Dean followed by Clark (et al) in new national poll

Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Poll. Nov. 18-20 & Dec. 1-3, 2003. N=539 likely Democratic presidential primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.3.

"It is early, but if you had to choose today, which ONE of the following nine candidates would you be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president? . . ."

Howard Dean 18    
Wesley Clark 14    
Richard Gephardt 14    
John Kerry 13    
Joe Lieberman 10    
John Edwards 6    
Al Sharpton 4    
Carol Moseley Braun 4    
Dennis Kucinich 2    
Other/None/Not sure 15

http://www.ipsos-pa.com/dsp_displaypr_us.cfm?id_to_view=1989

. . .and the undecideds become decideds what does it look like?

When you think about the amount of publicity and media attention and the way it's distributed, it's amazing how close it really is.

Bottom line, people tend to gravitate towards the one they think is going to win. No one likes to be on the losing team. Dean has the most going for him and has more in his favor, so he will attract the majority of the remaining votes as well as from those candidates who drop out.

. . .given the bad blood between Dean and Kerry/Gephardt.

and aren't running campaigns of deception. I think there is a shame involved at the way Dean uses so much deception to fuel his campaign rhetoric.

... the real key will be the undecideds I guess. Hey, that's ME! Hmmm ... I basically want anyone who could beat Bush like a drum.

Then you should seriously think about voting for Clark. He's a surer bet to beat GWB. Dean can probably get more Democratic voters to vote than Clark. But Clark can get more Southern States and more electorial votes. That's what will win the election and throw the puppet/fool out. That's my true objective. I agree with you...someone who can beat Bush like a drum!

and not just in the south.

Clark was fired from his command in Kosovo. Regardless of the arguments that can be made for why he was fired and why it was unfair... the pukes will scream 24/7 that Clark is an incompetent military leader who was fired for bad decision making. They’ll paint him as a power hungry mad man who can't protect us the way Bush can.

Clark v Bush would be a contest over who is the better protector/warrior and that is a fight that Clark will lose... not so much with dems as with those southern voters you are talking about.


Dean not only draws in more dems than Clark, he also draws greens and disinterested/first time voters... but Dean also reaches out to those same southern voters as Clark with his positions on gun control and support for state's rights.

Plus Dean's the only one who has set up a system that is capable of effectively fighting back against Bush's media onslaught.

Everybody thinks Clark would be this great candidate because they invasion Clark confronting Bush on his AWOL status and attacking his ability, but the fact is that all Bush has to say is that the past means nothing and what is important are the threats we face today from the evil does he has been so bravely fighting the last 4 years, and Clark hits a brick wall on that issue.

And then Bush Co will attack Clark for being fired from his command, paint him as being unable to make decisions under pressure (insert "Mary Help!" quote here) and Clark comes off as the crazy ex-commander who cracks up under pressure.

Dean on the other hand is not running as a better warrior, but as a healer and that will be much harder for Bush to run against.

Clark is everything Bush isn't. It will be difficult to go after Clark's character without attacking our military structure in the process. After all, he was able to become a 4 Star General. He doesn't have a voting record to attack, and he's never been a drunk, never taken drugs, nor did he get out of going to Viet Nam and then go skiing. He's been married to the same woman for 36 years and has one son who is married with their first child on the way. Rove will have a harder time poking holes in Clark's character than anyone else running, including Dean. Clark's kind of character is rare.

We're at war. A majority of Americans want more than someone who calls himself a healer while our men and women are being killed in Iraq. We're in Iraq now. It has to be dealt with and should be dealt with by someone with experience. It's not a time to test theories.

Clark's dismissal after he waged a successful campaign in Kosovo without losing one American life is easily explained, is well documented and Clark has plenty of people who were there at the time to back him up.

As far as saying that he's a crazy ex-commander who cracks up under pressure and making it stick, Clark has a history that says otherwise, a history that demonstrates just the opposite. You can't be crazy and one who cracks up under pressure and be first in your class at West Point, receive a Rhodes scholarship, be shot in battle several times while leading a platoon but continue leading his men despite the fact that he had been wounded. That's hardly cracking under pressure, and the American public responds to such stories of heroism. In fact, Bush will want to stay away from anything that will enable Clark to bring this personal account up. He works his way up to 4 Star General and is assigned commander of NATO in Kosovo. Simply put, Clark had his tenure cut short because he lobbied hard for intervention in Kosovo angering the likes of Gen Shelton and William Cohen in the process. He angered them because he got his way and the result was that we saved 1.5 million ethnic Albanians from death. I don't think Clark will mind making that argument. I think Clark will be just fine when he's beating Bush in the General election.

was then shipped out of the Pentagon to have his career wither on someone else's vine where he was later... we'll just say stopped being supreme poobah and went away. Fixed the problem and he was never close to being one of the joint chiefs.

its painfully easy to dismantle Clark and since he is one dimentional (in any demonstrable way) he's an easy target.

but what do I know ?

or more to the point, what does Colin Powell know that will become common knowledge if Clark becomes the nom ?

The attacks on Clark that you mention won't stick. A thorough vetting of the record, as happened with Clinton, will leave those attacks nullified long before October rolls around.

Your positive points on Dean are interesting. But I don't see, as you do, that "Dean also reaches out to those same southern voters as Clark with his positions on gun control and support for state's rights."

After all, Southerners who vote on those issues will already have Bush with more or less the same view points--pro gun and pro state rights. Any appeal from Dean on those issues are immediately nullified by the cultural gap that he represents to them. Think about all the touchstone issues that Rove can parade across the South, the Midwest, the mountain West, and the blue collar industrial states (gay marriage, tax hikes, and soft on defense). That's where Dean will be clobbered.

I agree that on substantive issues he's very strong. I disagree that people are sways only by matters of substance in an election. Democracies vote their passions and use their college degrees to justify their impulses later.

You continue to go on and on and on about these horrible lies that Dean has told about Kerry and Gephardt... yet when asked to list them all you ever come up with is the fact Dean called the other dems out for supporting so much of Bush legislation, which they did.

You act like Dean saying they voted for Bush's tax cuts is some huge fabrication, because they only voted for a 350 billion version of the tax cuts instead of the 700 billion version. But that's still 350 billion of Bush's tax cuts they voted for and now Kerry wants to keep parts of Bush's tax cut fraud in place.

So what's the huge deception Dean has used?

You accuse him of pretending to be anti-war, and when people explain to you that Dean never tried to pretend to be anti-war and it was in fact Kerry's DLC that tried so hard to spread that lie about Dean being anti-war fringe leftist, you ignore it.

You bashers try to smear Dean with a label, then when it won't stick, you try to blame it on Dean by saying he's waffeling.

So what is the deception, BLM?

You say Dean has rn his campaign as a populist, yet was an evil conservative in VT... nevermind the fact he was reelected 5 times in one of the most liberal states in the union. Yet when I point out his policy record in VT that focused on healthcare, education, jobs and balanced budgets and explain that Dean's main campaign focuses are healthcare, education, jobs, Iraq, and balanced budgets... you ignroe it and have yet to explain where this gigantic change in focus can be found.

Edwards turns over the South to Clark. Lieberman gives the more conservative voters to Clark. It's all Clark.

I think Gep's votes may go more like 60-40 to Clark because of the union vote. Unfortunately, I think Gep will stick it out through Missouri, possibly costing Clark my home state.

I think the DU polls I have seen also tell us something. When all candidates are included, Clark usually beats Dean narrowly. When the poll only includes Clark and Dean, Clark's lead widens.

I happen to think most of the Kerry and Gephardt supporters are not as spoiled and cranky as those here, and thus are not likely to cast their vote solely out of spite based on being upset their guy didn't get the nomination.

Unlike the folks here, most folks out there care more about beating bush than getting some snide sense of payback against Dean for running a better campaign than Kerry or Gephardt.

I recall a poll in NH I believe that showed the majority of Kerry supporters had Dean as their #2 choice. I don't think there is the kind of Dean hatred in the real world that you see on DU.

has Clark second. I don't hate Dean, I just don't think there's a chance in hell he can win. If Kerry and Clark are out by the time the primary gets to PA I probably won't vote in the primary, because I don't care who the nominee is at that point, I don't think anybody else can win. I'll vote for whoever is the Dem nominee in the fall

Dean is ALREADY at a statisticle dead heat with Bush... Dean;s numbers are already where Gore's numbers were at the END of the 2000 campaign.

So why do you think Dean can't win? Every indicator shows he'll stomp bush.

Show me specifically ANY indicator that shows that Dean will stomp Bush. ANY.

What makes me think that Clark would stomp Bush? So far, all I get is this song and dance about Clark being "a model of a majore modern genral."

But I have plenty of resones to think that Clark and Bush are in fact best of buds. He even aproched two Republicans while in France to be Bush's running mate in 2004. Do you get that? He wanted to be Bush's RUNNING MATE!!!!! (I am almost hear Rove laughing at you right now.)

Clark is notihng but a panicea man. There ain't nothing there, sept what ever you can use Bush to prop up.

In NH and MA actually do favor Clark over Dean.

I have high regard for DU people, including those who don't agree with me. Your comments echo Dean's comments - pitting democrats other democrats.

The supporters in NH and MA are not going to be voting for someone OTHER than their pick, unless their pick drops out. There is no way that Kerry will drop out before NH or MA.

The only way Clark could win the nomination is if guys like Kerry and Gephardt dropped out NOW. And they have egos way too big to do that.

So they'll split up the first primary states enough for Dean to win NH and Iowa, win or take 2nd in SC... so by the time that any of these others top tier guys drop out, Dean will already have the momentum going into other states.

By the time it gets to Dean and Clark... Dean will have the nomination locked up. Clark will probably win some of the southern states, but that's not going to be enough to win the primary.

I was giving my personal experience - regarding Kerry and Edwards supporters in 2 states - apply that to other states.

Why do Clark supporters' views seem to always be worthless to SOME Dean supporters?

"I was giving my personal experience - regarding Kerry and Edwards supporters in 2 states - apply that to other states."


Those supporters in those states are not going to switch because their guy won't drop out before they vote in the primary. So they'll vote for their guy, split the vote, and Dean will win.

And what you experience in NH or MA doesn;t apply to CA or AZ or Texas etc. By the time the others drop out and it comes down to just Dean and Clark in later states, Dean will have a big lead and all the momentum and at that point the votes tend to go to the guy in the lead.

"Why do Clark supporters' views seem to always be worthless to SOME Dean supporters? "

I did not say your view was worthless... just that it didn't mean anything... IWO what you were talking about would have no significant effect on the outcome.

why do you think the media can't seem to find Clark's name very often?

Clark waited and waited to get into the race... was coy about even saying he was a democrat... hasn't raised record breaking amounts of money from hundreds of thousands of people... doesn't have half a million people volunteering for him... doesn't have 150,000 people meeting up every moneth to support him... hasn't been campaigning nearly as much or in as many states... etc.


Why is it you folks think that CLark deserves more media coverage, even if he's not working as hard for it as guys like Dean and Kerry??

I've been doing petition work, and in the process have been talking to a lot of Democrats in the last two weeks. These are the kinds of people who aren't obsessed with politics but who are disgusted with the state of the country.

We are at a crucial time when many people are deciding where their vote goes. Most of them are fixated on the General Election rather than the primary. They don't care about internal Democratic politics. They don't care about the Internet, beyond spamming jokes and checking news sites. They just want to get Bush the heck out of the White House.

Eighty-five percent of these folks out of the clear blue have mentioned that they don't believe that Dean will win. This is truly coming from the grassroots. If Clark really mobilizes over the next few weeks he can win this thing. Right now Dean is ahead but he doesn't have any margin for error and his momentum could come skidding to a halt at any time.

I think the majority of supporters whose candidates drop out will come into the Clark camp. There are several reasons for this, but the two main reasons are: 1)there is no way this country will replace a sitting republican president during a time of war with a liberal Democrat who has zero foreign policy or military experience. We're even more conservative now because of 9/11 than we were during the 2000 election. Democrats want to win this election,and 2)Clark attracts a much more diverse crowd than Dean can ever hope to. Clark garners support from liberals, moderates, independents, moderate republicans, and even conservative republicans who are upset over Bush's spending jones. Dean simply can't make the same claim. The race will be between Clark and Dean, and the focused comparison will float Clark to the top. Clark has a positive vision of the future and Dean is just angry. Sorry, Deanies, but you have to admit that it's true.

Dean also has support from liberals, moderates, independents, moderate republicans, and conservative republicans. Oh, and Dean also has a positive vision for the future.

Your defense of Dean sounds like an adult version of "I know you are but what am I?" There is no evidence nor reason to believe that a sizable number of republicans are planning to support Dean. I remind you that Dean is the one who claims to be "representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party". I have my eyes wide open and I don't see republicans flocking to that rallying cry.

:shrug:

as does his support for state's rights... two of the biggest issues in moderate rebublican circles.


"I have my eyes wide open and I don't see republicans flocking to that rallying cry."

Doesn't matter how wide you open your eyes, if your head is stuck... in the sand.

http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/

Have a look for yourself.

I keep hearing this, but the only people I know personally who support him are people who worship the military or are stuck in their conventional wisdom beliefs about dems being weak on defense. Not really THAT diverse of a crowd.

"1)there is no way this country will replace a sitting republican president during a time of war with a liberal Democrat who has zero foreign policy or military experience."

Dean is a moderate... need to check your meme notes.

ANd Dean does have FP experience dealing with several other nations on trade issues and has been to over 50 countries. He's got more experience than Clinton had when he came into office after W's Daddy's war in Iraq.

And Dean is already doing way better than Clinton was doing in the primary.


"We're even more conservative now because of 9/11 than we were during the 2000 election."

No, we're more afraid... there's a big difference. If anything we're more liberal after seeing the destruction that 4 years of Bush has brought us.


"Democrats want to win this election, and 2)Clark attracts a much more diverse crowd than Dean can ever hope to. Clark garners support from liberals, moderates, independents, moderate republicans, and even conservative republicans who are upset over Bush's spending jones. Dean simply can't make the same claim."

In fact Dean can make that claim since Dean is crushing Clark in polls of indi voters. Clark's actions in Kosovo and as a defense lobbyist drive off the greens and liberal left end of the spectrum that Dean attracts. And Clark's stance on gun control really hurts his draw with republicans, moderate or conservative.

In fact the only group Clark is really strong with is the military vote, but that's hardly enough to make up for the votes he drives off.



"The race will be between Clark and Dean, and the focused comparison will float Clark to the top."

Nope, Clark's numbers continue to stagnate, and even drop in some polls. He just doesn’t excite people the way Dean does, and Dean has a massive head start on Clark, Dean is simply working harder.

By the time the race is between just Dean and Clark, Dean will have all the momentum from early wins.


"Clark has a positive vision of the future and Dean is just angry. Sorry, Deanies, but you have to admit that it's true."

That's not true at all. Dean is angry, but far from JUST angry. But I have noticed that's the new desperate meme from the Clark camp... that Dean is nothing but anger.

Saying the Dean campaign is nothing but anger is like saying the civil rights movement or the women’s suffrage movement was nothing but anger. Sure there was a lot of well justified anger at the unjust situation, but that anger is what fueled the drive for change that was shaped by hope.

Dean's campaign is about anger at what is and hope for what can be.

That’s why he is wining and will continue to do so no mater how many memes the opposition try to spew at him.

Which candidate will pick up the voters of the candidates who drop out?

This time, it's ANYBODY BUT BUSH! All the Democratic candidates are far, far superior to this swaggering nitwit we have now.

Go Dean! :yourock:

will sort things out.

..you have to laugh at how disproportionately high Dean's coverage is in the media. He has an 4-5 point lead over THREE candidates, and thats the margin of error in this poll!

You'd think that he had 60% of the Dem vote by the way the media focuses almost solely on him.

in national polls we're still primarily in the "name recognition" stage. In primary states it's different, but much less so nationally.

I like that Dean is ahead, but it only means that people have started hearing about him.

Eloriel

They have just started hearing about Dean. And they are just starting to hear about Wesley Clark too. Dean's campaign strategy has been mechanically brilliant. But I think this is more of a horse race than many people realize. Most people are going to focus on the question of electability. They desperately want to get rid of Bush.

ANd Dean's got half a million folks rowing for him... while Clark isn't even sure which direction to move in.

CLark has no focus, while Dean has been focused and building resources for a year now.... that is going to make all the difference.

Clark hoped that he could wait, jump in late in the game and catch a big wave of hype, but it didn't work. Now CLark;s total lack of expereicne with a campaign is showing... while Dean continues to make gains.

of error almost says that he can't overtake Dean. When the margin of error is so little, and that Dean is too far away of any of the other candidates in a poll like that, then we can say he's definitely getting the nomination.

LOL! Who are you, Gloria Borger?
Don't you think you're a tad bit too confident about Dean winning?

.... this poll is even more confusing because four of them are bunched up within MOE. AAARGHHH!

I wish John Edwards would get more press. He is such a good candidate but I just think he looks too young.

that the poll doesn't hand us the clear frontrunner status yet.

The only defense Dean supporters offer for predicting his nomination is reference to the polls. No one tries to explain why they think his lack of foreign policy or military experience doesn't matter. This is particularly worrisome since our country is effectively involved in 3 non-conventional wars: Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader war on terror. Do you really believe that a majority of the country will want Dean under these circumstances, and if so, why? We can't enter into the general election with blinders on unless we want to lose.

Dean does have an exit plan for Iraq. We really don't need military experience or foreign policy experience since Dean clearly saw that there wasn't evidence to go to war with Iraq and spoke out against it early on.

"We really don't need military experience or foreign policy experience..." No wonder Democrats are seen as weak on defense. These are the kinds of defenses that were offered up by McGovern supporters. Do you recall the results of that election? I hate to break this to you but regardless of Dean's position on the war, the fact remains that we are in Iraq, we are in Afghanistan and we have terrorists all over the world trying to kill us and our allies. This is no time to test Dr. Dean's theories on war and peace. We need Gen. Clark, someone with the right kind of experience to untangle this mess that Bush has gotten us into. Yes, we do need foreign policy and military experience and if we go into this election saying otherwise, we'll lose.

and that's sad.

Why do some Dems do that, anyway? Spreading GOP memes like that for some political gain. Tsk, tsk. Sad, indeed.

Who's saying that?

;-)

Does this mean that Dean would not support a ban on assault rifes or automatic weapons? If I was Dean I wouldn't brag about receiving an A from the NRA. Remember, their best friend in Congress in Tom Delay. He also gets an A from the NRA.

the states.

Where does Dean draw the line? Does he support a ban on automatic weapons and assault rifles or doesn't he?

This position does not reflect an A rating position with the NRA, but it's the right position. He mustn't have talked too much about it as governor of Vermont if the NRA gave Dean an A.

So let me get this straight. Dean supports a ban on assault weapons, but thinks gun issues should be left up to the states. As governor of Vermont, did Dean pass a ban on assault weapons?

Why not read Dean's position on his website, rather than trying to spin some 3rd party post describign that policy?



Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States. During my 11 years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont or Wyoming, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.

I agree with Dean. I was responding to the poster's argument on Dean's gun position. I guess I'm just confused as to why Dean would receive an A from the NRA but the NRA went after Gore in 2000 claiming that he wanted to take everyone's guns, yet Gore's position was virtually the same as Dean's. Anyway, good for Dean. Personally, I don't think we need to pick a fight with the NRA in this election. Dean is apparently on top of this issue.

Yet you attack Dean as if you were.

Dean's position, the one that got him the A ratign is that while he supports the brady bill, AWB, and closing the gun show loophole on the federal level, he supports leaving the decision for any additional gun crontol laws up to the state.


And it is funny how some folks attack Dean for his NRA rating... yet turn around and say the reason Clark is so great is that his military hawkishness gets him support from the south. Yet when one poits out Dean gets a lot of the same support from the same southern voters for his stance on guns, they attack Dean for being an evil centrist pandering to gun nuts and racists.

I didn't know Dean was getting a lot of support in the south. The NRA are against the Brady Bill, the ban on assault weapons and against closing the gun show loophole. How did Dean get an A as governor? Did he advocate inforcement of these laws as governor?

Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States. During my 11 years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont or Wyoming, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.

Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States. During my 11 years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont or Wyoming, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.

But I don't think Dean is running strong in the South. He's seen as an elitist New England liberal. The South looks to be leaning toward Clark, Edwards and Lieberman. People are more conservative in the South and since we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, they want someone with foreign policy and/or military experience. The military is big in the south. That's why Clark is doing so well in South Carolina.

Once again your defense is w/o substance. Recognizing that we are at war is not buying into the fear that Bush spreads. It's reality. To win this election we have to deal with reality. I'm sorry, but you're not winning this argument. And don't get me wrong, I like Dean. I was supporting him until Clark joined the race. I don't think Dean has a snowball's chance in hell of beating Bush. It's sad but true, for the reasons I posted previously, and then some. Let's say Bush and Dean are debating and Bush says that America is at war in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over against terrorist and America wants a president with experience, and Dean give your reply, that foreign policy and military experience are not important. How do you think that will play to the American public? Be honest.

"You have no foreign policy experience, Bush. You lied to the American public about the weapons of mass destruction. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? You put our soldiers in an unnecessary war. Afghanistan was a good choice to go to war because they attacked us. Iraq did not attack us. You wanted to go to Iraq for oil for your Halliburton friends. You also alienated our allies with your foreign policy petulance. Thanks to you, we have no international cooperation in helping solve the problem of Iraq that you created. I was against this war from the start because it was the wrong war." Dean is saying that.

So what you're saying is that American's will want to replace Bush with Dean because Dean has no foreign policy experience just like Bush when he entered the White House. At least Bush could pretend that he had a little military experience. Dean will be left explaining that he got out of going to Viet Nam because of back problems, though they weren't bad enough to keep him from spending the next year skiing while others, like Clark, were risking their lives. I hope you realize that the Republicans will pull out all the stops. But add Clark to the mix and Americans will be able to choose between two men without military/foreign policy experience and one with extensive experience in both areas. Hmmm, who do you think they'd choose?

and has met with the prime minister and legislators of Canada for trade issues, and he's also talked to the president of Argentina. That's more foreign policy than Bush ever had.

That's not a very impressive foreign policy record. Bush's was similar. He talked about working with Mexico and traveling to South America. And like I said, Bush at least spent a little time in the National Guard. And unfortunately Bush now has more foreign policy experience. And if Dean makes the arguement that his foreign policy experience is similar to Bush's when Bush became president, you're inviting people to think "if Bush did such a bad job in foreign policy, why do we want another president without foreign policy experience? Maybe it's that lack of experience that got us into this mess in the first place."

Let me tell you who didn't have foreign policy experience when they entered office and handled wars successfully.....

FDR---no foreign policy experience---handed WWII well.



CLINTON---no foreign policy experience---handed Kosovo well.



What I'm saying is that you grow into the Presidency---the Presidency becomes you, which really can't be said for Bush.

We were not at war when these two men were elected and I'm sure you know who led NATO to victory in Kosovo. It was Clark. Arguing that voters should trust Dean to "grow into the presidency" is not a winning strategy. We are at war now and need someone proven who can effectively get us out of this mess. It's not a situation in which to test theories. THERE ARE AMERICAN LIVES AT STAKE, not to mention American prestige.

if there had been a war going on?

I never said that Dean would make a crappy president. I think he'd make a fine president. What I've been arguing all of this time is that Dean can't get elected. Clinton was a great president, but there's a good chance that he wouldn't have gotten elected if we were at war. People tend to rally behind the president, Bush senior would have made the case that Clinton had no foreign policy or military experience, Bush senior had both, and, perhaps most importantly, it would have taken people's minds off the economy. But that's really all beside the point. We have to deal with the current situation. Bush still leads in the national polls. The majority of Americans don't see Bush the way you and I do. That's why I say that they will be very reluctant to replace Bush with someone who has no foreign policy or military experience while we're at war.

Yeah experince at screwing up and pissing off our allies... that's not something that will help him.


Dean has more FP experience than Bush, Clinton, Cater, or Reagan had wen they first ran for office. And Reagan was elected in teh middle of the Iran situation and Iraq was still an issue when Clinton ousted Bush sr.

So the idea that unseating a war time president is hard, when that war has been so badly bungled, is a flase premise.

It's that kind of flippant attitude that will lose the election for us. Again, you and I know what a failure Bush has been at foreign policy, but a majority of Americans are less certain. Forget that point and we lose. We were not at war during the elections won by Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, or Carter. Bush Sr. and Carter had military experience. A majority of Americans still support going into Iraq. A majority of Americans think republicans are better on defense than democrats. That's one reason why Reagan beat Carter while the "Iran situation" was happening. Carter tried to rescue the hostages and failed. Reagan negotiated their release as soon as he became president (thought I think there was more to it than that). Democrats must not underestimate the public's current fear and how Bush will play on that fear. If you don't think it's hard to unseat a sitting republican president during a time of war then you're sadly mistaken. I just hope their aren't too many Democrats that feel the same as you on this point.

Just as Bush has failed in Iraq and has been unable to catch osma or saddam.

Bush is Cater in terms of FP.

No Osama, no bin Laden, an unnecessary war, and 9/11 happened on their watch. And they won't let us know why it happened and have no interest in the 9/11 investigation other than diverting it , appeasing victim's families, and having Americans "perceive" that they're doing something about the investigation.

The Republicans have now lost the edge they once had over Dems when it comes to defense. It is gone. Bush dumped it in favor of the PNAC.
It no longer exists. Shout it from the rooftops. Ka-put!

To say Republicans have defense as an advantage, is to say something that is no longer true. it is now a myth. And we can't wait a decade for folks who stumble around in a Bush-induced fog of fear to figure this one out.

The Rs threw away that advantage in exchange for something they wanted for over a decade. PNAC. Explain it to the confused and fearful, Spread the word. Terrible things happen when we entrust our defense to the Republicans. They are LOUSY at it.

Fini.

"We really don't need military experience or foreign policy experience..." No wonder Democrats are seen as weak on defense. These are the kinds of defenses that were offered up by McGovern supporters. Do you recall the results of that election? I hate to break this to you but regardless of Dean's position on the war, the fact remains that we are in Iraq, we are in Afghanistan and we have terrorists all over the world trying to kill us and our allies. This is no time to test Dr. Dean's theories on war and peace. We need Gen. Clark, someone with the right kind of experience to untangle this mess that Bush has gotten us into. Yes, we do need foreign policy and military experience and if we go into this election saying otherwise, we'll lose.

The guy came out against the war in an unqualified way and attracted his initial supporters. I'm not in Dean's camp but I loved the way he criticized the war. The people who responded to him were deeply committed to him based on their passionate stance against the invasion. He hired some gifted people, built a great Internet campaign, and parlayed that into cash, a volunteer infrastructure and union endorsements.

However, like it or not, the average Joe/Jane American isn't politically passionate. The fact that Dean displayed such courage while taking an anti-war stance is not going to resonate with them. In fact, the exuberance of the Deanies may be a turnoff to them. They're tired of drama. Our Democratic voters are deeply concerned about the state of this country. They will cast their ballots pragmatically next year for the candidate they believe will rid us of the dangers of Bush.

Dean supporters until we heard Dean.

Passion is going to be necessary to win the White House but if we rely on blind passion we are sure to lose. The foreign policy issue will be big in this campaign and just touting that you were the first to speak out against an Iraqi invasion will not be enough. Unfortunately, there are still a majority of Americans who think is was the right thing to do. It's a different matter when asked if they think Bush is handling post-war Iraq effectively. It will put Dean in the awkward position of arguing that he can handle it better even though he has no military or foreign policy experience. Clark can effectively make that argument, and he does.

If any of those other guys could get over half a million popel signed up to do things like write letters, send faxes and e-mail, and makes calls to local and national media... they'd be getting the same kind of coverage.

Dean gets more coverage because he is doing things differently and accomplishing more than the rest.

Dean's lead will continue to grow and the bashers will continue to try to attribute that to anything other than Dean runnig a better campaign.

and will continue doing it.

The same time that Kerry said he was filing a Senate resolution AGAINST the FCC changes.

Dean had some charters for specific promotions- to fly the TX rangers to Iowa and NH and the Sleepless Summer Tour (which is pretty understandable considering the size of the crowds) but the days before Austin (last week?) he was still in a 6 seater for regular stops- he and Kate and 4 reporters.

it a replica of Air Force 1 or was it an early Xmas gift from Rove or is it just some more misleading made up crapola from a disappointed Kerry fan??

Dean '04...

among the top 5 candidates. I'm always amazed at Gephardts' numbers. He ranks very high.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. Those three states should help flesh things out.

Fascinating stuff!

Considering the fact that Clark entered this race months and months behind all the others, is ignored by the media and is new to politics, he's doing great in the polls. February is a long, long time away! Go, Clark!!!!

It drives me nuts that this is not taken into account. A two-month old campaign is up there with the rest who've had more time, more money, more volunteers, more exposure, all of it. It's extraordinary, really.

going nowhere but down, obviously... harhar

The media always does the same thing: they home in on the biggest fundraiser and largely stop paying attention to everyone else, creating a feedback loop, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So fine. But I also happen to think that Dean is the GOP's favored candidate to run against. Ample evidence of that for any with eyes to see. And I hasten to acknowledge that, yes, this may well be a complete miscalculation on their part--Dean may be just the guy who can best kick W's ass. I hope so. Nevertheless, it's fairly obvious. And so I can't help wondering whether the fact that Dean is the Media-Designated Winner--when not one single vote has yet been cast--is entirely coincidental.

'A recent IPSOS-Reid/Cook Political Report national poll puts Dean less than one point away from an MoE lead. An MoE lead prior to the Iowa caucuses--just about six weeks away--means Dean will win the nomination according to the Mayer predictive model. The model demonstrates that individual primary performances are irrelevant.'

http://rhetorica.net/

This is a glorified popularity contest, based on which candidate appears to have the most charisma.

That's all elections seem to be these days anyway.

Apart from the quite possible possibility that the media, behind these polls, has an agenda of their own...?

Pull together DEMS!!!!