I feel that he does have the respect of many people in countries other than ours.

To me, that is a BIG issue. I know that some people don't care what other people think, but, DARN IT, we HAVE to be a part of the rest of the world! I am so embarassed by the loss of our allies and their current opinion of our country.

And, yes, I believe with all my heart that all this strife with our allies has supremely affected our economy as much as anything else.

Oh, as to your question, I do believe that he is a Democrat.

Clark's background and character appeal to Republicans and independents. That's different from using conservative policies to appeal to them.

There are two ways we can do it. One DU southerner said that most southerners will either vote for someone from the south or vote for a conservative.

Clark is able to garner that appeal without changing his policies to reflect Republican ones. Not so with Dean or some of the others.

Clark will never have to use the rebel flag to appeal to Southerners.

In fact, on the Political Compass Clark ends up near Dennis K.

Finally someone is thinking outside the box. :toast:

Thank you for those unbiased words of wisdom!

I agree 100% with your observations......also from a distance here.

:kick:
DemEx

I'm completely behind Clark for that very reason (that he is the best one to beat bush). Sure, he has said things that I don't agree with, and I'd love to further the Democratic platform, but right now the NUMBER 1 priority has GOT to be ousting this regime. Like my older brother says, "I'd vote for a dead chicken" instead of bush. (uh, but I do like Clark better than a dead chicken)

interfering....From listening to Clark when he has spoken on TV, I have found him to have a liberal outlook and am especially pleased by his desire to mend your alliances with the countries Bush has alienated....(like mine, Canada, for instance.)...He's also so darned intelligent and informed about the rest of the world....Of course ANY Democrat that could beat Bush would be a HUGE improvement!.....

and I welcome your input. Our friends in other countries are very important to me.

The disaffected of the repugs and independents will be
looking long and hard at Clark and Clark inspires a lot
of wanting to look.

Very classy man.

"Safire's at it again: "Clintonites were first to take the Dean threat seriously. As reported gleefully in this space (full disclosure: I'm rooting for Dean's candidacy in hopes of the debacle), the Clinton crowd surrounded ex-Gen. Wesley Clark with Clinton managers, spinmeisters, pollsters and fund-raisers and marched him into battle against Dean." But i do like the admission he's rooting for the "Dean Debacle." Sure this part will be quoted extensively. Most others have moved past the Clinton nonsense. Posted by Armando at November 12, 2003 12:24 AM"

As I have said before, Dean is the Republicans choice for the race. Who owns the major media? Oh, that's right, Republicans.

high fiving Dean's success. They also were laughing and saying Rove and Bush already have their ad campaigns against Dean in the can. They said Dean has provided Rove with some doosies.

Let's not use him as a reference. :)

over the last few days it has all been coming out, people are speaking more and more of what the Media and GOp are doing, THE FIX IS IN!

we have to continue getting this out so finally the general public starts getting word of it. once the average person on the street starts hearing it rest assured ALL the big new networks will have to straighten there act. its the only way i can see us doing much good, when we dont own annd operate major news networks. my .02

there is no national primary.

There are primaries in the south.

And in SC, the springboard to the south, where he is leading.

with John Fund and Lawrence O'Donnell while unbeknowest to them the results of the new poll were scrolling underneath. Idoit! They all proved what clueless whores they were. THAT's poetic justice. I wrote to the show last night and rubbed it in as only I can. }(

It was scrolling past underneath as they spoke? Hahahaha.

However, I just read the Stuart Rothenberg article that says that Dean will win the nomination. Well, I guess it is over then. Time for Clark to pack it in and go home. If he hopes to win, he had better do better than a statistical tie for 1st place with Dean. He had also better stop winning the head-to-head matchups between he and Dean here on DU. This campaign is fading fast!!!! I hope he continues to fade!!!!

See Repukes run like pigs from a gun - don't let Dems fly! NO FLYING!

He supports the ban on burning the flag, but I'm supposed to trust him to protect my rights?

*nm*

I do. And I should note that I still like Clark a lot. I was just kinda surprised that Clark supports the ban on flag burning.

I'm not a single issue voter, and if I were, that wouldn't be my single issue. I just like him a little less today than yesterday.

I don't agree with Clark on the flag amendment; I have issues with every other candidate as well. For me there's no perfect candidate; I'm also not a straight idealogue.

I don't agree with my candidate on every issue. But I can't begrudge him what I consider to be well thought out positions.

I'll tell you. One way or another, I'm ready for this primary season to be over.

If it came down to a brokered convention:evilgrin:

:spank: for even mentioning it :)

...I was disappointed in his position.

But I was also kinda surprised that Gephardt and "Mr. Progressive" himself, Kucinich, also supported the amendment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/11/national1729EST0649.DTL

So I guess I take some comfort in knowing Clark isn't the only one out on that ledge.

But not much.

Was it signed by Dean?

but it's kind of reaching, isn't it?

I mean, if you care, look it up.

A google search on Flag Burning Vermont brought up this article. I'm looking for more:

With the exception of Vermont, 49 state legislatures have passed resolutions urging Congress to pass the ban measure, according to The Citizens Flag Alliance, a group of 140 veterans and civic groups.


Senate vote looms on amendment banning flag burning

March 28, 2000



http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:UgGMx69sYC8J:www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/28/flag.burn/+flag+burning+vermont&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Dean signed a an anti-flag burning amendment in Dec. of 2001. If you want a link I'll get it...just looked and left it. It is true however.

provide a link.

This one is a lot better than that last one which didn't reference Dean at all.

More evidence of Dean being on the right side of the debate even though it's an unpopular position politically:

Such interpretations by liberal judges, and politicians, are deemed outlandish by more than 70% of the United States Congress who are once again attempting to override the US Supreme Court ruling by enacting a Flag Amendment to the Constitution. In Vermont politicians like Howard Dean, Patrick Leahy, Jim Jeffords and Bernard Sanders support the burning of the flag as "free speech" irrespective that surveys show that more than 70% of their constituents reject flag desecration as a protected constitutional right.



http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:_kernPYhu48J:www.politicsvt.com/Skinner/flag.htm+Howard+Dean+%22flag-burning%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

He did sign the amendment. You are absolutely right. After a decade of opposing it, why would he do that?

it happens to the best of them.

------
While you were looking that up, all I found was this, which is rather right-wing:

http://www.politicsvt.com/Skinner/flag.htm

And all the resolution was, was basicaly a statement of support from the VT state government for the posibility of an amendment on the federal level.



"With the resurgence in patriotism since 9/11 and with national pride swelling when Old Glory waves, Governor Dean finally saw the light of day in December of 2001 and leaned on his Democratic leadership engaged in a conference committee with Republicans (eager for a flag resolution) to accept resolution language that left open the possibility of a Constitutional Flag Amendment as a means to protect the flag from destruction. "

Its a crap issue. I am glad he dispatched it and didn't
get lost in Tody Keith land there.

And, you can't diss the flag if you want the military
vote. I am sure he wouldn't sue the world if the flag
thing goes the other way. He just isn't going to be
bogged down in minutae.

Ask yourself whose votes he's reaching for here. Think strategy. As someone else said -- I might be willing to give up my right to burn a flag, if I can shift the political power base toward an unambiguous neocon opposition.

We've already lost far more than that without even a struggle. It's time to think strategically and impersonally about much of this I'm afraid. There's too much at stake.

That's my radical take anyway.

But I could be completely wrong about all of it...

:evilgrin:

on edit:
the usual typos

About Clark in front of Edwards in that SC poll two weeks ago.

BAM!!!

I KNEWS THAT IT WAS FISHY, AND A FLUKE!!!

"Clark finished first in a South Carolina poll conducted recently by the New Hampshire-based American Research Group. But those numbers reflect Clark's national stature, said Dick Bennett, the company's president.

The national numbers are absolutely meaningless," Bennett said. "What he's got to do is consolidate those people. He's got to make sure that they stick with him. A lot of times, campaigns fail at doing that."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/11/13/late_entry_strong_start_long_haul/

...that article did not refute the numbers. Clark is leading in SC.

The American Research guy just said Clark needs to continue campaigning there to solidify that support.

Geez.

It's a SC poll of SC voters, how does that make it a national poll? Just because the ARG president talks up Clark's national rep doesn't make the poll a national poll.

...THE HEAD GUY SAID THAT CLARK'S NUMBERS IN THAT POLL REFLECTS HIS NATIONAL NUMBERS.

That makes the poll a joke.

Deny it like you will...

Nationally gives Clark the greatest chance of beating Bush.

So is it Victory? Or McGovern all over again? What'll it be Dems?

go back to stats 101, and read about the basic concepts of polling, since it's a topic many people here seem to have a fetish for.

incorrect.

The whole MOE things get ignored when the guy we favor
has the biggest number.

Clarkies do it.
Deanies do it.
The media does it.
We all do it.

said sarcastically.

may he "fade" more and more everyday.

Tops in both those polls but I am sure I will watch the television tomorrow and still hear Dean calling himself the "front-runner" as well as every other news outlet out there. :eyes:

Don't get me wrong I don't hate Deano or anything... I'm just beyond sick of Clark being written off by everyone in the media. I'm hoping that Clark does a sterling interview on Meet the Press Sunday and all those @sswipes fall all over themselves fawning over him.

told to put Clark on "ignore", because I believe the General is the biggest threat to them. He has everything!

Since military status is bound up with how we view patriotism in this country, perhaps some champions of that view, pressed by the Right, are in a quandry as to how to confront Clark--so they either ignore him or sic the Generals on him to challenge his standing.