Clark gaining in all recent polls!!!

Both the NBC/WSJ poll and the Newsweek poll show Clark gaining support over the past few weeks. NBC has him at 17%, two points ahead of Dean. Newsweek has him at 15%, one point behind Dean. In both cases, his numbers are up. Everyone else is well behind.

So, what conclusion do the media whores draw from this? That Dean has the nomination locked up, and that Gephardt will emerge as Dean's lone challenger. Huh!!!????

I find the media treatment of Clark quite bizarre. It's almost as if a four-star General and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO didn't just announce that he wants to run against Bush as a Democrat, in an election that's going to be dominated by national security.

of Clark, with the exception of using Shelton's dispicable smear, but they can't hide the polls. It is fascinating that Clark is definitely in the running despite this embargo.

talking about? You could explain.

*nm*

but to answer your question about why the pundits give Dean and Gephardt the edge, it's because of a legitimate consideration of who's leading in the early primary states. Unfortunatley, a candidate who's strongest support is in late-primary states is at a disadvantage.

BTW, what an odd question in the NBC/WSJ poll. They say ""Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2004."

"Might?" All of the candidates they proceed to mention are delcared candidates and, in fact, ARE seeking the Democratic nomination. Why would they phrase is that way?

The latest ARG poll has Clark at 17% in SC, compared to Edwards at 10%. Also, the SC primary is only a week after the NH primary.

Yes, Clark has a very good chance in SC (Do you have a link to that poll, BTW), but on the same day as SC, these other sates vote. Do you see any other Clark wins among them?

Arizona Presidential Preference Election (Closed)
Delaware Democratic Presidential Primary (Closed)
Missouri Presidential Primary (Open)
New Mexico Democratic Caucuses
North Dakota Democratic Caucuses
Oklahoma Presidential Primary (Closed)

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/sc/

And to answer your question, yes I do see Clark doing well in those other states. You don't get 17% in national polls without having decent support in the states that make up those national polls. Nearly all state polls released show Clark at or near the top.

:thumbsup:

And Gephardt finished second here in '88 to Gore. The word on the street is Clark has a real good shot in the Sooner state. Don't know about the other Super Tuesday states.

since the Democratic Party is leery of Dean.

I only post this because he keeps his ear glued to RNC talking points and no matter how outrageous it may be...he is accurately tuned in to the memes.

The Newsweek poll has him leading Clark 16-15. In their previous poll Dean was at 13% as was Clark.

The New Gallup Poll out yesterday done Nov 10-12 has Dean leading nationally:
Dean: 17% (16% in previous poll)
Lieberman 16% (12% in previous poll)
Clark 14% (15% in previousl poll)
Gep 12% (no change)
Edwards 7% (up from 6%)
Kerry 10% (no change)
Mosley Braun 4% (no change)
Sharpton 3% (down from 6%)
Kucinich 3% (up from 1%)

in the latest Zogby Poll:

Dean: 15%
Clark: 10%
Gephardt: 9%
Lieberman: 9%
Kerry: 7%
Shaprton: 4%
Edwards: 3%
Kucinich: 2%
MB: 2%
Undecideds: 34%

And this tidbit contradicts conventional DU wisdom:

Dean has a slight edge in the East and South. In the West, Clark enjoys 22% compared to Dean’s 17%. In the East, Dean (18%) is followed by Lieberman (15%) and Gephardt (11%), and Kerry trails with just 8%. Dean is the leader in the South with 13%, followed by an 8% tie of Edwards, Lieberman, and Sharpton. Gephardt has a slight lead on Dean in the Central-Great Lakes area, 16% - 15%.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll:

Wesley Clark 17 (16)
Howard Dean 15 (17)
Richard Gephardt 12 (8)
John Kerry 11 (11)
Joe Lieberman 11 (16)
John Edwards 5 (4)
Al Sharpton 4 (3)
Dennis Kucinich 3 (2)
Carol Moseley Braun 3 (1)
Undecided/None 19 (19)

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Bush beats Dean by 9 points as opposed to 3 points with Clark.

Still early. Nobody knows these people yet. Spent the day calling registered voters at Dem Headquarters Tuesday and most were NOT tuning in yet. Most of them didn't even know we were having a caucus in New Mexico for the first time and its on Feb. 3!.

and I don't think he would have entered if he didin't plan to win.
VICTORY!

The -real- news here is that nobody has much of a lead at all.

Most probably there -will- be endorsments by Bill, Hillary and Al. That might very well determine the outcome.

Early primary victories will shift things.

BUT, there is still a very real chance that -nobody- will wind up with a majority of delegates.

These give a better indicator, because these will determine where the delegates go. Right now, it looks like Dean or Gep in IA, Dean in NH, and Clark or Edwards in SC. Those could all change as it heats up -- many voters in those states are just starting to pay attention -- but the results of these events are going to affect national polling as well.

For example: Lieberman is still doing quite well in National polls, but who here thinks he's going to win ANY of the early states or even pick up a significant number of delegates?

because within the party itself are folks that lean in different directions based on their personal wants and needs. as the cast is weeded down you will see most if not all in our party standing behind the nominee. heck we all want that gang of criminals out of the white house!

There are whole generations who have never seen the excitement of a floor fight at a convention.

Mesmerizing! Maybe this is the true media agenda!

I for one would love to stay up all night at the computer with the TV on....if I thought the media wouldn't scuttle us Dems as looney like they love to do.

Just wondering when was the last time it came down to horsetrading in the convention because no one had enough delegates. Anyone know?

I do recall that Lincoln got his nomination in a divided convention. He didn't have the most delegates, but no one had a majority either.

Free yourself and concentrate on winning over the people you know, not the poll numbers.

Opinion Polls Are Bunk - Average 70 Percent Refuse to Participate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=691732

the cream always rises to the top!

this is a major wake up call to the tag team duo of GOP and major media . their lil plan is backfiring. withing the last week it has finally been coming out how slanted the media is in propping up Dean and discrediting Clark. Heck CNN ( Crooked News Network ) one of the biggest ones involved in this, did a piece on this very subject.they had no other chose, its becoming that open in the public now.

while Dean has been roasted over the coals of his own party and managed to maintain momentum. How would Clark fare under the same circumstances?

It may be that the best strategy is to ignore Clark for now, either due to the awkwardness of attacking a general, or to dismiss him--or to protect him from further question. Since the military is more likely to reflect the tone of the Right, it wouldn't be a surprise if the Generals band against him. But then again, maybe not if they support one of their own for the throne.

Hard to tell with Clark. If you are looking at more than military bravado to get at Bush, it is very rocky territory.

Clark has taken some heat, but has probably been hurt more by the "silent treatment" that the press has been giving him lately.

What I am encouraged by is that the rash of attacks on Dean haven't hurt him. I'm sure some of his opponents expected him to lose a lot of ground as the attacks started coming out (remember what people were saying in early Sept., that Dean would be doomed when his "real record" became exposed?), and to not get those huge union endorsements, and to not continue to raise money at such an amazing pace. Dean has held up extremely well under attack.

Very strange eyes. Someone will probably give me shit for saying that, but they are very strange staring, unblinking eyes. I didn't hear a word he said, I was staring at his strange eyes....You are getting sleepy..;-)

eyes of a 4 star general that saved 1.5 million lives from ethnic cleansing. all with NO casualties to our troops!

Are you guys clueless to Clark's liabilities or what?

He was let go from his high post at the Pentagon, his superiors told him to get his face off of television, there was the Pristina incident, he has been cited for war crimes in bombing non-miliary targets, the list goes on. These things may mean nothing to you, but they can be used against Clark.

everything you jus mentioned all comes from the GOP ans Shelton. this has been gone over and over by legit media and none of what you just said or the comments by Shelton are true.

They will use it and you may dismiss it, but the problem is, will others?

because CWebster will repeat them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

Until people run screaming into oncoming traffic.

Thanks.

I put in my time too!

- the man who presented a doctored video of a passenger train (footage at double speed) getting hit by a NATO missile and argued that the accident happened because it was going too fast...

- the man who explained why it was okay to kill TV station workers and other civilian targets

- the man who backed up a group that the State Department still rightly declared a terrorist army (the KLA) just a year earlier

- the man who reprised in the same role two years later as a CNN war pimp...

- the man who paved the way for the ethnic cleansing of the Serb, Gypsy and Jewish minorities from a Kosovo now dominated by revanchist Albanians...

Okay, it was Clinton's and Germany's and NATO's war, Clark was just following orders and Dean and all the rest supported this violation of international law, too. But Clark was the designated pimp for the murder.

Now here's a man who has never done anything in his life except take orders and give orders, in the military. He'll be great for running hte next war. But hey, it will be a Democratic bombing, hooray.

...and here folks are the eyes of an extremist manipulator of the facts. all for the processing and consumption of like minded folks as himself.

its not worth rebutting all the nonsense you wrote , it speaks for itself.

you can't deal with the facts.

The train video is a fact.

The bombing of the Belgrade TV station is a fact.

The real ethic cleansing of the Kosovo - the one that has occurred under the NATO occupation - is a fact.

You can't deal with it, or you don't want to know.

:D

the eyes of a 4 star general that killed thousands of innocent men, women and children.

clark creeps me out in a most unsettling way. I wonder, when he goes to sleep at night, do the ghosts of those thousands visit him in his dreams. Do the little children ghosts, w/missing limbs and skin hanging from the tiny bodies, come to him and ask him why?

He was only following orders, you say?

Nuremberg Trials
A human being's moral soul
How many bodies will someone step over to rise to the top?

even though you base all your comments on lies and inuendo, i wonder if the ghosts and souls of those slaughtered and mass graved by Milosevic bother you?

My comments were based on facts, as reported in news accounts around the world, not the U.S media. (And posted here repeatedly.)

You may dismiss the innocents clark killed, but I do not. I do not, and never will believe you must kill people to save them from death by another.

show the links to these facts. then be prepared to read ALL of mine!

"Collateral Damage" or Unlawful Killings?
Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force

From 24 March to 10 June 1999 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conducted an air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), codenamed Operation Allied Force. NATO aircraft conducted over 38,000 combat sorties, including 10,484 strike sorties, against targets in the provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, Serbia proper and the Republic of Montenegro. Yugoslav media have stated that thousands of civilians were killed in NATO air raids. However, the civilian death tolls given in detailed FRY government accounts range from 400 to 600. NATO has not released official estimates of civilians or FRY combatants killed. No NATO forces were killed in hostile action during the air campaign.

Amnesty International believes that in the course of Operation Allied Force, civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the laws of war. These rules are designed to protect -- to the maximum extent possible -- civilian lives and objects. The rules include a prohibition on any direct attacks against civilians or civilian objects. The rules also include prohibitions on attacks which do not attempt to distinguish between military targets and civilians or civilian objects and attacks which, although aimed at a legitimate military target, have a disproportionate impact on civilians or civilian objects.(07 May 2000)

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/index.html

Btw, I will not "prepare" myself to read shit.

just like i thought, a pacifist. all the talking in the world isnt going to progress this any further. i have better things to do. enjoy yourself. peace to you.

you can not debate my facts.

and always will be! jus as this line that you so highlighted says;

Amnesty International believes that in the course of Operation Allied Force, civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the laws of war.

main words, believes, could have been

its an opinion that is standard fair from this organization. all with good intentions but we dont live in a world of Gandhis and Utopia.

this thread would be further played out by me posting a link to articles praising Clark, then your further pacifist view. i dont need it guy. find another patsy.

Did clark kill innocent men, women and children?

Yes __

No __

death by another."


Your logic escapes me.....

Was the Warsaw resistance during WW2 justified?

After all the Jewish and Christian resistors killed NAZIS to prevent them from rounding up other Jews and Christians and sending them to the death camps during WW2...

And how about the sniper who takes out the armed hostage taker who has a gun at the head or the knife at the neck of his captive....


I guess you don't think these things through.... You just want to elevate your post count....

I think the number of civilians killed in Kosovo by friendly fire was in the neighborhood of 600. Considering that our bombs are not spot-on perfectly accurate 100% of the time, that is not too bad considering how much damage would have been done if we used the Gulf War vintage stuff, which only caused 25% of Coalition losses to be due to FRIENDLY FIRE!!!

That and as far as bombing news stations, remember that the news stations in Serbia were under Milosevic's control and were used by him to keep the population under his thumb.

I see you haven't lost your gift for character assasination and hyperbole....


<kisses>

Brian

He pulls you in. That's the quality Gene Lyons was talking about...the cat-like quality.

Fascinating.

...as that throbbing vein on Dean's neck :hi:

If everyone stays in and things continue this way no one goes to the convention with more than 30% of the delegates - and there's no way that the convention decides to go with the 'angry' candidate (by that i mean the candidate that appeals to the angry voter, not a slam on anyone being angry).

I WISH some of these people would bow out gracefully and let a couple of these candidates resonate with people - this is NOT going to help us a year from now.

... let's hope the DLC can keep control of the party - they've done such a great job over the last 5 years.

is having all these polls freeped...or just ordering the media to produce them at will. It, it must mean that they really WANT to run against Clark! We can't support Clark! Or is it just that Clark is a great candidate? Maybe the Dean bashers can help me understand Machiavellian politics.

they all show Dean doing the worst against Bush:

Bush Versus Democratic Candidates
"If the election were held today"

Bush % Democratic Candidate/Advantage (in pct. pts.)%
Bush 50 Wesley Clark 47 -3
Bush 53 Howard Dean 44 -9
Bush 52 Dick Gephardt 46 -6
Bush 52 John Kerry 46 -6
Bush 52 Joe Lieberman 46 -6

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031114.asp

Some show him doing about the same as the rest. My gut is that he's somewhere in between.

I still think Clark is our best shot against Bush (he consistently leads the others by at least a couple of percentage points, with perhaps the exception of one or two polls, and logically a Southerner with a military background will put up a stronger electoral fight than a non-Southerner who did not serve), and that is very important to me.

DTH

Now it's not Karl Rove manipulating the media, now it's rock, paper, scissors. The arguement changes to fit the circumstances. One way or the other Dean victory, whether we bring it upon ourselves, or ROve makes it happen, spells monumental defeat, all 50 states, next year. I can't wait to see how you guys work to get the vote out if Dean is the nominee.:eyes:

and more importantly, he knows where Dean's weaknesses are.

And he's a pretty sorry piece of work. Clark's brilliance and record of supporting human rights in the face of ethnic cleansing belie every vile spin that bottom feeder spews forth.

Here's to General Clark's nomination and election! :toast: