Another setback for Clark - why?

The Clark campaign seemed to me like a sure thing when it started. I was a big Dean supporter and was alarmed to see so many at DU rush to his camp when he announced. I've been slightly tempted to join his camp at times, because of the notion of his general's stars making him invulnerable against Bush.

I never could do it though, because of his history of close ties with GOP operatives, and his promotion of the Iraq war on CNN when it began.

That being said, I would vote for him if he were nominated, and I don't dislike him. So why has his candidacy not rresonated with democrat voters around the country as it has here at DU? I would have thought it would be the opposite - that we DUers would pick the most "liberal" candidate, and dems at large would go with "electability".


What best explains Clark's inability to catch fire thus far?

ON EDIT: one vote each should be subtracted from "thin pale appearance" and "lack of political experience" and added to "other". I tried to edit fast, but you guys are faster.

I picked other and then "Thin, Pale Appearance" made it's way in. WTF?

Other is what I actually voted. And that is all the bashing the corporate media has been doing has had some effect along with the negative campaigning that some sleazy candidate perpetrated yesterday.

On that note though, let's see what happens in the South.

That's a very flattering photo you've got of him there. He really doees look gaunt, though. I hope there isn't a health issue.

I added two choices, but the votes that were intended for "other" ended up under "lack of political experience and thin, pale appearance. Sorry, I don't edit near as fast as you folks vote.

It's a fact - he is too "bipartisan" to win the Democratic nomination.

The idea was that since Dean would come out in top in Iowa, Clark would come forth with a strong showing in NH and therefore save the party, being that "Dean alternative" Clark supporters were so fond of mentioning. However, Kerry and Edwards did well in Iowa instead. Kerry has a similar war bio, and Edwards is popular in Clark's geographical teritory. In addition, Dean was wounded in Iowa, but not knocked out.

It was the worse case scenario imo for the Clark campaign.

In retrospect, they should have either 1) started in Iowa or 2) started in South Carolina. But hindsight is always 20/20.

But that's not it.

I wanted to see him do well (although I support Dean). Opportunist or not, he is accepted as an anti-war candidate and has helped keep that debate on-message.

I wish his campaign well.

Because I live in a nation of fools.

That's how many voted for Dumbya last time.

I really have no ill will for Clark. I'm really perplexed by it - he's an appealing person with a helluva resumé. I guess that's why I put the vote for "wait til the south votes" - because there's always hope. I'm glad it's not a sure thing. That's what makes it exciting. Besides, even though you may prefer "President Clark", isn't "President Kerry" a lot better than "pResident Bush" :puke: ?!?!

Ecch. now I have to wash my mouth out with soap!

Best wishes to you and all the Clark supporters.

if I could make myself believe he could beat the Chimp.

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Jan. 22-23, 2004. N=1,006 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"If you had to choose between George W. Bush, the Republican, and , the Democrat -- who would you vote for?"

George
W. Bush............................46%

John
Kerry...............................49%

Other (vol.)/
Undecided.......................5%

1/22-23/04


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm


And this is BEFORE the convention. I HAVE to believe that we can rid ourselves of this cretin and his evil puppeteers.

Thanks.

He's an amature and it shows.

BAD!

pure and simple. Meanwhile its all puff for edwards. Thats it bottom line.

ago and the entire program was rehashing every attack, smear, and misrepresentation. The press has either ignored him, recover the same questions rather than ask anything new, or attacked him- but not to his face.

They have been declaring the campaign dead for two days now. The Clark campaign has always been after third or fourth, anything higher would be great. But lets remember, everyone else in the contest has been campaigning for over a year. In his first campaign, Clark has done exceptionally well.

There are two stories in this campaign about outsiders- Clark and Dean. Only the Dean campaign has gotten any real credit, BUT often only in passing. The Dean campaign and his supporters really do have something new that would be immensely helpful for the Democratic party, and neither the press or the establishment in the party has figured out what this phenomenon is.

Really, if someone were to do an in depth story on the two campings, their differences and similarities, I think it would be incredibly fascinating. The party needs an infusion of new ideas, energy, and people. The established party, both the "old" and "new" Democrats are not the enemy, but are in desperate need of a real goal, something to unify them and bring to the country.

its no secret they are pirhanna, you act accordingly.

Clark and Kucinich have the best chance if they get the nomination.

No offense, love his passion, but he would even lose Puerto Rico.

Because I've yet to see a positive media report on him since this whole shebang got underway.

Before he got any momentum. We'll see in a week.

Too many gaffes (e.g., life begins when the mother decides it does).

He will "catch fire" next week in the 7-State races.

Don't underestimate this soldier.

that's Edwards territory. Oh well, if Clark does well, it'll split the "anti-'yankee'" vote and give us Kerry once again.

Thank G-d for vote-splitting

had him on ignore. Then they spent every opportunity rehashing the same material.

No policy questions in the debate.

Think this is bad? Just wait to see what Dubya and his gazillions of dollars will dot to Kerry. Kerry will not just be linked to Ted Kennedy, He will be interchangable with Ted Kennedy.

I can only hope that the desire to get rid of Bush will outweigh any BS Bush pulls.

MzPip
:dem:

I'll see you in the south/west.

Love ya!

The strategy of Gen. Clark's campaign has been all along to regard Iowa and New Hampshire as skirmishes, and to pitch battle on the main line of the seven states voting next Tuesday, most of which are venues where leading candidates (originally Gov. Dean, and now Sen. Kerry), can be expected to perform less well.

It is true that conditions have been somewhat altered by the showing of Sen. Edwards in Iowa: he and Gen. Clark both aim toward the same pool of voters in these up-coming primaries, and Sen. Edwards has become a factor he was not a fortnight ago. Still, the strategy is a good and workable one, and we shall see whther or not it bears fruit over the coming weeks. Epitaphs for Gen. Clark are quite premature tonight, no matter from what camp they emanate.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

. . . it is also true about Senator Edwards. I'm afraid I have to consider Clark's showing this evening disappointing, while Edwards, who got only as many votes, should be pleased.

The difference is that Clark is in this to win, while Edwards is making a trial run for a later candidacy (2008 or 2012 perhaps). The stakes for Clark were higher.

I'm sorry to see that. Clark would made a fine president and he is still high on my preference list.

Nevertheless, as of tonight, this looks more like a two-man contest between Kerry and Dean. And even then, Dean is barely in it as of now.

military world to the executive arena. Most military folks don't know how to this and this goes all the way to the top levels.

The man has experience in handling community building, equal opportunity/diversity issues(racial/gender), and urban planning.

He taught economics at West Point.

He isn't selling himself well enough I think. He needs to convince people that he is the best suited for the job.

He is every bit the heavyweight that anybody else is in the race.

In the beginning of a townhall meeting he needs to:
1. Sell himself as a Liberal/Progressive.
2. Tell more about what he brings to the table(which is A LOT).
3. Formulate a comprehensive plan with slides and graphs on how he would eliminate child poverty or any issue that he really would like to hit upon.

This is the first contest for Clark, as I recall.

Anyway, he's been fairly well Gored by the media. Every answer he gives is analyzed much more critically than those of (most) other candidates. Statements are quoted selectively and out of context until they become "gaffes" and "contradictions".

We knew going into this that Rove would try to depict Clark as "unstable" and "crazy" just like they did with McCain. Sadly, many of Clark's supporters have bought into the tactic and jumped ship.

I'll take a real man as president over a politician any day.

Kerry sucked up just about all the non-dean vote. Wasn't room for anybody else. You can't get above 100%.

When it looked like Kerry was dead in the water, Clark made a good alternative--a military man to smack Bush around. With Kerry revived and much better known and organized in NH, Clark -had- to fade. In later states, where Kerry may be 'too liberal', and doesn't have all the advantages of geography, it may be different.

But, my wager would be that Kerry will charge on to the nomination. All the remaining candidates -neglecting Lieberman who is hopefully gone- have strong qualifications. I hope we can continue to have strong debates and that all these men can wind up with important roles in the campaign and in the new government.

and I will be damned if New Hampshire, or any other single state, decides who the party's nominee is. How about we let democracy run it's course for a little while before we start shouting that the sky is falling?