The latest CNN poll has CLark ahead of Bush in the Presidential race, although the margin ( 49% to 46% ) is close enough that margin for error could essentially call this a tie. I know that pretty much everyone knows this, but I wanted to discuss exactly this subject, and when I began to in semi-related threads I became aware of the fact that I was in danger of derailing it. Also, it's pretty big news, and deserves it's own thread. Aside from the news that an incumbent is behind in the polls during a war, almost unheard of, I wanted to ask Republicans this: Are you worried? This is not 'Nah-Nah I told you so! There ain't no flies on us!'well kind of crap, because I am aware that as of now Clark is sort of untouched, and we have yet to see how he stands up to the glare of the election scrutiny...plus he has the new boy charm, and Bush's faults are all well demonstrated, if not ackowledged by many of his die-hards. No, this is actually an honest question to supporters of Bush because for the first time Bush looks really beatable, and I have been there. When Bush Sr. was running for re-election, I was behind him...and I well remember the feeling of incredulity and fear when this new guy, Bill Clinton, was suddenly the darling of the press corps, and the common American. It dissapointed me that some women would say they liked him better because he was more attractive, vibrant, etc. or some men would say they prefered him because he was more slick, more effusive, etc. I kept waiting for the public to calm down and get sensible on the outside, but I can admit that on the inside there was always, even early on a niggling little doubt about how quickly Clinton had seemed to become the toast of the political circuit, and I imagine several current Bush supporters feel the same. And I have to say, trying to be as objective as I can, that Bush Sr.was nowhere near as vulnerable or in trouble on major issues as Bush Jr. is. In a way Clinton and Clark represent similar things to the electorate; both seem(ed) to be relative outsiders on the politcal back slapping tour, both were more overtly intelligent, although Daddy is much more intelligent than his son, both seemed more New Money than Old Money, etc...For whatever reason, like it or not, these are the kinds of things which can win elections. I wasn't really against Clinton at the time...I liked some of his positions, etc. But I felt he was more style than substance, and thought Bush Had done a good job, so why change? But even though much of it seemed to be for superficial reasons, I was aware that Clinton was gaining momentum, and I imagine that that's how Republican/Bush supporters must feel, to a degree, about this explosion onto the scene by Clark. If you just want to argue rhetoric, or say why Bush is better in your opinion, go ahead. If you want to point out that Clark is still a campaign virgin, feel free...but please, I am asking, be honest; you're a little afraid, right? I know, because I was there...
Well, obviously I have nothing to contribute here. At least I'm consistent. I was an early Clinton supporter. (I thought he could win... and I liked his ideas) I'll go away, now.
Maybe that's a slight overstatement. I was/am generally pretty pessimistic about high profile politicians, so I rarely expect miracles, especially when we realistically only offer two choices, and as was especially clear in the last election, both often seem equally unappetizing. So I respected Bush's ability to steer us through the fall of the USSR, I really appreciated the way he built international support for the first Gulf War, and saw it as an optimistic sign for the future; The shackles of the Cold War were off of us, and now we could act as we wanted: peacefull and moral, or aggressive and dictatorial. Bush Sr. went the first way, and I wanted to stay on that path. We could, I thought at the time, be the first superpower who didn't use their power for their own benefit and to tell others how to act, and that's what America is about. It was about the high point in my American pride... And he gained considerable credit from me for stopping the war when the UN's mandate was fulfilled, and taking the political hit rather than going for the macho points with the voters and superceding the outlined objective. In my opinion that took genuine moral and political courage. I didn't then, as I don't now, give absolute blame to the President for the state of the economy, at least not at the time. I didn't love Bush Sr., but he was a statesman, intelligent, experienced, and was steering the ship pretty well at an important time. That was the basis for my position.
Well, certainly Bush I looks incredible compared to his kid. But Gulf War I, regardless of the coalition, represented the "peaceful and moral" side? No. I don't think so. I don't think so at all. I'm not some kind of freaky dove, but that was a cynical war too. I'd say to the max if it wasn't for the more recent one. And I don't posit that a president controls the economy, but Bush just didn't care. He did not care, and was barely aware of, the biggest problem in our country at that time. His boy is aware of it and does care, as he saw what happened to his dad -- he's just dumb and wrong about what to do about it. I agree with respecting the coaltion and avoiding the pressure to assassinate a president to score political points, but that war was crap, he paid no attention to domestic problems (not just the economy, but virtually all of them) which were a disaster then (it seemed then even more than now) and there were various other reasons to disdain him as well. Iran Contra -- the biggest, most heinous political scandal of our lives -- for example. But I am sorry for derailing the thread. The answer to your question is yes. They are terrified of Clark. They are also damn scared of Dean and even rightly frightened by Kerry. But they are way freaking scared of Clark.
Can't worry about politics over a year before the election. So much can change to change the fortunes of any candidate. Clark is new and largely unknown now. There's no telling what his status (or the status of any other Democratic nominee) will be after the primaries or during the regular election campaign. Heck, Clayton Williams was unbeatable a year before the election. Until we get around to next summer or so, there's no reason to worry about anything (at least not as a private layperson. The folks who run the President's campaign should be on top of stuff now). But this election isn't going to be won or lost in September/October of 2003. So, why worry if you're just a regular schlub on the street?
I agree with that. George H.W. Bush just seemed so out of touch with the concerns of the rank and file American. He really did come across as not caring about what the country was going through in terms of the economy, etc. Clinton was mocked for his "I feel your pain" line, but that was exactly what Americans wanted to hear. Even if the President can't do anything substantial to help the economy, you still want him to care about you and your situation.
To all you Democrats, your guys are peaking a year before the election. It's a marathon, not a sprint. First it was Kerrey. Then everyone went ga-ga for Dean. Now it is Wesley Clark? This is a great piece in the NY Post from Dick Morris that I think hits the nail right on the head. I don't think Bush is in trouble. First of all, his approval numbers are even better than Clinton's at this stage of his first term and second, there is so much time between now and the election. I think that the public reaction to the Iraq situation is simply a result of the constant barrage of negative media showing nothing but our soldiers dying without showing any progress. This to me is because we are spoiled and believe that everything can be solved in a thirty minute episode, rather than the years it will likely require. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/3151.htm WHY CLARK WILL FADE By DICK MORRIS September 23, 2003 -- THE shocking truth about the U.S. presidential race is that the sudden and headlong collapse of President Bush's popularity has created such a vacuum that a new candidate such as retired Gen. Wesley Clark has no difficulty soaring to the top of the polls based on one week's publicity. The most recent Newsweek survey documents both Bush's crash and Clark's rise. Bush is now down to a job-approval rating of only 51 percent. More ominously for the Republicans, in a trial heat against any Democrat (except Howard Dean), he scores below the crucial 50 percent mark. Against Al Gore and John Kerry, he gets only 48 percent, and against Clark, drops to 47 percent. When an incumbent president is below 50 percent of the vote, he is in desperate trouble. (Bush still manages 52 percent against Dean.) Asked if Bush should be re-elected, Americans vote no by 50-44. Equally astonishing is the sudden rise of Gen. Clark. After only a week as the media's darling, he leads the Democratic pack with 14 percent of the vote to Dean's and Joseph Lieberman's 12 percent, with Kerry at 10 percent and Dick Gephardt at 8 percent. The key to Bush's free-fall? Only 46 percent approve of his handling of postwar Iraq, down 5 points from his ratings last week. Not only do Americans mind losing soldiers, they also worry about the cost of the occupation, with 56 percent complaining that it is too high. Clark's rise is clearly a media-inspired flavor of the week. When Dean graced the front pages of Time and Newsweek, he was similarly honored with a first-place rating. Clark's surge is not so much a testament to his strength as to the weakness of Bush on the one hand and the Democratic field on the other. Clark will not wear well. His early gaffes show his inexperience. He would be a bit like a latter-day Dwight D. Eisenhower, except that nobody can quite recall what war it is that he won. The initial enthusiasm for his candidacy really came from Europe, where this general-who-opposes-war is the kind of guy only the elites of Paris can truly love. The only primary he has locked up is Democrats abroad. But then Bill Clinton picked up the Clark banner and had his staff rally around his fellow Arkansan. Why? Hillary and Bill support confusion, chaos and consternation as their preferred strategy for Democrats in 2004. Determined that nobody but they capture the White House - or even the Democratic Party - the Clintons are opposed to anyone who gains momentum. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain pursued a policy of opposing any European nation that got too powerful, always amassing a coalition behind the weaker states to maintain the balance of power. This is precisely the Clinton posture in this election year. In the long run, Dean's momentum will prove real and Clark's will be seen as bogus. Dean has amassed a base of grassroots (or cyber-roots) support by tapping into two groups - gays and peaceniks. His message spread among them not as a result of top-down advertising but by the new Internet style of viral, horizontal marketing. Gays and their supporters and anti-war zealots spread the word among themselves that Dean was their man. The result was a genuine outpouring of backing from small donors and local activists. The Dean candidacy is the first creation of the Internet age. By contrast, Clark's is perhaps the last of the media-created candidacies. Dean's support will carry him through the early primaries. He will likely score one-punch knockouts in Iowa of Gephardt, in New Hampshire of Kerry, and in South Carolina of Edwards. His three victims must win their respective primaries because they come from the state next door. Their failure to do so means the end of their candidacies. Dean still can't beat Bush. But how far can Bush drop before we hear the splash at the bottom of the well?
Weren't we seeing threads with Dean's name in place of Clark's just a month or so back? We were all supposed to be afraid of Dean. "Admit it Republicans..you're afraid of Dean!!" with big spooky spiders and skeletons... Is Bush beatable? Absolutely! No one is unbeatable. But, it's way too early to be afraid of anything. Geez, we're like 14 months away...public opinion changes from week to week. Asking people who don't vote who they want to be president is not very helpful.
I'm not a Republican, and if my only two choices were Clark or Bush, I would choose Clark, but... I don't think he is in anyway a new Clinton. Bill had more charisma, and was a far better at the 'politics' than Clark is. Clark has the fact that he's a general, and is obviously intelligent, but I don't think he's as adept at playing the political game. I think one of Clark's main strengths is, of course, his military standing. People want someone who will be decisive, and strong. Yet he was certainly not all that decisive when it came to running for the nomination. It took him a while to make up his mind. Then just a few days into the campaign, he's already made a minor error saying he was against the war, then that he would have probably voted for the resolution on Iraq, then that he wouldn't have voted for it. Of course it may that jumping out under the bright lights of the political stage temporarily caught him off guard, and once he's acclomated himself, those things won't happen again. But I don't think he's another Clinton as far as mastering the political game, and not as troublesome to the Republicans.
Here is the list of Clark's horrible decisions. Until Wesley steps up and answers these *very serious* charges, he is not a viable candidate. 1. The Meet the Press lying incident 2. The Russian provocation fiasco 3. Some very questionable/unethical decisions made while leading NATO 4. WACO 5. Selling out to investment banking instead of spending his time on more community-focused endeavors 6. His violent temper 7. How his Jewish ancestry will affect his policy-making in the Middle East peace efforts 8. His private dealings with Hillary Clinton
1. considering the opposition, lying on TV vs. honesty is at most a wash, and probably a huge advantage for Clark. 2.It's already been debunked 3. He can also answer for Milosevic gone, and no troops lost their lives doing it. Score one for Clark. 4. Also been debunked. 5. Selling out to investment banking? 6. We'll see how it affects him. 7. Seems like he'll be a straight shooter once he starts talking. Let's wait and find out. 8. On this one you finally got him. That is a *SERIOUS* charge. He's actually dealt with Hilary!!!!!!!!??????? Wow, the man is a walking, souless bloodsucker. I've never heard of anything so dastardly in all my life. Clark should give a huge 'mia culpa' speech, and hope he doesn't end up a social pariah and outcast like O.J. Simpson. I can't believe he's dealt with Hilary. What is this country coming to?
Until George W. Bush shows accountability and responsibility for his actions and statements during his term, his re-election chances will continue to drop like a lead balloon. The American people do not like Presidential liars. It was proven during Clinton's impeachment, and it is being proven again now.
FB and RMT, beware, whenever TJ says "J'accuse...." it's usually in jest. I note that he hasn't exposed the fact that Clark may very well be an ardent supporter of Jesse Jackson yet, and await that day with fear and anxiety.
It's too early. Clark is our great hope, our empty vessel. I believe in him but I want to see that he can withstand the scrutiny. If I have any disappointment, it's that he should have been told---he should have known---not to talk off the cuff to reporters. You can think, "I probably would have supported the war if such-and-so had been true and if there is intel we are not privy to" or whatever; but it looks contradictory and of course the press jumped on it. Even if they're not Bush's foot soldiers, they're gonna report it. Still, if he can get it together in a hurry, I'll support him. By the way, the NY Post is about as conservative a paper there is. That gives me free rein to quote Gore Vidal when he calls Bush the cheerleader-in-chief.
Certainly some people are worried. Yesterday's times ran a sh-t splattered hatchet job by William Safire claiming that Clark was a sinister implement of the Clinton mafioso; As Safire is usually considered, or considers himself, above the right wing talk radio set, the fact that he's running innuendo filled smear pieces so very early should tell you something.
