Clark Ties Bush in Poll

[ColoJohnBoy]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20030922/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_bush_poll_1

Hopefully these numbers won't vary too much over the next year. :D:D:D

[ColoJohnBoy]

Well, not that it will matter. Bush has proved that a person can commit rampant election fraud, still lose the election, and STILL become President.

[Sayhey]

While I'm glad a poll, even this far out from the election, shows Clark, Kerry and others doing well against Bush I wouldn't make too much of it. As to Clark, I want to see how he preforms in the debates and how he explains his domestic agenda in much greater detail before I celebrate his ascendancy in the polls. So far I like what I see, but he hasn't been tested in the political process yet.

[mactastic]

Clark also needs to make it clear what his positions are without sounding like he's either unsure, waffling, or trying to be all things to all people.

I know he's got an opinion. I want to know that I heard it.

[MIMIC]

According to the latest CNN Poll, Clark leads Bush by three percentage points (Bush at 46%; Clark at 49%).

[patrick0brien]

-All

IMHO Clark's only weakness is his inexperience with full-contact politics. I hope he can thicken his skin a bit.

After that, I think he'd make a tremendous president - he's already got my vote.

[IJ Reilly]

Let's also not forget the role of money in the race. Any candidate the Democrats nominate will be facing an unprecedented Republican war-chest. The Bush administration is making the Clinton people look like the shrinking violets of fundraising, and that's no mean feat.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Well, not that it will matter. Bush has proved that a person can commit rampant election fraud, still lose the election, and STILL become President. i'd really like you to definitively prove that he committed rampant election fraud and actually lost the election. otherwise, there's no point in making such inflammatory, uneducated, and unprovable remarks.

[Macmaniac]

I think some of points came from name recognition and the wave one gets form announcing their candidcy. I'm all for Clark I think he'd be great, but I want to know his agenda first.
The guy who does the Gallup Poll on CNN Frank Newport is from my town and his daughter is in my grade. He came in and explained to us that name recognition can greatly effect polls when someone bursts onto the scene, so only time will tell if Clark continues to do well.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i'd really like you to definitively prove that he committed rampant election fraud and actually lost the election. otherwise, there's no point in making such inflammatory, uneducated, and unprovable remarks.

Read this book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452283914/qid=1064359708/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-8740050-8463152?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

....and this article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.28A.Election.Fraud.htm)

...and this website (http://www.fraudfactor.com/ff2kelectionfraud.html)

...and this one (http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/11/04_Palast.html)

And visit the links included on the website, expecially to Greg Palast's website.

I do NOT make any decisions without thoroughly examining ALL the facts available to me.

Election fraud was committed. Rampant election fraud. For you to deny otherwise is to do nothing but prove your ignorance, and blind allegiance to a criminal fraud.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Read this book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452283914/qid=1064359708/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-8740050-8463152?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

....and this article (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.28A.Election.Fraud.htm)

...and this website (http://www.fraudfactor.com/ff2kelectionfraud.html)

...and this one (http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/11/04_Palast.html)

And visit the links included on the website, expecially to Greg Palast's website.

I do NOT make any decisions without thoroughly examining ALL the facts available to me.

Election fraud was committed. Rampant election fraud. For you to deny otherwise is to do nothing but prove your ignorance, and blind allegiance to a criminal fraud. wow! voter fraud was committed! it always is, and it's done by all sides. whether or not it's rampant is another issue entirely, and i don't see that proven in those links (granted, i made a perusal of them, not an in-depth reading). as to palast, he seems to have made his career saying bad things about bush and republicans, as per his book list on amazon.

this is not proof or definitive. all of the things i read were very circumstantial (like the disenfranchisement of 94,000, half of them african american [couldn't forget to mention that, cos lord knows i would have thought they were all whites and cubans]), and while i don't have the time or interest to read scandal literature, i can certainly say that while you may read all the "facts" you can find, i question your definition of fact.

let's make a deal. i will accept as fact everything in palast's book if you accept as fact everything Rush Limbaugh says in a given week of broadcasting. ;)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax

let's make a deal. i will accept as fact everything in palast's book if you accept as fact everything Rush Limbaugh says in a given week of broadcasting. ;)

greg palast is NOT bill o'reilly!!!!!

oops, i mean... :-)

actually, palast is a pretty good investigative journalist who has a lot of respect in journalistic circles.

limbaugh, as the title goes, is just a big, fat idiot.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
greg palast is NOT bill o'reilly!!!!!

oops, i mean... :-)

actually, palast is a pretty good investigative journalist who has a lot of respect in journalistic circles.

limbaugh, as the title goes, is just a big, fat idiot. i think that limbaugh has a pretty good amount of respect in conservative circles.

he is certainly not, however, fat anymore. and he's not an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. he's just very polarized. i refuse to let you off with ad hominems against him. ;)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i refuse to let you off with ad hominems against him. ;)

awwwww, nuts. okay, how 'bout this:

palast is a journalist. limbaugh is an entertainer.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
awwwww, nuts. okay, how 'bout this:

palast is a journalist. limbaugh is an entertainer. true. but still, the language he uses (Palast) and the way he emphasizes his information is highly partisan. he doesn't seem to be as interested in uprooting voter fraud so much as uprooting republican voter fraud.

i mean, take a look at that bit about the 94,000 people being disenfranchized. it specifically says that half of them are black. why? is it implying that the republicans think that blacks are always democrats and were targeting them for disenfranchisement? but it doesn't say anything about the other 50%. were they white? cuban? asian? what was the secret agenda on those 50%? they make it sound like focused, intentional fraud that is aimed at insuring a republican victory, when it could have just been an administerial problem. because this guy is a good investigator doesn't mean he doesn't finagle his data.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
the language he uses (Palast) and the way he emphasizes his information is highly partisan.


here are the things i don't like about him:
1. his language can be inflammatory
2. occasionally his fact-checking is sloppy
3. he needs a proof-reader (spelling/grammar errors)

it's a shame, because he does do outstanding research, can present a story, and has very important things to say that few others seem willing to tackle.

but those other points, i fear, turn off a large potential audience.


i mean, take a look at that bit about the 94,000 people being disenfranchized. it specifically says that half of them are black. why? is it implying that the republicans think that blacks are always democrats and were targeting them for disenfranchisement? but it doesn't say anything about the other 50%. were they white? cuban? asian?

completeness is always useful. in this particular instance, since 50% of any minority is above the national average, he may have used it to make a point that didn't necessitate specifying the completeness. still...

and yes, w/o reviewing the story (i probably read it at some point), he's probably making the case that the county was targeted for being principally democratic.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by zimv20
limbaugh, as the title goes, is just a big, fat idiot.

-zimv20

Don't forget deaf too. :D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Sayhey
While I'm glad a poll, even this far out from the election, shows Clark, Kerry and others doing well against Bush I wouldn't make too much of it. As to Clark, I want to see how he preforms in the debates and how he explains his domestic agenda in much greater detail before I celebrate his ascendancy in the polls. So far I like what I see, but he hasn't been tested in the political process yet.

some military men have won the white house largely due to their reputations as a soldier like eisenhower and grant

but others have failed at that bid like mccain and macarthur

only time will tell if clark can take on a basically popular sitting us president

[wwworry]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
some military men have won the white house largely due to their reputations as a soldier like eisenhower and grant

but others have failed at that bid like mccain and macarthur

only time will tell if clark can take on a basically popular sitting us president

Everyone I know hates Bush and thinks he is a loser.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by wwworry
Everyone I know hates Bush and thinks he is a loser.

pretty much the same here. though i ran into an old friend about a year ago -- she said she thinks bush is really cute and likes having him in office for that reason. i lost all respect for her at that point.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
some military men have won the white house largely due to their reputations as a soldier like eisenhower and grant

but others have failed at that bid like mccain and macarthur

only time will tell if clark can take on a basically popular sitting us president

I agree only time will tell about Clark and his ability to not only win the nomination but also the possibility of unseating an incumbent President. Thirteen months in politics is far to long a time to be making predictions.

About your examples, McCain is very different than the others as he is a sitting senator with legislative experience. In that regard his history (if not his politics) is much more like JFK than Ike or Clark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think MacArthur every offically put his hat in the ring? He had enormous ambition, but never ran for office. If we are going back in history for people who ran only on their military record then I think you have to include people like Taylor, McClellan, and I guess Washington. Clark's similarity to any of these is interesting but hardly indicative of what his chances are.

[IJ Reilly]

If memory serves, a MacArthur candidacy was floated but never became a reality.

As for Clark, it's clear that the Republicans don't want to run against this guy. From today's LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-marshall28sep28,1,6989680.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

With Clark on Fire, Calls of Liar, Liar

By Joshua Micah Marshall, Joshua Micah Marshall covers politics and foreign affairs. He publishes talkingpointsmemo.com

WASHINGTON — Is retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander, an erratic liar? He is if you believe the spin coming out of the conservative hit machines that cranked into action as soon as Clark announced his intention to run for president as a Democrat.

Success in politics sometimes comes down to which side can tell the most compelling story — and, even more important, which side can tell it first.

That simple truth has triggered a manic, win-at-all-costs drive to "define" Clark in the worst terms possible so that he won't be able to knock the president out of the White House next November. In his newsletter last week, Washington's highly respected political handicapper Charlie Cook correctly noted that "for the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible." The White House and its media allies clearly agree.

Before Clark's entry into the race a little more than a week ago, there were nine other candidates in the Democratic field. But none had garnered even a fraction of the invective Clark is now receiving — not even former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a front-running candidate whose politics put him decidedly at odds with President Bush.

Why are conservatives so hot and bothered? The answer — and the threat Clark poses — couldn't be clearer. For the last two years the White House has been able to maintain high rates of public approval even in the face of a rocky economy at home and a breakdown in the country's key alliances abroad.

A key factor in Bush's popularity was the public's trust that he was the right man to keep the country strong abroad and safe from future terrorist attacks at home. That perception allowed Republicans to defy historical precedent and a soft economy to win the 2002 midterm elections handily.

Since July, however, a mix of economic woes and rising doubts about the operation in Iraq has battered the president's standing in the polls — he now stands at about 50%, the break-even point in public approval ratings. The one big advantage President Bush still has working for him is the simple fact that a great many Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats to keep the country safe in dangerous times.

But make the Democratic standard-bearer a retired four-star general who helped keep the fractious NATO alliance together while conducting a successful war in the Balkans and that could all change rapidly. That means Clark has to be destroyed now, before he gets a chance to make his own first impression. And thus the fusillade streaming out of talk radio, Drudge, Fox News and various other media outlets with a conservative bent.

One of the main attacks began last week in the mainstream press when Howard Fineman, Newsweek's chief political correspondent, led an article on Clark with the claim that the retired general had decided to become a Democrat only after being rebuffed in his efforts to enter the Bush administration. According to Colorado's Republican governor, Bill Owens, and one of his cronies, Marc Holtzman, Clark told them during a chance encounter at a January conference in Davos, Switzerland, that he had wanted to become a Republican but had decided against it when White House strategist Karl Rove snubbed him.

"I would have been a Republican," Owens and Holtzman say Clark told them, "if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." When asked, Clark told Fineman that the remark was meant in jest. But Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was in deadly earnest: "Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked." Who knows what Clark said in this exchange? But it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see that two high-profile Republicans — both of whom have close ties to the president and his chief political advisor, Rove — might have some reason to frame the exchange in the most unflattering light possible.

But it didn't end there.

Almost immediately, the conservative Weekly Standard picked up the ball and got an unprecedented bit of assistance from the White House. At the Standard's request, the White House completed a quick audit of Rove's phone logs for the last two years and found that Clark had never placed any calls to Rove's White House office.

Now, for those keeping score, the fact that Clark apparently never tried to contact Rove could be seen as strengthening his point to Fineman that the whole thing was a joking remark that Owens and Holtzman are warping out of context for political gain. But no matter. The Standard dutifully added the canard to what they call Clark's growing list of "whoppers" and statements that "bear little resemblance to reality." And, true to form, the next day the ever-present and always "fair and balanced" Fox News — which, like the Standard, is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. — was blaring the news that "White House phone logs suggest Wesley Clark is telling tales once again." Before long, a secondhand account of a brief conversation from an interested party had been bundled up into evidence that Clark was a congenital liar.

In the coming weeks we'll see more and more of this. And along the way we'll learn the answers to two questions, both of which may have a profound effect on the outcome of next year's election.

The first is: Who will define Clark first? Clark's opponents and his own nascent campaign are moving as fast as they can to answer that question in their favor. But will Clark be able to staff his campaign in time to offer any sustained rebuttal to the attacks? This is a candidate, after all, who reportedly didn't decide to enter the race till 48 hours before his announcement. And Clark has already made some of the kinds of mistakes common to first-time campaigners, storming out onto political minefields without knowing where the lethal charges are buried. So he may end up doing some of his opponents' job for them.

The other question is this: Will the mainstream media — networks, major metropolitan dailies and news magazines — be carried along for the ride? In 1999 and 2000 a steady drumbeat of conservative attacks on then-Vice President Al Gore, accusing him of being a serial fibber, wended their way into the mainstream media and became a mainstay of coverage during the campaign. The Bush campaign mounted a similar attack on Sen. John McCain's emotional stability during the primaries. Both had a real effect. With Newsweek's report on Clark, it appears that the general could have an uphill battle.

To the White House, it doesn't really matter whether people believe that an Al Gore or a Wes Clark is a liar. If a question is asked often enough, the truth becomes a secondary matter. That's what the White House is hoping will happen with Clark. That's how the game is played. And the race is on.

[Sayhey]

IJ, this is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread on this topic. I would love to see the "talking points" that Rove and others are trying to get out to the media. It is one thing for Novak, Kristol, or Safire to be shills for the administration, but for Fineman and Newsweek magazine to blindly repeat this nonsense is an indictment of the state of journalism. Here is the spinsanity story on this subject:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030925.html

I'm glad the LA Times is trying to expose this crap.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, I know this came up earlier. When I began reading this piece in the Times today I figured it was going to be about the same incident -- but it turned out to be about yet another GOP effort to sully Clark's reputation. It won't be the last, either -- of that we can be certain.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If memory serves, a MacArthur candidacy was floated but never became a reality.



it really broke his spirit according to those close to him...and let's say he was not completely thrilled when ike won when it could have been him

but imho, i don't think ike was our strongest president...but he played good golf;) :p