Poll: Clarke Doubted; Bush Support Ebbs

I hope this isn't a dupe. Please let me know if it is. Thanks!

Poll: Clarke Doubted; Bush Support Ebbs

WASHINGTON - Two-thirds of Americans say the testimony of Richard Clarke, the former terrorism adviser who has been critical of the Bush administration, hasn't affected their view of the president, says a poll released Saturday.

However, public views supporting President Bush's handling of terrorism have dipped from 65 percent to 57 percent in the last month, according to the Newsweek poll. That drop comes at a time the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks has been publicly questioning officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations about their handling of the terror threat.

The Bush campaign has placed his handling of the campaign against terrorism - his strongest issue - at the heart of his re-election bid.

Clarke left the Bush administration in early 2003, and has criticized the president for his handling of terrorism in a new book, numerous interviews and testimony before the Sept. 11 commission.

MORE
http://kevxml2a.verizon.net/_1_2ZGTO104NPY2PE_11737847_vzn.isp/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D81J4P7G0&qcat=washnews&ran=4738&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1

I've always thought Bush was incompetent! NO CHANGE!

One third of those polled say that the Clarke testimony did affect how they view the President. How many of those one-third would view the President in a more positive light? I don't think too many.

So, it could be argued that one-third of votes now see Bush in a more negative light due to Clarke's testimony.

My mind is boggled thinking about what would have happened to Clinton, or any Dem pres., if he/she had done the same scandalous acts that * committed.

Did Clarke's testimony change my mind?

No.

But according to media's analysis of this poll, I would be included in the group that "doubts Clarke". I don't doubt him at all. He just confirms the beliefs I have held since 1/20/01.

he is an evil lying bastard and that opinion has never changed.

:wtf:

:puke:

....and half say that Clarke is politically motivated!!!!!!!

Bull!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad:

:mad: :mad:

The Republicans are so much better at media manipulation than the Democrats.

They are always organized, we are rarely organized.

The first thing Democrats should have done is repeat the fact that "Clarke is a Republican" so many times that it made the American people understand it. They should also mention Reagan and Clarke together over and over again forever.

Most Americans think Clarke is a Democrats because no one has told them differently.

Our side needs a lot more organization if we are going to beat Bush.

The right works in perfect lockstep, with their eyes always on the best soundbites to change people's minds - our people just go out and say what they really think.

The American people need soundbites and we need to learn to deliver them.

Clarke is a Republican - that should be a big part of what Democrats are saying on TV.

He voted for Gore in 2000!

From a press release by Bill Press (http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1109):

"... Clarke teaches a course with Randy Beers, another former member of the Bush administration, who is now an adviser to the Kerry campaign. That's Clarke's sole, so-called "connection" to John Kerry. Clarke himself is a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, even though he was then working for Clinton."

Now Wes Clark, on the other hand, voted for Gore in 2000. :thumbsup:

Clarke had registered Republican to vote in a Virginia primary. However, in the 2000 presidential he voted for Gore. It makes much better sense that he would want the Clinton policies continued as much as possible. Anyway, he did say so himself and I heard it myself. :)

Somebody in another thread said he voted for McCain in the Republican Primary, though.

I'm starting to wonder, so I'd better check.

Okay, close, it was Russert he said it to.

MR. RUSSERT:  And we're back.  Did you vote for George Bush in 2000?

MR. CLARKE:  No, I did not.

MR. RUSSERT:  You voted for Al Gore.

MR. CLARKE:  Yes, I did.

MR. RUSSERT:  In 2004 you'll vote for John Kerry?

MR. CLARKE:  I'm not going to endorse John Kerry.  That's what the White House wants me to do.  And they want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign. I've already pledged I'm not part of the Kerry campaign and I will not serve in the Kerry administration.

MR. RUSSERT:  Will you vote for him?

MR. CLARKE:  That's my business.

MR. RUSSERT:  Will you seek elective office?

MR. CLARKE:  Never.

MR. RUSSERT:  Fine.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4608698/

..."The poll of 1,002 adults was taken Thursday and Friday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

These samples on issues like opinions on a book that most people taking the poll have not seen yet, let alone read. The poll is totally bogus. It was done right after the hearings. It simply says that people who have entrenched ideas about the president are not going to change those ideas based on a few news flashes. As more people actually get the book and read it, perhaps then opinions may shift. I'd like to see a poll that is done before and then after people have read the book and studied the issues and questions raised in the book more.

The only people who are going to read the book are partisans who already have their minds made up. I don't think people who support Bush are going to go out and buy the book and read it with an open mind. The history of the past few years is that people don't bother to read much anymore. If the hearings didn't change their minds, I don't think anything will. But I hope you're right.

who will buy the book are partisans who are already against Bush. Some of them certainly will be, but I think that many of them will be undecideds, or people who are curious and want to know more about what really went on around 9/11.

Many people are open to new information, they just haven't been exposed to it in the media.

I definitely think the book will change some peoples opinions, although it will only affect people who actually know how to read at an adult level, which will leave out many of the hardcore Republicans.

I'm amazed at how good the Reps are at media manipulation.

They are so focused on winning at any cost, and as Clinton said, "they are good."

"want to know more about what really went on around 9/11"

Everybody in America, in particular in NYC, DC, Pittsburgh, but just about everywhere in the country, will be reading this book.

if so, then this book will be the Uncle Tom's Cabin of the 2000s. The way the media is playing this, though, makes me doubt the book will change many minds.

were my views about Richard Clark - a great guy 9didn't know him before)
This poll is a reminder of what's wrong with polls!

I've posted this on several threads... even it's OWN thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1303517), but I'll keep pointing it out where ever this Newsweek poll is referenced because I think it's important to understanding the "results" ... as far as I can tell, only 25% of the total sample were "Democrats" OR "Democratic-leaners," which under-represents the Democratic opinion by almost half.

everything is doubted, people are growing cynical...