Wes Clark Wins First Major 2008 Democratic Straw Poll

Gen. Wesley Clark was the winner of the first major straw poll of
Democrats for the 2008 presidential election. In a straw poll of over
15,000 Democratic activists.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/19/14615/3368


Gen. Wes Clark Wins First Major 2008 Democratic Straw Poll
Submitted by rob on Tue, 2005-07-19 13:38.

Gen. Wesley Clark was the winner of the first major straw poll of Democrats for the 2008 presidential election. In a straw poll of over 15,000 Democratic activists Clark received 26% of the vote and was trailed by Senators Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold who each had 10% of the vote. The 2004 nominee Sen. John Kerry came in next to last with only 2% of the vote.

Who would you like to see as our '08 nominee?
#


Evan Bayh 2%
#


Joe Biden 3%
#


Wesley Clark 26%
#


Hillary Clinton 10%
#


John Edwards 8%
#


Russ Feingold 10%
#


John Kerry 2%
#


Bill Richardson 4%
#


Mark Warner 5%
#


Tom Vilsack 0%
#


Other 7%
#


No Frickin' Clue 16%

This is the dkos straw poll, FWIW.

Still interesting to see.

:yourock:

TC

to coin a phrase?????

The one where you eliminate candidates because you suspect that some supporters may have DUed the poll? That's a good one.

and the means existed to screen for duplicate votes, as those who ran the poll obviously claim was possible (despite not allowing for the fact that different people with different emails might share one computer) than the offending double votes could have been discarded rather than disqualifying a major candidate and all of the legitimate votes that candidate received. I could say more about alternate theories for why the specific actions taken by the Nashua Advocate were taken (it really was a one person operation by the way for those who didn't know that), but I would rather not. Those who want to turn this thread into allegations against supporters of one or another Democrat are doing no good for the Democratic cause.

right now...

Clark got over two thousand votes on that dkos poll, which is about ten times as many votes as Clark typically gets on DU polls. If this were only a matter of the same tightly organized group of Clark supporters rushing over to vote in every possible poll, the numbers for DU and dkos Clark votes would be much more similar, and Clark would routinely break a thousand votes at DU in 2008 polls. Clearly Clark is popular with a cross section of dkos users, not just a band of roving Clark voters. That being said, I would urge any Democratic activist who has strong feelings about who would best lead a 2008 ticket to become organized. All Democratic activists need to become better organized, no matter what our issue is, otherwise the same old entrenched inside the beltway interests will remain firmly in the drivers seat.

No one should be waiting for 2008 however to be active. I know for a fact that General Clark is asking all those who have been supportive of him in the past to start organizing now to elect more Democrats nation wide in 2005 and 2006.

and dont forget that the dkos community is not representative of the Dems.

This said, it is an interesting view of the dkos community.

Clark bashers need to quit whining and...
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/19/14615/3368

you lie down with dogs ....

Start with reviewing the various archived tapes of Clark's appearances on Fox. Have you seen any or are you just projecting assumptions? Also do a search for the many DU threads that have already appeared regarding Clark and what he has already accomplished for us by being on FOX. This is an issue that has been debated at length on DU, by people with differing view points. Thoughtful discussions on this have been held which you might benefit by reading.

Many of us think of Clark as working behind enemy lines. That is what Special Forces units did in Afghanistan for example. They didn't automatically become Taliban in the process. The Republicans "stole" the majority of white working class voters away from the Democratic Party. If we are to regain majority status we need to win them back. They watch Fox.

If this was any other dem on Faux you'd be freaking out. Behind enemy lines...my ass.

I posted on DU at the time Martin Frost signed on with FOX months ago also, and I said I then that I wanted to see what type job he did there first before writing off his efforts as counter productive. If it matters enough to you let me know and I will search for my old post.

And I guess I can assume that you did not do any of the research I suggested. Figures, quick to insult but unwilling to do the real work needed to have a meaningful dialog.

we Democrats had better start thinking strategically ... because the Rethugs sure are. Clark is trying an infiltration move. It might or might not have the intended effect ... but it is a good strategy.

is a terrific idea. He`s brilliant. Wish more Democratic leaders had the courage to face the opposition head-on, forget the talking points and just tell it like it is. Clark has guts.

.

Sounds about right this far out...

:evilgrin:

"no frickin' clue" seems a completely appropriate choice for you. :hi:

Just a reminder to everyone that the next primaries are a long time away, and there's no need to get too excited or upset or anything about them yet. There will be lots of quality democrats running. Let's remember the issues we need to look at right now in our country and world. This topic might be better located in the Wesley Clark Supporters Group...

I would agree. But that is not the case, so the OP has a right to post this poll just as long as any other DUer has the right.

As of this minute:



I just tried to vote twice; it can't be done. But a small group of Dean supporters on DU will continue their propaganda campain against Clark supporters. So boring, so childish. Give it up, guys.


Personally, I would rather people sign in through the link in my sig to help stop Global Warming, but I don't always get what I want :shrug:

Dean Supporters(small group), only?

I'm sure there are other supporters who can be "childish"..that's a given.

I, personally, like Clark and think it's fine that he's in enemy territory..probably find out all kinds of shit on reconnaissance. And he can speak with knowledge and rational thought to the fauxsux viewers(never know who you might get through to).

a biased site does not a president make! How come he doen't have a large DU group?

..and start voting!
Current poll:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/19/14615/3368

"Clark doesn't have a large DU group....."

for reference when the DU 2008 Prez polls start up again.

:eyes:

I guess that means Clark's large and active contingent of supporters will all be 'recent' converts..... :-)

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

and is only based on IP address.

I'm not saying that the numbers are not valid, but it would be easy to do.

"It's only a matter of time before candidate supporters start freeping these polls. Right now, the Clark people are the only ones with any sembleance of online organization. I suspect that'll change rapidly over the coming months."

which if you read between the lines pretty much confirms what you and Larkspur suggest

That doesn't speak well of the other candidates.

There are no other candidate's organizations. There are no real candidates yet for that matter.
Looks like your point is just trying to find a problem where there isn't one, in my opinion.

on edit - I just noticed you started this thread. Never mind.

What do you call all those people giving speeches in New Hampshire, tourist? :):)

but sure, I'll call them tourists.

:patriot:

That's another measure of popularity, and it doesn't correlate directly with who is winning these polls.

I've always had to be logged in to vote at Kos's polls. Just like here at DU.

Since Kos (like DU) retains logins from session to session you may still be logged in from a previous visit, but you must still be a registered member there to vote.

Unlike stupid 'free' polling scripts, this poll (like those at DU) do not allow multiple votes from the same user id.

but for some reason, I was able to vote while unlogged, and still offered a choice when I was logged.

It is surprising to me as well, but it was the case.

This said, the results do not seem surprising for dkos, given the absence of Dean in the list.

Are you a wizard?

whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.

Suuuure it is.

I couldn't care less about your judgment of what's relevant. I'm just getting a good laugh at an obvious case of sour grapes dressed up as objective observation.

For info, there were 3 people I could have voted in this list: Kerry, Clark, and Feingold. 2 out of 3 were at 1rst and 2nd, Kerry's position is consistant with dkos, so I have no issue with the results. This was not my point.

And I could not care less what you think.

or didn't you get the memo?

http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2005/07/19/181774.html



Edited to add link

2005 timeframe.

Still, I'd prefer Al Gore to Wes Clark.

My picks would be
Gore
Feingold
Boxer

None of the others interest me.

Not all families can afford multiple computers. Many work spaces have more than one individual using the same computer, and coming out of the 2004 Elections, many co-workers have shared their political views and work together to express their political views.

Larkspur, I think you know that there is more than one "side" to that "controversy". I am not in favor of promoting intra Democratic controversies and I hope you aren't either, so I will leave this one alone now. dkos is a pretty sophisticated political web site, certainly as sophisticated as DU. Every poll has it's own safeguards and rules for users. How many Bibles or Korans or Chomsky books do you want me to swear on that I, in my many travels through multiple "Clark spaces", have never seen calls for or comments on multiple voting in polls? I gladly will because I haven't. I have seen links so that people who want to participate can find polls to vote in. I've seen that for more than one candidate on the web by the way.

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

this was a well-calculated Clark bash.
The story's headline itself betrayed their
true intentions.

Other sites called for Gore supporters to raise their poll numbers. NA has an obvious bias about Clark supporters. An irony to me is that Clarkies are accused of "Freeping" while there are often calls on this site to DU a poll. Can some one explain to me the difference between Freeping a poll and DUing a poll? NA's poll became irrelevant by his actions, it might as well have been run by Diebold since he excluded many honest votes.

There was absolutely no proof in this because it was based on emailed-in ballots. Two people from the same house were told they were "double voting," for example. No... there was just two people with the same ISP (computer) voting.

And... no self-respecting Clarkie has been back to visit that site, since.

careless about 2008. We have to think about 2006 right now. Any way I would vote for just about any Democratic in 2008.
Here are my picks:
1.Clark
2.Kucinich
3.Boxer
4.Gore
5.Clinton
6.Kerry

:thumbsup:

Most people know him as the second name on the McCain-Feingold act or "That guy I can't name who voted against the Patriot Act."

and get more of the recognition he deserves for being a leader on the important issues in congress.

I used to think of Patrick Leahy as my choice someday to run for president for his leadership and opposition to the Telecommunications act during the Clinton years, in large part to reject the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act rider to that, but also because of the other pieces of that act that have allowed the media to get into the sorry state it is right now.

Well, I look back at that vote and one other name stands out who voted with Leahy on that bill and that was Feingold. Not many other senators voted with them to support civil rights there as well as voting against media consolidation, but that shows consistency in his thoughtful and forward looking views. Feingold has really got me thinking that with an added bit of publicity, he'd ride to the presidency after a scandal ridden Rethuglican presidency much like Carter came out of nowhere to win after the failed Nixon era. Carter represented a "fresh new start" that America felt they needed. I think Feingold could do the same (though he comes from congress instead of a governor's chair).

Here's the current poll in case you'd like to
participate:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/19/14615/3368

TC

here: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/19/14615/3368

Clark's my president. He's the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long long time!!! (OK, so is Dean....)

The Clarkies are on the job!

he's a DINO in my opinion the guy will cozy up to the right in order to further his own career. I have no respect for that kind of attitude. It is what is killing politics in this country today! No one stands for anything which means they can't do anything. A leader is someone who has a vision, one that we can all get behind of course, not someone who is terrified that the opinion polls aren't working in his favor. (granted if the polls are wholly not in your favor that means your policy of eating puppies probably isn't working!)

(question is to liberalfriend)

Warner has an extremely high approval rate in the state of Virginia.

Do you think he wouldn't be able to carry over that appeal on a national basis? :shrug:

I'm asking because Clark was my guy in '08, but Nick on here has posted some interesting things about Warner. I haven't heard Warner speak at any length and know zip about him.. But I know he's doing a great job in Virginia from all reports.

Warner's Lieutenant Governor is pushing for a Warner/Clark ticket in 2008.. How would Warner & Clark do together in your opinion? :think:

he's a DINO in my opinion the guy will cozy up to the right in order to further his own career. I have no respect for that kind of attitude. It is what is killing politics in this country today! No one stands for anything which means they can't do anything. A leader is someone who has a vision, one that we can all get behind of course, not someone who is terrified that the opinion polls aren't working in his favor. (granted if the polls are wholly not in your favor that means your policy of eating puppies probably isn't working!)

Im a Clark guy, and this is great news.

I have always heard Hillary was the pre race fav?

Guess not.

100% - 26% = 74%

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

I didn't vote in that poll though I would have voted for Clark, but there are other candidates who I could easily support though perhaps not quite as enthusiasticly. Some of those 74% others can say the same about Clark. The majority of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire "did NOT want" Kerry either, but he still wono. Even less "wanted" Edwards, Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and the rest.

I was curious over how some were saying they voted twice, while others said it can't be done. I tried to vote twice using the same browser and it wouldn't let me, but when I switched to a different browser it let me vote again.

that still limits votes to the numbers of browsers that one has. Most people only have one installed. I only have one installed, and very few people have three, or would go to the trouble of adding browsers for this reason. So it isn't like a GEMS tabulator where the right individual can suddenly add or subtract a thousand votes.

But I have always been under the opinion that these polls are highly over rated in importance. HAving said that, back in the late Winter I ran a poll here on DU, in response to the then current version of this controversy, where I asked DUers who had recently chosen Clark in a 2008 poll, to vote on how long they had been DU members and to individually post with their own user name to indicate that the poll wasn't being freeped. I got well over a hundred individual Clark voters to post on that thread identifying themselves as Clark supporters. That was as freeper proof as an online poll can get.

The point is simply that Clark is relatively popular in the online activist community. There is ample evidence for that regardless of whether a few people vote for against Clark with multiple browsers. Whether or not Clark can translate that popularity off line remains to be seen.

:-)

It's all good. That kinda thing pretty much cancels itself out. Especially in a poll with 15,000+ votes (like the one in June)

It's like my mother's last rummage sale. We started calling them the "Second Annual Last Rummage Sale" then the "Third Annual Last Rummage Sale."

In other words, it can't be the first straw poll, 'cause they already did this a couple months ago.

It's major because it's on Kos? Bahahahahaha. Coff... coff. ahahahahahahahaha.

Kos is going to run one once a month.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/20/25556/3530

When CNN pundits commented on it on the air, they mentioned mostly that "no Friggin Clue' came in second.

Well, that's the kinda media we've been blessed with, isn't it?:sarcasm:

He has way to much work to do to claim that. Personally, I don't ever hear anyone even considering him as a viable candidate other than on these blog sites. When I mention his name people don't even know who I am mentioning.

wisteria wrote: "Personally, I don't ever hear anyone even considering him as a viable candidate other than on these blog sites. When I mention his name people don't even know who I am mentioning."

Out in the real world, people don't even recognize Clark's name. But he is extremely popular on the internet blogs and message boards where Democrats have heard of him and know a little bit about him.

It's a long damn way to 2008, and there's lots of time for real voters to learn who WKC is and what he stands for. When they do, they'll like him just as much as the people on-line.

and BTW (to Clark naysayers): don't worry I haven't got a double super secret cadre of UK-Clarkies freeping the polls in his favour!

Clark is ok, but that's just it! He's just ok. I really would like to see somebody I can really WANT to win!

Sure I wanted Kerry over Shrub, but Kerry was just ok too. So was Gore!

I want enthusiasm!!!! By the candidate, that transfers to the voters!!!!

For goodness sake, what ever happened to that worn out "Fire in the Belly" thing???

all grow up" for a change sound??? btw, how do fanatics with a grudge (who sometimes appear on DU) distinguish themselves from the busheviks????

current poll results:

Who would you like to see as our '08 nominee?

No Frickin' Clue 907 votes - 13 %
Other 298 votes - 4 %
Tom Vilsack 44 votes - 0 %
Mark Warner 335 votes - 5 %
Bill Richardson 272 votes - 4 %
John Kerry 172 votes - 2 %
Russ Feingold 694 votes - 10 %
John Edwards 474 votes - 7 %
Hillary Clinton 662 votes - 10 %
Wesley Clark 2366 votes - 35 %
Joe Biden 193 votes - 2 %
Evan Bayh 161 votes - 2 %

6578 Total Votes

to make sure I wasn't looking at FR.

I think he's uniquely able to un-do all the rightwing spin against Democrats & Liberals they've spent billions of dollars and thirty years to create -- and in doing so, to unite the country.

Having said that, three things:
- First, I know it's early and we've got other things to focus on.
- Second, one of those things has to be verified voting.
- Third, I can't see any way I wouldn't support ANY candidate my party nominates for 2008.

Well, as together as we've ever been. There always seems to be someone who wants to put a wrench in the works.

Wes is the one who will unite this Party, for a change, behind a genuinely Liberal, anti-war Patriot. He will give us our America back.

TC

I'm not a Clark supporter now but I will support him if he wins the nomination.

However, I do not believe he is the second coming for crying out loud. I never hear anything about him except on the internet. I agree that his supporters are organized on the internet, but most of our voters don't visit the DU or any other website for that matter. You need ground support.

I live in Iowa and he isn't on our political radar at all. Maybe he'll skip Iowa like he did in '04? If so, is that a good move? It didn't prove to be too wise the last go around.

That was a matter of his late entry into the race last time -- and yes, it cost him.

Clark: Nice idea, but he's a gun grabber.

Kerry: His reflexes have slowed with age. Karl Rove made mincemeat out of this war hero.

Clinton: Sorry, Hillary, but you did this to yourself...

In what way is Clark a "gun grabber," or differ from the party platform on the issue?

(From 2000, from a quick Google):
http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban...

Clark can't have his cake and eat it, too. Either he supports the Second Amendment, or he doesn't. Pushing this issue will ensure he loses Texas, Nevada, Colorado, and other key states.

Carol Mosely-Braun:
- Renew the ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns, except those used for hunting.
- Strengthen the enforcement of existing federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
- Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
- Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.

Howard Dean:
In response to a question on where he stands on gun control, he said he supports the assault weapons ban and Brady bill, but that gun control means different things in different regions and should be left up to the states.

Dennis Kucinich:
- Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks.
- Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
- Require a license for gun possession.
- Establish a national database of ballistic "fingerprints" to track guns used in criminal activities.
- Renew the ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns.
- Strengthen the enforcement of existing federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.

John Kerry:
KERRY: I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America. I know something about prosecuting. Most of the law enforcement agencies wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47. Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come to America, go to a gun show and, without a background check, buy an assault weapon.

John Edwards:
EDWARDS: I grew up in the rural South. Everyone around me hunted, everyone had guns. I respect and believe in people's Second Amendment rights. That does not, however, mean that somebody needs an AK-47 to hunt. It does not mean that somebody who's been convicted of a violent crime should be able to walk out of prison, walk across the street and buy a gun. It does not mean that we shouldn't take every step that we can take to keep guns safe and keep guns out of the hands of kids. So, my belief is, first, I defend people's Second Amendment rights, but I don't think it's without limit.

Clark is different from these, how? Which Democrats support the AWB?

Edited to add link: http://www.issues2000.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm

enough for us. I'm not interested in Warner and Nutsack and the rest. Conyers and Boxer have my heart forever but I want someone who can win and then tap these great Americans to help us get out of this mess and he can. I don't believe that they would be miffed, even the others who would lose (in my best case scenario) and not help. :)

The issue now isn't what it was then, both in practical terms (assault weapons, urban gun violence, etc.) and political terms (NRA, "skinhead" militia groups, etc.).

Second, nobody's opposing the second amendment. I read Kennedy's statement as a need for guns to be ready to defend our country -- and that's preserved in Democratic proposals.

(Third, I have to say I find it rather ironic to quote a man whose own life was ended by gunfire.)

Thanks, MrBenchley. :hi:

referring to any individual right to a popgun...

Oh yeah, some asswipe shot him.

By the way, don't see anything there about "every fuckwit ought to have an assault weapon." Kennedy is clearly talking about the National Guard.

which says states have the right to have well regulated militias...and not John AshKKKroft's lies upon the subject...

"Pushing this issue will ensure he loses Texas, Nevada, Colorado, and other key states."
Sez you.

We seem to be no less proficient at self-delusion than the repugs. If we insist on this stand on this issue we WILL lose those states, and no amount of wishful thinking or flaming is going to change it.

and the 2004 results were spurious.

There's no reason for Democrats to change positions on ANY issue, imho. It's the GOP smear-machine, not Democratic policy positions, that made the past two elections close.

:loveya: Sparkly... :yourock:


:kick::kick::kick:

:blush:

hunters.

I've always liked Clark's response:

“I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them.”

That's exactly what Clark seems to be saying I should do.

Besides, the US Army is now under the command of one George Walker Bush, erswhile squire of Crawford, TX and failed businessman, who can't even guarantee that our troops have enough bullets in Iraq.

What's wrong with this picture?

It's best for civilians to content themselves with 3-cyl or 4-cyl engines and let the Federal government own all the high-powered vehicles. After all, they know best.

It's not a question of "need." It's a question of right. And you have the right.

And assault weapons at banks and fast-food restaurants and street corners and subways just don't make us safer.

:nuke:

despite John AshKKKroft's lies to the contrary...

"Besides, the US Army is now under the command of one George Walker Bush, erswhile squire of Crawford, TX and failed businessman, who can't even guarantee that our troops have enough bullets in Iraq."
And nobody did more to bring that about than the gun lobby...so why the fuck should we kowtow to them and their rancid supporters?

"NRA support played a key role in several states, including Florida, where the vote was so close that the U.S. Supreme Court eventually had to settle the matter of disputed ballots, and in Tennessee, home state of George W. Bush's Democratic opponent, Al Gore.
"Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," the younger Bush said.
The governor said he and his brother both support the NRA's contention that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains "the right to bear arms," is an individual right with few restrictions. "

http://goodbyenra.org/xoops/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7

Odd how that works. :shrug:

an immunity from liability bill through Congress so they can protect themselves from being sued by ordinary citizens...

And, no surprise, the scum of the earth are trying to make ti happen for them...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401311_pf.html

that gets protection like that?!?

By the way, who are the "gun-ban advocates?" Is that a term for everyone who wants to "burden" gun manufacturers with having to abide by the same legal system as everybody else?

nor as willfully irresponsible...

And I guess the "gun ban advocates" are the same folks as those on the NRA's idiotic enemies list...which amounts to pretty much everybody in the country but the Heritage Foundation and Stormfront.org.

The US Army does not issue any weapons that were classified as "assault weapons" under the federal AW ban that expired September 13.

Assault weapons were by definition semiautomatic. The Army issues selective-fire (fully automatic) weapons, which are classified under the law as "machineguns". The terms "assault weapon" and "machinegun" are mutually exclusive.

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

"If we insist on this stand on this issue we WILL lose those states"
And that's why the Republicans had to pretend to be for gun control too....

and the only ones who don't are Zell Miller type morons...

whose doors do you think they'd be knocking on first?

"I used to advocate gun control,
but Bush changed everything."

AshKKKroft wouldn't even let the FBI check to see if terrorists bought guns...

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,546954,00.html

When Wes Clark entered the primaries, the janitors in my building all lined up to support him. Why? Because he was not a politician. Of course when I read DU that was among the top 10 reasons NOT to support him. You know, the ole gotta be in Senate-or-whatever first.

So when Clark dropped out, they came and told me that they could not vote for Kerry. Why? Because Kerry would take their guns away.

"But...but..but," said I, "you would vote for Clark, and his position is the same as Kerry's."

"But...but...but," said they, "a general would never take your guns away."

That this makes no sense is a given...well, if you try to apply a policy sorta logic to the issue, but...but...but, people don't always vote on policy. They vote on "gut instincts" which comes with the packaging. Generals don't have to do photo-ops in hunting gear, it's a given that they hunt. These guys will listen to a reasonable gun-control policy coming from WKC because it doesn't affect the their internal image of themselves.

I understand that packaging works on both sides of this equation: many on the left will not consider a general because somehow it makes them question their own internal image. Logically, a progressive Democrat that is thought of by hunters as non-threatening is the perfect messanger for this issue. But..but...but, I'm not holding my breath.

.

WHITE HOUSE '08: Wesley Clark Kent

Liberal Daily Kos holds another (unscientific) straw poll measuring reader support for realistic WH GOPers -- "So no Gores, no Deans. Sorry," Markos Moulitsas writes -- and voting is under way. Click here to see current results as they roll in. Last month in the 1st Daily Kos straw poll (see 6/22 Blogometer), Wesley Clark took the plurality of 26% support. As of this a.m., he's polling 37% support.

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/

It's very early. This will all tighten up in time. But, for now, it's really nice to see.

TC

;-)

And you could vote as many times as you liked! Wouldn't it be nice if the real elections worked that way too? ;)

well there you go, we have a frontrunner...


both in that straw poll, and here on du...

;-)

"Vote early, vote often." Ack! Sounds like Diebold's motto.

Bayh-Warner...that'd be a mighty fine ticket

EVAN "Looks like Al Gore, votes like Joe Liberman" BAYH?

I weep for what this Party has become. I weep.

TC

The DLC has caused enough damage as it is - let the grass-roots have their chance now; they've earned it.

We no longer need to go up against a guy that presided over 9/11 (somehow that was seen as a good thing). While foreign policy will certainly matter, I think it will represent something fairly different in 2008. Especially as protracted war fatigue settles in for the attention-shortage that is the American public.

It's not something people forget about, it's something people gradually come around to hate. They want it to stop.

They also want to feel secure, and BushCo has been quite successful at making sure people everywhere are afraid (while giving them even more reason to BE afraid, in fact).

The more blood and treasure squandered in Iraq, the more the military weakens, the more people will want a president who actually understands diplomacy, military strategy, and global politics. This is a time for a straightforward, experienced Commander in Chief -- and an intellectual with liberal domestic policy would be ideal. (Enter General Clark!)

And we should not be using the fear tactics by running a military guy and emphasizing "national security" in a false way.

Ok, lemme see....North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China, Iran, The Sudan, The U.N., and the 400 billion pentagon budget while our treasury is at a deficit.

These are good reasons for Clark in '08, as starters.

Democratic presidential candidates will be cackling about their great populist programs, all over New Hampshire and Iowa, come 2008.

Hillary will be touting health care reforms, Edwards; the new populist will be showcasing the poverty issue; Warner will be calling for a balanced budget; Bayh-Bye will too. Biden will be talking a lot of shit (probably highlighting other candidates' programs as his own--Hahaha).

These Democrats will not be able to tell you where the money for all of their great proposals will come from, apart from the already tried "reversing Bush's tax cuts". After eight years of tax reduction, a "reversal" will not be interpreted as such by voters.

In the meantime, all of these wannabes will be forced to play the "I'm strong on defense, and I'm gonna prove it" political game. That means, they will NOT mention or go near the pentagon budget as an issue....and they won't touch that third rail with a 500 foot pole. If anything, they may talk about increasing that budget for Veterans' needs--but they won't dream of re-prioritizing it....
They will be hunkered down to show their "Hey, I'm tough on terror and war just like the GOP" bonafides.

Wes Clark....well, he can "go there, do that". And he has already said that he would. His proven creds (34 years inside the geometrical budgetary aspects of the Pentagon) will allow him to speak on the issue that needs speaking on; Money, and where it can come from; the Pentagon. He can also focus on the social programs that we need without having to first prove that he's the "tough guy" (just calling him General....will be enough).

Clark can actually do what we really need done to balance our budget. He knows where the pork is, and he knows where the bodies are buried. In short, he can do what none of the others could have the wherewithall to do.

Hell! He won't even have to appoint Republicans to the Defense Department! How Refreshing!

Nixon went to China.
Clark will go to the pentagon; the one where our 400 billion goes annually.

So, Clark ain't solely about Iraq and 9/11, as poster would wish.

PS. I will remind you that the GOP, whomever their candidate ends up being, will not be letting go of the "Defense" trump card, no matter how much we want that to be the case. The goose that laid the golden egg is not about to be wiped off the face of the GOP platform...and they still do control the media....and the WH still does control the PR (see SCOTUS choice replacing Rove/Plame gate in the news as we speak).

His stellar military background isn't the only thing you give the good General credit for is it? :(

Underneath all those stars and medals, there's an absolutely brilliant man in there! :patriot: :kick: :thumbsup:

On Saturday night at the National Clark Community Meetup, General Clark urged us to carry on with the message of the "common good," and how America is founded on a tradition of neighbors working within the community as opposed to "I've got mine."

After he had spoken I wandered to the back of the room to find the staff, who had provided us with such wonderful service, covered in WesPAC buttons. The bartender, a beautiful African American woman, nodded towards the General and said, "He's our next president."

I objected and told her that this meetup was about working to elect people who would represent "us" into office in 2006. Then the woman took both my hands in hers and said, "Your not listening to me honey. He will be the next president because we've lost hope. He's the hope."

Please don't think I'm pretending to have met a sooth sayer in Little Rock, or that I dismiss the fact that the staff was not immune to the spirit of the evening or having witnessed a great tribute to General and Mrs. Clark. No, I'm just saying that what that woman heard is what Clark supporters hear because we listen to the whole message. This isn't about the war, as Gert said, this is about "loving our country." Clark may not get there from here, but he does represent "hope."

Hell. There are only 2 names I could even imagine myself voting for. What a joke.

Also, likely Clarkeeped.

:woohoo:

No Frickin' Clue.

...:sarcasm:

but we put cotton in our ears.

Don't know how much it will help though, in a long run. The general Democratic population don't all know about the "secret of the cottonballs". Too bad. :(

A straw poll, 3 and 1/2 years before the election?

Seriously....if you care about primary politics at this point, you need to get a hobby or volunteer at an animal shelter or something.

and the Teevee talking heads continueously attempting to report on this subject.

If it were my choice, we wouldn't be talking about 2008 until after the job for 2006 is done.

:wow: