Those are DNC/DLC skewed polls against Dean. None take into account new voters, for example.
After all the hemming, hawing, and obfuscation about his IWR one can assume either he was very stupid to be taken in or politically inept.
Either way he would NOT make a good choice for the Democratic party.

I agree with you, Nathan. Actually, I'd be happy with any of them running as my candidate against Bush. Except Clark, that is. What is the point in running one Republican against another? I can't believe this Republican reject actually has a chance to be the Democratic Party candidate.

For those of you who think Clark is too Republican for us, please read the letter which Michael Moore sent to his supporters in which he endorses Wesley Clark.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
Also at the Clark Website at
http://www.clark04.com/moore/

Sorry, Kevin, but I don't give a rat's ass what Michael Moore thinks about anything! Remember, he was a big Nader backer last year. An astute political thinker he is not.

Besides, I know it defies conventional wisdom, but Clark -- a first time candidate, for anything, with a questionable military record -- stands about as much chance of beating Bush as Kucinich does. At least Kucinich a) has political campaign experience; and b) actually has a platform (albeit out of the mainstream).

Wait 'til Rove and his buddies get a hold of Clark. We'll see how "electable" he is then.

I support Kerry and think he is great--but I'd vote for a dead guy before I'd vote for Bush.

My question to is do you guys think it is a good idea to have a Kerry-Dean fight? I'd really rather not because I don't want the party getting torn in two right before going up against Bush and the evil ones.

I love Kerry's record and I don't want to see Clark, but the Dean machine seems unstopable.

So, now I am in total flux!

Aimee, the good news is that, unless you live in Iowa, you don't have to decide just yet.

For example state doesn't vote until March 2, so far, my preference has gone Kucinich to Kerry to Dean to Kery to Dean to Clark, and it may well switch again. At this point I've resolved to see how the race plays out.

For example: Dean has based a lot of his rationale for running on the strength of his volunteers. However, if he loses repeatedly, this shows that his volunteer base has less ability to swing the election than we all wish to think, so there's less reason to vote for him.

Not picking on Dean here. One could make the same argument about any candidate. e.g. Clark's military record is supposed to be a real help, but if he gets flattened, then it means people didn't care about it as much (or he has some other weakness which is overwhelming that).

I'm for the best candidate to beat Bush, so long as that person will stand up for real Democratic values. The latter means anyone but Lieberman. As to the former, I'm really not sure, and I don't think any of us can be at this point.

Amen, Kevin. I honestly cannot see myself voting for Lieberman, and I'm Jewish. I'd be much happier if we could drive him out of the party altogether and replace him with a real Dem in the Senate from Connecticut.

On the Michael Moore Clark endorsement: I read the letter when it came out, and was totally unimpressed, and I like Michael Moore's work. Basically, the letter describes how Moore was being attacked in a tv interview after his Oscar acceptance speech, and Clark defended his right to criticize Bush and his patriotism. Moore felt all grateful and gushy inside and developed a crush. Even Madonna's endorsement letter was more substantive.

BTW, does anyone know who Mandy Moore, Jessica Simpson, Christina or Britney have endorsed?

I don't agree that Kerry would be the strongest candidate. I think Dean, Clark and Edwards would be stronger. It would be Dukakis II. Besides, the guy totally pissed me off when he gave his speech attacking fair trade.

My number two choice would be Edwards. He's a smart populist who's the best of the bunch on TV.

Nick, I know the letter you are referring to, and the one I posted the link to above is a different letter, composed only a few days ago. Please take a look!

I saw some of Kerry's townhouse meetings in Iowa on C-SPAN earlier this week and he did surprisingly well. I'd prefer him over Dean, about the only thing I've really got against him is that his attacks on Dean don't actually make any sense.

"[Kerry] would be Dukakis II"

Kerry is a decorated Vietnam vet, Dean was the one gone skiing. Who's going to look better peaking out of the tank, eh?

Kevin,

Thanks for pointing out that this is a new letter, and yes, it's much more substantive than his "draft Clark" missive -- it's even more substantive than Madonna's!

Look, I get where Moore's coming from. He's basically saying that Clark is a moderate-liberal trojan horse with a profile that otherwise looks like a solid GOPer (middle-aged military white male gun owner from the South). Swing white males will vote for the uniform, the chiseled jaw, the accent, etc and get a guy committed to social justice. Well, we all thought Clinton was a liberal too, and he did tons of caving in to the right wing, which had a lot to do with much of the left abandoning Gore in 2000. Including Michael Moore (and me, I might add).

Still the trojan horse has some appeal. A lot of the "who'll do best against W" stuff depends on who's running the campaign (remember that Gore was a moderate Southern Vet, too), and Clark got off to a decidedly slow start. Also, I admit I'm suspicious of the DLCness of his support, since I think the DLC is a 5th column of reactionism inside the Democratic Party that needs to be utterly destroyed or expelled. I'm planning to support Kucinich til he drops out, assuming he doesn't win, but I'll vote for Clark if he gets the nod.

I will not vote for Kerry or any other pro-war, bush supporting democrat. I'd rather sit home and watch as the USA endures 4 more years of Bush and Company. May we haven't suffered enough yet.

Kevin,

Check out this response to Moore's Clark endorsement on Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org

Nick,

I just read it. The author makes a good point about Kucinich's vote, though IMHO Moore brought that up mainly as a way of saying "Kucinich is toast; I'm going with someone who has more $, a higher poll standing, and who I think can win in November" without saying that explicitly.

As to looking to candidates' past history, I agree that it is important. One difference between Clark and Clinton, however, is that Clark is taking explicit progressive positions: for example, raising the minimum wage to $7/hour and his Families First tax plan to end income taxes on the poorer 50% of families by taxing the ultra-rich more. (Clark is the only candidate to propose raising income tax levels on the ultra-rich to higher than they were under Clinton, though I hear Edwards wants to raise capital gainst taxes on the ultra-rich.)

I'm also convinced that only a soldier, a veteran, or a die-hard liberal will have the guts to cut the bloated military budget.

Clinton, meanwhile, said a bunch of pretty generalities, but gave very few hard positions. The only actual reversal I recall him making was that he'd promised to let Haitian refugees land rather than tow them out to sea, then didn't change the policy. I think Clinton did say he supported NAFTA during the campaign; it's just that none of us thought he'd make it his #1 priority.

BTW, I was a Nader voter in 2000 as well for the same reason as you: hatred of the DLC. Clark's intimate campaign staff does give me the willies, though I figure that with 9 other candidates in the race by the time he entered, he was stuck with the dregs.

I'm also convinced that only a soldier, a veteran, or a die-hard liberal will have the guts to cut the bloated military budget.

maybe, but i don't see any evidence that clark will. heck, he even supports the SOA/WHISC (school of the assasins)!

Kevin,

I remember Clinton calling for a major Federal jobs program that never happened. He also shifted and slid on health care so much that, in refusing to confront the health insurance industry, he lost the support of the health justice organizations (at the time, Jim McDermott's "Single Payer" bill had over 100 cosponsors in the House, without White House support). The left stuck with Clinton, then abandoned Gore. They abandoned Gray Davis when they saw him triangulating them again. The state of the Dem Party is such that one of the first questions I ask about a candidate is now whether s/he will do this to us again.

On the military budget: part of me agrees with you, in the classic "Nixon to China" way. On the other hand, Clark isn't talking about that now, and without any evidence that he's getting advice from people who clearly want to cut the Pentagon budget, I assume he won't do much. Under the influence of the DLC, it's now considered kooky-left to make a "guns or butter" argument.

I wrote an extensive piece on Wesley Clark and the SOA / WHISC issue; if you're interested, you can reach it by clicking on my nick (below this comment) or by pasting this link into your browser:
http://mediaprima.com/clark04/