Wrath, I had you beat but my daughter was having a nightmare (probably about a second Bush term) and I didn't hit submit before I went and calmed her.
Caped Crusader: Now that I've looked at the list of Feb primaries, I'm not sure which one I think Dean can win. Oh, well. I made my public predicton on a bulletin board that Dean would be in it for several more weeks, so I can't puss out now. I still say he comes in a strong (not weak) second in NH, which was the point of the thread -- predict NH. Hey, you're in NM now right? What's the buzz there? Do they have a preference, or are they all still undecided? Any candidates visible in the state yet? That's why this one's so much fun -- and we haven't even hit the general election yet. We've seen one candidate use the Internet to become the (temporary) frontrunner and another get pulled into the race in part by an online draft movement (Clark). Weird. Rimrocker: You snooze/be a good father, you lose.
Jamil Jamozzle: You could be right about tomorrow. My guess is weak second, but anyone confident about tomorrow's results before they happen is clueless enough to have backed Orlando Sanchez straight through the runoff. I am in New Mexico, yes. But my ear's hardly to the ground. I only got here last week and have been busy finding a place, doing a bit of work and obsessing over NH. The most recent polls had Dean over Clark, but those were well before Iowa and everything's changed. Also, they cancelled their primary here. It's a caucus. Anything can happen. Might be a meaningless win for Clark (I remember how excited we were when Jerry Brown won Maine back in the day. Ah, youth...) Further, Missouri, SC, Arizona and Oklahoma are all bigger prizes, so we're not likely to get too many visits. If anyone comes to Albuquerque though, I'll be there. Even Lieberman. Allah help me, I love my American politics.
basso: I generally loathe Peggy Noonan, but I'd never deny she's smart as hell. Her editorial here provide better talking points against Clark (and very similar ones to the ones I've been concerned about) than the ones you cited above. She also pushes the same lame issues you (and Fox and Rush) have pushed, but she does so lightly compared to the bigger issue of basic weirdness. Can someone explain to me, by the way, what the big deal is with calling Bush a deserter? I understand that it's semantically squishy as he'd have had to have been in a combat situation to have officially 'deserted,' but he was AWOL. Yes, I know, no definitive proof, but Bush's people have basically ceded this one. He was almost definitely AWOL. And if Moore had said that instead of deserter, this wouldn't even be a story. And is there really any great difference between the two? Against, for example, a war hero like Kerry? But I digress. Here are your talking points against another war hero, whom all the chickenhawk patriots are so eager to tear down. This ought to help. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004608 General Malaise Democrats, for the good of the country: Stop Wesley Clark! Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Let me assert something that I cannot prove with a poll but that is based on serious conversations the past few months with Republicans and also normal people: 9/11 changed everything. Yes, I know you know that. But it has even changed how people who usually vote Republican think about Democratic candidates for president. Our No. 1 question used to be: Can we beat this guy easily? But now we feel the age of terrorism so profoundly challenges our country, and is so suggestive of future trauma and national pain, that our No. 1 question has become: Is he_._._. normal? Just normal. Is he stable and adult and experienced? Only then we ask if we can beat him. The Democratic nominee in 2004 could win the election. There may be something to the idea that Democrats in general want to get rid of George W. Bush more than Republicans in general want to keep him. One of the men running in New Hampshire tonight could become the next president, and lead the war on terror. And our country cannot afford a bit of a nut. Which get us of course to Howard Dean. But not for long. I do not know how Democrats in New Hampshire will judge him today, but I can say with confidence that the American people will not choose him as president, because they will not want him near the nuclear arsenal. Which gets me to Wesley Clark. Forgive me, but he seems to be another first class strange-o. He has been called arrogant and opportunistic. That's par for the course in politics, but what worries me about Gen. Clark is that it seems to be true to greater degrees than is usual. On the night of John Kerry's win in Iowa, Gen. Clark went on "Larry King Live." The other guest was Bob Dole, not exactly an ideologically rigid man. His presence seemed to signal the establishment giving a big hello and an insider's teasing to the relatively new candidate. Remember how it went? Mr. Dole, a little emollient, then a little mischievous, told Gen. Clark, first, that "somebody [had] to lose" in Iowa and, next, that "politically you just became a colonel instead of a general." This little barb set off a pompous harrumph of a retort: "Well, I don't think that's at all--Senator, with all due respect, he's [Kerry's] a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership." The exchange ended with Gen. Clark telling Mr. Dole that he, Wesley, had "been in a lot of tough positions in my life, one of them was leading the operation in Kosovo_._._." "I won a war"? "I pitch a 95-mile-an-hour fastball"? "I've done all of the big leadership"? "I've been in a lot of tough positions"? Oh no. Another one. Gen. Clark gives off the vibrations of a man who has no real beliefs save one: Wes Clark should be president. The rest--the actual meaning of his candidacy--he seems to be making up as he goes along. It seems a candidacy void of purpose beyond meeting the candidate's hunger. He is passionately for the war until he announces for the Democratic nomination facing an antiwar base, at which point he becomes passionately antiwar. He thanks God that George Bush and his aides are in the White House, then he says they're the worst leaders ever. Anyone can change his mind; but this is not a change, it's a swerve, and without a convincing rationale. Last week, Brit Hume asked Gen. Clark when it was that he'd "first noticed" that he--Gen. Clark--was a Democrat. There was laughter, but that was a nice big juicy softball. Gen. Clark flailed and fumbled. Later he blamed Mr. Hume for being a Republican agent. When you are making it up along the way you make mistakes that might, politely, be called tonal. It is not terrible that he was introduced the other day in New Hampshire by a bilious activist, Michael Moore, who called the president a "deserter." Gen. Clark didn't address the charge when he took the stage. He could have been distracted, and it certainly would have been ungracious to say, "Thanks for that introduction, which I must disavow because it suggests a grassy knoll extremism with which I cannot associate myself." But in the days afterward Gen. Clark was repeatedly questioned about Mr. Moore's charge. He dug the hole deeper by leaving open the possibility that it was true. More telling is Gen. Clark on abortion. A pro-lifer wouldn't have the smallest of chances in the Democratic Party, but a certain Clintonian politesse is expected when the question is raised. "Abortion is always a tragedy but denying a woman her reproductive rights under the Constitution would also be a tragedy"--that kind of thing. This is what Gen. Clark said when he met with the Manchester Union-Leader and was questioned by the newspaper's Joseph McQuaid: Clark: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion-- McQuaid: At all? Clark: Nope. McQuaid: Late-term abortion? No limits? Clark: Nope. McQuaid: Anything up to delivery? Clark: Nope, nope. McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb? Clark: I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. ._._. You don't put the law in there. Gen. Clark was then asked, "What about when she's grown up and at the prom, can you kill her then?" He said, "Absolutely. Chase her across the dance floor. This is a personal decision for the mother." Oh--sorry--I made that last part up. He did not advocate killing children 18 years after they're born. Though one wonders why not. Maybe he does have nuance. His campaign tried to spin it into a plus. He forgot to speak "artfully," "precisely." But he was nothing if not precise. He forgot to speak sanely. All of this was captured by Camille Paglia last summer, in an interview with Salon that at the time struck me as extreme and now seems prescient. Asked what she, as a pro-military Democrat, thinks of the retired general, she said: "What a phony! ._._. Clark reminds me of Keir Dullea in '2001: A Space Odyssey'--a blank, vacant expression, detached and affectless." But, said the interviewer, his supporters say he is handsome and great on TV. Ms. Paglia: "Doesn't anyone know how to 'read' TV? The guy's an android ._._. a slick, boudoir, salon military type who rubbed plenty of colleagues the wrong way. Clark is not a natural man's man. And he's no Eisenhower. ._._. This is just another hysterical boomlet, as when the nerdy Northeast media went gaga for John McCain--'Finally, a soldier we like!'" After this interview, Gen. Clark's military colleagues began to speak critically of him on and off the record--an apple-polishing operator who abused the chain of command. It is true that Americans respect and often support generals. But we like our generals like Eisenhower and Grant and George Marshall: We like them sober, adult and boring. The title "general" is loaded enough. We don't want one who is temperamental and unpredictable and strange. And so my Democratic friends, patriots who vote Democratic and are voting in today's primary and the ones down the road. Please. We will take Joe Lieberman or John Kerry or even young John Edwards, men who appear to be somewhere in the normal range. We need a person who could rally the nation on a terrible day, and who could arguably meet the security demands the age requires. We can't afford flip-outs, or people who are too obviously creepy. Just a person in the normal range. Is that asking too much? Say it ain't so. Give Gen. Clark his marching orders: Retreat! One suspects the Democrats will send him packing. Just as one suspects he might eventually withdraw, saying something like, "You won't have Wes Clark to kick around anymore."
So much for the trend in the Zogby poll. Latest Zogby has Kerry opening up a 13 point lead after only being up 3. Looks like the undecideds in his poll broke bigtime for Kerry. Man, NH is nutty -- don't know if I've ever seen the trend do such a big 180 like that in one day before. So, let me remind everyone for the record that my prediction of Dean staying competitive after NH was predicated on a STRONG second place finish. How's that for ass-covering if he's done by next week?
Here's what Zogby has to say for himself (even he knows his tracking poll was goofy): "A final note: I know that my polling in the past two-days has shown a close race. I have no doubt that this was the case. Dean had bottomed out in the latter part of the week, was re-gaining some of his support among key voting groups, and had rehabilitated up to a point his unfavorable ratings. But in the final analysis, New Hampshire voters have decided to nominate a possible president instead of sending an angry message. New Hampshire voters are always volatile and its primaries are always fluid. I have never gotten a New Hampshire primary wrong. I stand by my close numbers of the last few days as much as I stand by these final numbers."
You couldn't be more correct about the deserter/AWOL thing. I almost want Clark to win just for this fact alone. It would be great in the general election for people to keep bringing up Bush's military service record. Despite the fact that most people on this board know that Bush was AWOL during the Viet Nam war, I don't think that most voters nation wide know that. The more attention that gets brought to the deserter comment, the more attention will be paid to Bush signing up for duty, and then skipping out on it for a whole year. I don't think that will play big with voters. I hope the press keeps bringing it up so that more light gets shed on G.W. Bush and the fact that he was AWOL.
these are the types of issues that come up when a guy runs for president the first time. the guy has been the freaking commander in chief for the past 4 years...i don't think you're gonna beat bush among the military.
The military bloc is not going to be what it was. The Dem may not beat Bush, but it will be much closer than 2000.
I read the Noonan article this morning before I came to the board, and she's got a point-Clark is just too weird. His repeated refusal to disavow the Bush as deserter/AWOL (more on that in a moment) canard is extremely revealing. The guy's just an opportunist, and he will traffic in any conspiracy theory, no matter how strange, if he thinks he can somehow score political points, in this instance w/ the rabid anti-war left. Moreover, he doesn't seem to realize that what he's in fact doing is suggesting Bush is a criminal. Deserting is a crime, he his accusation, if true, would mean that the sitting president of the U.S. is nothing but a criminal. If that's what he means, why doesn't he just come out and say it? Because he know's it'snot true, but he thinks he can have it both ways. this type of behaivor may not hurt him in the democratic primaries, but it'll kill him in the general election. and if he gets that far, i guarantee you Bush will kill him w/ military voters. one other thought about Michael Moore- he's on record as criticising the Kosovo campaign while it was occuring as cowardly. Now he's an unabashed supported of that campaigns architect? here's a sample: "..each night, for the past three weeks, millions of dollars of bombs and missiles -- that you and I paid for -- are being used to kill people in the former Yugoslavia. That makes you and I culpable in their execution...I'm sorry to personalize it in this way, but this slaughter is being conducted in your name and mine, and I'll tell you, this is blood I don't want on my hands. We will all have to answer for this some day, and I would like to be able to say that I did not sit by silently while this was being done, and that I did whatever I could to stop it as soon as possible." full text here as to the AWOL claim. This is nothing but an urban legend, prompted by a hit piece the Boston Globe ran during the 2000 campaign. Among many obvious rebuttals, perhaps the most on pint is this: when Bush decided to go into business school in the fall of 1973, he requested, and got an honorable discharge- 8 months before his service was scheduled to end. The military does not, and cannot by regulation, issue an honorable discharge to someone who has been AWOL or otherwise seriously reprimanded. In the wake of Moore's recent comments introducing Clark, the Globe had this to say: "News reports, including some in the Globe , have questioned Bush's constancy as a National Guard airman at the time, but he has not been credibly accused of desertion, a serious charge. Clark should have distanced himself from the remark." If the paper that started it all has disavowed the charge, why can't you? Frankly, Franchise, Batman, this is the type of smear SamFischer would try and propagate. I would have thought it beneath you both the repeat such obvious lies and distortions as "fact." A full, non-partisan, review of these accusations may be found here . CANARD CLOSED.
Nice to see you resort to trashing me in other threads when I call bullsh-t on your posts rather than to respond to them when I do.... I thought that you must have been hiding in Syria or something. Did I hurt your feelings? Poor Basso....I guess I'll think twice about stepping to him in the future, wouldn't want to miss out on any more Drudge "**World Exclusives**"
would michael moore rather we did nothing when men like milosevic run roughshod over people because of their ethnic background? come on....don't pretend to stand for justice if you're not willing to fight for it at some point.
exactly. wonder if clark's even aware of moore's views on kosovo. perhaps he's "heard those rumors, but i really haven't studied the issue."
Strange, I don't recall Bush Sr. or Dole ever voicing displeasure with their supporters who happened to call Clinton a "draft-dodger" suggesting that he was a criminal.
But see, that was different. Clinton is a sociopath liberal with a lesbian for a wife and a boy for a daughter. You can say whatever you want about him. Bush? Well... 9/11 changed everything.
if you can find me a link with a major supporter of Bush or Dole introducing same with a comment about "that draft-dodger"clinton, then Bush/Dole refusing to disavow it, despite repeated opportunities, I'll concede the point...assuming, that is, you concede that Bush2 as deserter is a lie.
