DU's Primary, if it were held today.....

[Catchawave]

Poll question: DU's Primary, if it were held today.....

These Democratic Candidates have a DU Group, so will put them up for your support <not who will win>. But WHO will you be supporting if the primaries were being held today?

If these Democratic Underground Candidates were running in a Primary Today...who would you be supporting?

There is no "other" choice, WHO would you be supporting is the question.

Sidebar: If your favorite is missing on this poll, start a DU Group for him/her ! Maybe we can do this monthly?

In order of their DU Group Listing:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

1. no Feingold?

guess I'll go with Warner then

[Catchawave]

3. Yes, Warner has a DU Group

I'm sure someone can start a group for Feingold.

Just saying, using DU Groups for a really, really great DU poll :)

[Gman]

2. It's gonna be Hillary

the deal is already done, or at least very close to it.

[Clark2008]

4. Is there anyway we can stop this?

I'm very concerned that it is another Diebold/ES&S/Triad and media propaganda special.
She will lose and lose badly and Dems will be hurting for, at least, another four years.
Either that, or, based on her surge to the right, that it would be of no alternative to any neo-con who runs and wins.

[Catchawave]

10. Yep...this is a DU Group Poll...are you as surprised as I am

that Hill doesn't have a dedicated DU Group..?

:smoke:

[Catchawave]

5. Hill doesn't have a DU Group

:spank:

[Clark2008]

8. Isn't that funny?

She's the media darling, the person most wanted by the Republicans - yet she's the LEAST popular Democrat on DEMOCRATIC Underground.
Go figure. :crazy:

Edited to add: Least popular Dem who probably will run in 2008. I'd say the LEAST favorite Dems are Leibermen and Zell - but, they're not really Dems.

[Catchawave]

11. But SHE doesn't have a DU Group!

That is the question.

[Jai4WKC08]

85. Perhaps I'm prejudiced by my own regard for Clinton

But I don't think that she's unpopular at DU so much as that, since we all follow politics more closely than the general pulbic, we know how little chance she has of winning the GE. Most of us (sadly, not all) want very much to win in '08.

Clinton does well in "scientific" polls because they mostly guage name recognition, and she's got that in spades. Corporate media keep pushing those polls on the public, which in turn helps her in the next polls, because they deperately want her to win the nomination. And because it gives them something to talk about.

[Jai4WKC08]

86. Self-deleted -- double post n/t

[FreeStateDemocrat]

12. No election of the candidate, what happens to deal if she loses primaries?

I will vote against her in my state’s primary if for no other reason than a deal was made. Who is making this deal and is Howard Dean signing on? With her as the nominee we get our ass kicked hard. She may be the one that finally and completely ends what little is left of a semblance of any type of democracy that remains. The American voter will never accept her as CIC while we are at “war” against whatever forces of evil the rightwing frames as the threat in 2008. I really don’t like the MSM media or anyone else saying she is the candidate three years before the nominating process. This bandwagon will end up with four flat tires because of her “un-electablitiy.“

[robcon]

48. I hope it will be Hillary

The fact that she was left off the poll, although some consider her the favorite, is troubling.

[nickshepDEM]

6. Governor Mark Warner... n/t

[neuvocat]

7. I just don't know. I can't decide.

</sarcasm>

[rndmprsn]

9. the general so far...but it's still a looong time till 2008, we still...

have the 06 elections to really be more concerned over.

[Catchawave]

16. Great response mdmprsn....

...it's about '05 AND '06 :::whatever:::

I'm trying the thunk up the DU Group Candidates....

[Capn Sunshine]

13. Seriously, what's the point of these polls?

We have a subculture here that lives to skew these things, so the results mean only that they can skew a DU poll.

Unless skewing polls is a skill that will make up for deficiencies in a candidate (not necessaily to say your candidate may have them) and make up for deficiencies in the voting system (see today's DU front page) then it's really akin to spinning your wheels really really fast in the mud and claiming a land speed record.

[bobthedrummer]

14. The Clark support group here really skews these polls beyond meaning

[Leilani]

17. As a Clark supporter, I don't like them

If Clark wins then all his supporters get trashed.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. I agree.

All of these threads just end up as flame wars about Clark.:banghead:

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Ditto. You won't find me starting one. n/t

[Renew Deal]

22. There are just so many Clark people.

I don't know how it happened. Many are old timers, but there are also many more that come here from who knows where. BTW, I came here as a Clark supporter 8/03. I found this place and stayed.

[Adelante]

28. I came about the same time

I remember hearing over and over and over and over, etc., once the primaries happened, if Wes lost, Clark supporters would leave DU in droves. That didn't happen and new people came in.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. They were going to be mad at us for leaving.

Now they're mad at us for staying. And they're mad about new people joining up, just because they happen to support a particular Democrat.

I never saw all this moaning and complaining about all the Kerry people who joined after the election was over. :shrug:

[Adelante]

34. Well, I don't get it

But I'm not going to worry about it. You know, Crunch, fuck 'em :)

[ICantBelieve]

65. Yep, too many Clark people.

Nobody supports Clark, he's too popular. -- Yogi Berra

[Totally Committed]

27. I really resent this whining accusation every time there is a poll,

and Wes wins it.

Polls are, by their very purpose, meant to guage a candidate's support. If all candidates' supporters voted and Clark still wins, doesn't that mean he has the most support? Why the hell does it mean we are "skewing" it? We are supporting our candidate with our vote, fercripessake!

Please, everyone, I am asking you all to be logical about this. If you continue to have polls like this one, and Clark continues to win, it is ONLY an indication that he has a lot of supporters here.

Please stop this. It is insulting.

TC

[Leilani]

19. If you're talking about Clark supporters as a subculture

that lives to skew things, I take offense.

We're damned if we do, & damned if we don't.

Funny how it's always non-Clarkies who set these things up.

[Catchawave]

24. Well Capn, this poll has DU Group support

as I mentioned in my OM :)

[Leilani]

15. These polls are silly & devisive

Where have discussions of issues gone?

[bobthedrummer]

18. I saw a discussion of what Star Wars character Wesley Clark reminded

people of. That did it for me with most of his support group here at DU.
:silly:

[Leilani]

20. Well, I don't know anything about that.

All candidates have idiots supporting them, so what?

Is it any worse than entire threads about Edward's mole?

[bobthedrummer]

21. There are some Clark supporters that I can dialog with, of course.

There are other candidates supporters that also post crap.
I think we need to concentrate on 2006 right now.

[Crunchy Frog]

33. I really like most Feingold supporters.

There's just a few of them that I find to be really obnoxious. I don't let that color my opinion of Feingold though.

[dhinojosa]

37. Idiots?!?!?!

My star wars - wesley clark poll was.......uh....was.....ok....
it was idiotic but it kicked major ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:headbang:


You can view it in all it's splendor here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3018886

[Leilani]

38. Oh wow, sorry! LOL!

Actually, I really didn't know anything about your Wes/Star Wars Poll.

Even when Clarkies have fun they get slammed.

Remember the Speedo outrage?

We had a lot of fun, but some DUers just don't have a sense of humor.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Hey, great poll!

I had missed it. Don't go to the Lounge very often. But I just voted.

Some people either have no sense of humor or are grasping at straws to find things to criticize Clark/Clarkies about. Consider the source and blow it off.

Reminds me of a long article I read back in 2000 that rewrote the whole Clinton/Gore history as Kirk and Spock. VERY funny to this old Trekker. And a LOT of truth in it.

God help us if we always have to be 100% serious.

[dhinojosa]

35. You mean "MY" awesome General Wesley Clark - Star Wars Jedi Poll!?!?!?!?!?

That poll was a poll for the ages AND it rocked harder than AC/DC! :headbang: OWWWWW!!!!!

And before you condemn my poll, please note that it was done 11:02PM on a Friday. Just letting off a little steam baby! Furthermore, the powers that be, voted "This poll is f*n dumb!" How cool is that!!!



You can visit down memory lane with the coolest poll you ever seen by click on the link below!!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3018886

[kevsand]

45. Sorry I missed it.

Don't get to the Lounge very often. But then, isn't that what the Lounge is for? Stupid f*ckin polls, I mean. And now someone is complaining? Go figure. Oh, well.

(P.S. Jar Jar Binks must die...)

[bobthedrummer]

75. Ever google search DU usernames?

Your poll turned the worm for me.

[BootinUp]

36. Whats new

Another blind shot at Clark supporters, and with no link too. :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

90. On the other hand, I don't recall anyone at all making a fuss

about this picture of Howard Dean as a character from LOTR that has appeared in so many sig lines.



Wonder why that is?:silly:

[tishaLA]

119. Oh that is creepy

I see it everywhere and I swear half the time I think it's a parody or ironic or something. But then....

[Catchawave]

25. Good question Leilani....

...seems to me, the issues are in the DU Groups :shrug:

[Leilani]

41. I wish we could get back to real issues.

When I joined DU there were some really interesting discussions.

Then the primaries came & everyone went to war...we had a truce for the election, & now all hell has broken out again.

[dhinojosa]

39. Good question: I am going to make a poll out of it...

:)

[Leilani]

40. LOL!

Boy will some people get pissed off!

[impeachthescoundrel]

23. I do not have an answer to that one yet

but yesterday on Washington Journal on C-Span, a caller said "Do not ever trust the republicans, and kick them out of office for 100 years".


Best quote of the year in my opinion.

[RetroLounge]

26. I had to go with Clark

With Dean building the party apparatus, I have to go with Clark.

RL

[Adelante]

31. Man, I love your lizard nt

[RetroLounge]

44. Stole it from another DU'er.

Feel free...

RL

[Clarkie1]

42. A bit of advice.

First bit of advice: stop posting polls like this until after the 2006 elections. It is detremental to the party at this point to make supporters of some candidates feel like they are "winning" and others "losing." We all need to work together now or we will all lose together.

Second bit of advice: If you choose not to follow the first bit of advice, at least make use of the full maximum of 10 categories available when you post a poll. Otherwise more people feel left out, and it pisses them off (more negative vibes for party unity).

[usregimechange]

43. Where is Feingold?

[paineinthearse]

49. self-delete

[imenja]

46. these polls always leave out Boxer?

Why even bother doing them if you are going to try to represent the favored candidates?

[Catchawave]

47. Does she have a DU Group?

That's why I called this one a DU Primary :) Also hoping to let people know that the above "candidates" have support groups here, and maybe new ones will start up soon !

Hint, hint :patriot:

[imenja]

52. there was a proposal with over 20 responses

It only takes 10 members. I don't know what the current status of it is. Please don't call it a "support group." It makes it sound like some 12 step program.

[paineinthearse]

50. I support Catchawave's logic

What chance does Boxer have if she cannot inspire a DU support group?



Sponsored the challange to the Ohio electors.
Lead the dissent against Rice.
Lead the dissent against Gonzales.

No DU group :shrug:

[imenja]

51. last I saw there were some twenty odd posts on the group proposal

so I dispute your assumption. Support group makes it sound like some 12 step program. She doesn't need a support group.

I have trouble believing anyone interested in a victory in 08 would actually want Gore or Kerry on the ballot. Then again, one should never underestimate the ability of Democrats to destroy their own political opportunities.

[paineinthearse]

53. DU has very clear rules for starting a group.

I'll restate the assumption.

If Boxer has any chance of winning the nomination, she needs to inspire a base. There apparently is not enough DU interest to form a group, thus what chance does she have if that basic step cannot be accomplished?

[imenja]

54. why do you assume she cannot and has not?

I saw the post where a number of people said they supported the group. The rules stipulate 10. There were more than that. So if a group hasn't been started, it's not because there isn't support.

[paineinthearse]

56. Read the group formation rules

That's a good start, but it takes more than 20 expressing interest in a thread. Has it been submitted with a mission statement to the admins?

[imenja]

57. I have no idea

but last I heard it took 10 donors to start a group, that's it.

[paineinthearse]

58. How to Suggest a DU Group

Copied from the GROUPS page. It's a very simple process.

=============================

How to Suggest a DU Group


One of the best things about DU Groups is that members have the ability to suggest new groups to the Administrators of Democratic Underground. If you wish to suggest a group, please follow this procedure:

1. Start one discussion thread in the forum of your choice to tell people about your idea for a DU Group.

2. In that thread, you must get responses from at least ten DU members who agree to be active participants in the suggested DU Group. All ten members to respond must have donor stars.

3. In that thread, members must agree on a proposed mission statement for the DU Group.

4. When enough members have signed on to join the group and have agreed on a proposed mission statement, one member must officially suggest the DU Group to a DU Administrator (Skinner, EarlG, or Elad), either by contacting them directly, or by posting in the Ask the Administrators Forum. Please be sure to include a link to the thread where members have discussed the proposed Group.

5. The Administrators will consider the request and make a decision. The Administrators will either 1) Accept the Group as it is proposed, 2) Deny the Group outright, or 3) Ask for changes to the Group or its mission statement which would be necessary for its approval.

6. Once the suggested Group has been accepted by the Administrators, the Administrators will create a new DU Group in the "DU Groups" Category forum, and pin the mission statement of that Group to the top of that Group's forum.

If you are considering a DU Group on a controversial topic, the Administrators would appreciate if you contacted us before collecting your ten members, so we may discuss any sensitive issues. This courtesy will increase the chance that your Group is approved. Also, please be aware that proposed Groups that are redundant with existing DU Forums are unlikely to be approved.

If you have any questions, please contact a forum Administrator.

Skinner
EarlG
Elad

Democratic Underground Administrators

[imenja]

102. Thanks for the info

I tried PMing Stop the War to ask about his progress on all of that but it gives me a message that says no such user. I guess I can submit the proposal myself if he's left the site.

[paineinthearse]

114. Just DU it!

If the groundwork is done, it seems all that is required is the request in ATA. Good luck.

p.s. You can add my name to the list of petitioners. I support Boxer/Clark or Clark/Boxer.

[imenja]

157. great!

Will do

[imenja]

55. Here is the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=296&topic_id=3375

I don't have time to count now, but there are 43 posts on there.

[Catchawave]

61. imenja - Boxer sure does have enough Group support...

...was it presented to Skinner in ATA for approval? If so, you may have to *kick* it.

[Capn Sunshine]

67. This just shows you the relationship between DU

and REALITY.

I only use Clark as an example, and I like him as a candidate, but seriously, in the real world about 10% of active dems have any awareness of DU.

I doubt you'd see Clark in a poll of potentials anywhere, yet Boxer is prominent in the scene and has activated the base in ways typing on a keyboard will never relate to.

[Jai4WKC08]

126. No, that's not true...

When Clark is included in a real-world poll, he usually does fairly well. Right behind Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards. An Ipsos poll a couple months ago had him within the statistical margin of error of Edwards, and well ahead of the other "usuals" (Richardson, Bayh, Warner, some others). Since most polling this early is a function of name-recognition, I don't think that's bad at all.

I do agree that DU is not representative of the average Democratic primary voter. I'm not sure that's so bad either. We tend to be more informed. It's good for Clark (and the rest of us) that the more people know, the more support he gets.

I might even go so far as to say that Clark probably has more support on the internet than his share of "other" Democrats (altho more and more are becoming internet active), because his campaign, like Dean's, was largely internet based. But you would be mistaken to think that there's not "boots on the ground" grassroots for Clark.

[lojasmo]

59. You'll notice these polls NEVER leave out Clark. EOM

[ICantBelieve]

64. Why would you leave out the guy who always wins?

(Boy, that ought to piss off all you Clark haters!)

[lojasmo]

68. Wins what?

The votes of the SAME 100 posters who ALWAYS vote for him. I'm sure this plan was cooked up in the super secret Clark forum.

What a bunch of dreck.

[ICantBelieve]

70. Oh, and like the rest of you haven't voted in more than one poll?

Like, you don't vote in every poll on DU? What's your point?

Clark has more supporters here than anyone else. Get used to it. He wins just about every internet poll. If you can find a better candidate, vote for him (or her). Me, I'd prefer to put up the most liberal guy who can win a general election. And that person is General Clark.

But to suggest that the person who always wins the polls be left out is just plain ridiculous. I sure wish GWB had been left off the general election ballot. Then maybe John Kerry would have won.

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Sour grapes

Didn't you know? Votes don't count unless they agree with your own?
:sarcasm:

[lojasmo]

78. Since my guy was LEFT OFF THE POLL, sour grapes don't apply. N/T

[x_y_no]

79. So start a DU group for him n/t

[lojasmo]

81. No.

I have other things to do....like work on the democratic process in my county.

We just got a DFA member elected to our city council.

I'm too busy to spend my time starting a group for one candidate. There are a few good people I'd support, and it's really too early for all this crap.

[Jai4WKC08]

103. "...it's really too early for all this crap"?

Hey, I'm all for cutting the crap, and keeping it cut from now thru November 2008. And that's precisely what I think all these attacks on damn good Democrats like Clark are.

But I gotta ask... Is your guy Dean? I am assuming so since you've worked to get a DFA member on your city coucil. Bravo, btw. Not that aren't many non-Deanies who wouldn't do the same.

Point is, Dean doesn't seem to think it's too early to start working on 2008. To my mind that means talking about it as well.

Dean sent out an e-mail that said:

"Every four years, a few months before the presidential election, the Democratic Party puts staff and resources on the ground in a few battleground states ... and then they're gone. After November the whole operation disappears.

"Then, four years later, we do the same thing all over again.

"That hasn't worked. And I ran for chairman on a promise to do it another way.

"So a few days ago I met with the state party chairs, and we made a decision together. For the first time ever we're going to build for the future by putting staff and resources on the ground early -- starting in 2005, not 2008." (emphasis added)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1719979

[lojasmo]

107. No, Dean won't be running....

And Dean is working primarily on 2006 at this point. He's certainly not busy picking some democratic "hero" for 2008.

FWIW, I think he's talking about keeping resources on the ground for the off-year elections.

For instance, Minnesota goes democratic in EVERY presidential election, more or less....But we lose ground in off year elections. I think Dean is hoping to change that dynamic.

[lojasmo]

77. Is that the same "liberal" who just called bush "a visionary"?

Yeah, okay. :eyes:

[x_y_no]

80. Source? n/t

[lojasmo]

82. Your guy's own website. You should read it.....

Chock full of reactionary millitaristic bullshit.

[x_y_no]

88. I have read his website many times

And I haven't seen where he "just called Bush a visionary."

Nor have I seen militaristic bullshit.

[lojasmo]

89. It was on the front page.

I guess as a conscientious objector, I have a lower tolerance for interventionalist tubthumping.

[x_y_no]

92. Well, I just doublechecked ...

And neither the word "Bush" nor the word "visionary" occurs on the front page.

So I have no clue what you're talking about.

[lojasmo]

93. Well, it was there on the first day the site was up.

I haven't gone back since. Looks like somebody wisely edited.

[x_y_no]

95. Or you imagined it ...

I visited the site the day it opened. Don't recall seeing anything about Bush being a visionary.

[lojasmo]

96. Originally from the WSJ.

By Wesley Clark
Wall Street Journal
February 1, 2005

"In his visionary inaugural address, President Bush talked about the challenges of promoting freedom abroad."

[x_y_no]

98. Now was that so hard?

I couldn't figure out what the hell you were talking about.

Now as to what he wrote in the WSJ, the whole point of that piece is that Bush's vision is flawed. Hardly and endorsement of the Bush worldview.

I think it's silly to deny that "visionary" is what Bush was portraying himself as in that speech, though.

I guess that's why you wouldn't want to provide your source until hounded for it - it doesn't support your thesis.

[lojasmo]

100. I didn't provide it because I couldn't find it.

And it is silly to deny that bush was portraying himself as visionary. I think that it is equally silly to characterize his SOTU speech as a "visionary speech"-exactly what wes called it.

[Clark2008]

159. Don't understand sarcasm much, do you?

Of COURSE Bush's speech was "visionary," - it's just that it was "visionary" in the negative column.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. Wrong again

It's still there, in case anyone wants to read the whole article. Sure as hell nothing that that Wes Clark is ashamed of.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=articles/wallstreetjournal/2005-02-01

[lojasmo]

106. Fine

SO wes is proud of calling bush's bullshit address "visionary"

Good for him.

[Jai4WKC08]

111. Ummm... is English a second language for you?

From Merriam-Webster On-Line:

Main Entry: vi·sion·ary
Pronunciation: 'vi-zh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
1 a : of the nature of a vision : ILLUSORY b : incapable of being realized or achieved : UTOPIAN <a visionary scheme> c : existing only in imagination : UNREAL

Fortunately, Wes Clark is a master of the language and always selects his words with precision. Perhaps he overestimates the reading comprehension level of those who read his words.

[lojasmo]

113. Hmmm. Thanks for the personal attack.

Actually, my vocabulary is quite good. I stand corrected, however. Clark's subtle nuance overwhelmed me.

[Jai4WKC08]

118. OK, I apologize

I was pissed off. Personal attacks on Clark do that to me. But I shouldn't respond in kind. I'll try to do better.

I'll even overlook the sarcasm in your reference to "nuance."

[lojasmo]

129. Well, I wasn't attacking you....

So chill! :hi:

Well, anyway. I don't dislike Wes, I just think he's better suited for another position than president (at this time) I would certainly vote for him in the general election, without many qualms-unlike Kerry, edwards, Clinton, et. al.

[dogman]

123. Coscientious Objector has nothing to do with it.

I had a CO walk on patrols with me in Nam. Being a CO didn't stop him from serving his country and helping his fellow man. Don't hide behind that as a reason to hate the military. That is something you do for your own reasons.

[lojasmo]

130. SInce you're not a CO, you wouldn't know.

And since you're not me, you wouldn't know. So stick to what you know, Okay?

[dogman]

132. As I said, I know a CO can still be a human being and not hate those

he disagrees with.

[lojasmo]

134. Never said I hate those with whom I disagree. EOM

[dogman]

135. Sorry, I just didn't feel the love.

[lojasmo]

136. Well, I didn't say I LOVE those with whom I disagree.

And I will actively OPPOSE those who seek to use our millitary might as a pre-emptive strategy, as would all conscientious objectors.

[dogman]

137. So you oppose the guys in your sig-line?

Even DK wouldn't let the country be attacked if he coud stop it. I don't think you'll find a candidate who would.

[lojasmo]

138. I opposed Clinton's Balkan intervention.....

Though in retrospect, it had many good effects.

I was irritated by Dean's statements on utilizing millitary might for "homeland security" (which i think is a bullshit RW frame)

Neither of them, however, is continuing to thump the drum of war.

[dogman]

140. Neither is Clark then.

[lojasmo]

141. Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

There's lots of what he's saying on his blog and site that I don't like. I'm not saying you can't support Clark, and I won't accept anybody telling me I have to support him.

[dogman]

144. Fine, but don't misrepresent him either.

He has spoken out against this war and has consistently called for war as a last resort. You could easily bypass threads that mention him or be prepared to back up statements that you make concerning him. Or you are free to come into the thread and say "I don't like Clark", but that seems rather pointless.

[lojasmo]

148. Not misrepresenting him.

Giving my opinion about the content of his site.

[lojasmo]

142. And what a bullshit rejoinder, by the way. N/T

[dogman]

152. How is that?

[lojasmo]

153. "Well then neither is clark"

Makes you sound like a third-grader.

No substantive content, and no logical progression.

[dogman]

154. It was a direct response.

Your post-Neither of them, however, is continuing to thump the drum of war.

[lojasmo]

156. Well, like I said....

We disagree. I'm a little leary of Clark's repeated "strong america" theme.

I'm also somewhat skeptical because of his lack of domestic policy experience.

I'd like to see him do some work in an elected office BESIDES the POTUS, so we can see how he'll govern/legislate.

As I've said before....if it came down to it, I'd vote for him in the generals, if he made it through the primaires, but I'd do so with bated breath.

[Jai4WKC08]

94. Ya know, some of us took bets on how long it would take

For the Clark-haters to try to spin that one. You lose--it was done the next day, altho it took maybe a week to reach DU.

So sorry you just don't "get" how to induce indies and Repubs to listen to our message. Clark was writing for The Wall Street Journal. Give him some credit for knowing his audience.

Besides, Clark didn't say Bush was visionary. He said Bush gave a visionary speech, if I recall. Minor difference and not really the point. It's technically accurate either way. Bush has a vision, and he (or rather his speech writers) laced it all thru that address. Clark would be the first to say Bush's vision is dead wrong. In fact, he's been saying that since at least early 2002.

In any case, this particular WSJ column was critcizing Bush for not having enough vision to resolve the problems in the Balkans, or even to try. And I don't know how you define "reactionary militaristic bullshit" but there was nothing there that meets my definition.

Clark writes: "With each passing day, tensions in Kosovo grow, threatening to destroy hard-won freedoms with renewed conflict. In 2005, the U.S. and the international community must address the resolution of Kosovo's final status before it is too late to prevent tragedy." Does that seem reactionary or militaristic?

Here's what Clark proposes--which of these do you consider reactionary or militaristic?

1) The six-nation Contact Group (the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia) and the U.N. Security Council... should set the ground rules for negotiations and a timeline for a settlement.

2) The U.N. secretary general should also appoint a special envoy to begin consultations on a draft settlement text, the "Kosovo Accord," to include a new Kosovo constitution guaranteeing minority rights and continuing international monitoring, assistance and security presences in a new Kosovo state.

3) An international conference should be organized in late 2005 to finalize and endorse the Kosovo Accord.

4) Should resolution of Kosovo's status be blocked in the Security Council, the U.S. should lead a coalition of its European allies to organize the conference; endorse a Kosovo referendum for adoption of the new constitution to go ahead in early 2006; and then give diplomatic recognition and sustained support to Kosovo as a new state.

Nope, no military involved. Nothing "reactionary" in the least.

[x_y_no]

97. Ah ... thanks Jai ...

I was truly baffled as to what was being spun into "Bush is a visionary."

[Tom Rinaldo]

160. Clark wants Democrats to show our Vision

Bush did give a "visionary speech". That is an accurate linguistic statement. It does not endorse the accuracy or tactical wisdom of Bush's vision, but it acknowledges that there is one. And it is more than a technicality that Clark was referring to. Bush is trying to stake out caring about human rights and support for Democracies as his own reactionary turf. Much like the term "compassionate conservatism" is meant to co-opt traditional Democratic concerns for those who are not "well off" in this world.

Bush is taking Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Jimmy Carter's play book and issuing a pirated PNAC version. Liberals and Conservatives opposed Soviet Tyranny in Eastern Europe. The U.S. however did not invade there in order to bring Democracy to those People.

[lojasmo]

83. I don't vote on every poll in DU.

Most of them are started by clark folks intent on pushing their agenda.

I CERTAINLY don't participate in a secret forum in order to push one specific candidate for 2008. :eyes:

[kevsand]

108. There's a secret forum?

How come nobody told me... ...oh. I see. It's secret...

[x_y_no]

110. Nobody told me either ...

Now I'm upset! :cry:

[Jai4WKC08]

127. Please see the sub-threat that starts at #115 below

"Most of {every poll in DU) are started by clark folks"???

I don't think so. Not even if you qualify it as "most polls that include Clark" or "most polls about the '08 nomination." We're just not the ones doing it. But yeah, we do vote in 'em. And we do defend Clark in the inevitable flamewars that spring from them.

I also don't think you should be able to make a charge against a whole segment of the DU membership without backing it up by data.

[Crunchy Frog]

161. Please provide some links that back up your claim

that most of these polls are started by Clark supporters. From what I've seen, virtually none of these polls are started by Clark supporters. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please use it to back up your claim.

I just hate it when people make unsuported assertions.

[realFedUp]

62. Hillary

I guess none of the above at this point.

[Catchawave]

63. Does Hillary have a DU Group?

I know I must be getting annoying....but the whole point of this poll was to draw attention to the support base for 'potential' Dem candidates on DU.

[realFedUp]

73. gee, maybe we should start one...

Do these "support" groups have their own
forums already? sorry, I haven't checked.
Put one up for Hillary if that's the case.

[Catchawave]

87. See Post #58 here....all the 'How to' info is there :)

I look forward to seeing a Group for Hillary supporters too !

[Blue Belle]

66. Okay... I'm going out on a limb here...

but what about Mario Cuomo?? I know he's 73 right now.. and could be pushing the age envelope... but he's proved himself to be a wonderful leader and statesman.

(And now let the ridicule commence...)

[Sparkly]

69. No ridicule -- I LOVE Mario

Many wondered years ago why he didn't run. I can only guess he's got some skeletons in his closet and doesn't want the campaign, and/or he doesn't want the job.

I wish we'd see & hear more from him, though. He's brilliant, imho.

[Jai4WKC08]

71. Me neither -- wanted Mario to run in '92

But I think it's a little unrealistic to think he would consider it. From what I've heard, he turned down the offer of a Supreme Court nomination, but that might be just rumor.

My favorite recent Cuomo quote, from a Hardball interview last fall:

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

Good men are quicker to recognize goodness in others.
:)

[Blue Belle]

74. I saw Mario Cuomo on "Real Time with Bill Maher"...

He was wonderful... he spoke eloquently and had a "Clintonesque" presence.

[Adelante]

131. I love Mario Cuomo

I worked on several of his campaigns and met him many times. He is exactly as he seems. Just as smart, just as tender, just as articulate as he appears in public. He's the best orator we have and it's a shame we don't hear as much from him as in the past.

From his 1996 Convention Speech:

Listen to me, listen to me, please. Listen to me, please. Forget a lot of this political argumentation. Forget about new Democrats, old Democrats, conservative Democrats, liberal Democrats, neo-liberal Democrats. The truth is ageless. Either we make it together, all of us of every faith and color, straight or gay, with or without disabilities, whatever our accent, whatever our task... ... wherever we are in this great land, whether we are rich, struggling, desperate, either we make, all of us together, or there is no America worth the gifts that God has given this blessed place.

It still gives me chills.

[Pilgrim4Progress]

76. Mario Cuomo is absolutely wonderful!

I heard him in a recent interview saying that his main mission was to articulate and support Democratic ideas and candidates. Said he's writing and traveling around the country giving speeches. He denied any interest in pursuing elective office again. But I hope he continues to be an articulate voice for reason and common sense.

[Steely_Dan]

91. Cuomo - The Voice of Democrats

I have always been impressed with Mario from the very beginning. He is one of the most articulate and intelligent men I have supported.

There is little doubt in my mind that I would do whatever it took to help him achieve the presidency.

-Paige

[Mark E. Smith]

84. Clark

There isn't anyone else who even comes close. By far our best potential candidate.

[nickshepDEM]

151. In that case, we're in deep shit... n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

162. So what's caused you to become so negative about Clark?

As I recall, you were very positive about him when you first came on this board.

[nickshepDEM]

164. I was just pulling his leg. I still like Clark, a lot.

He just isnt my first preference for the 2008 primary.

[ken-in-seattle]

101. Andy Roony whiny voice comment...

Didja ever notice how the whiners in this thread are not only willing to believe the most incredible propaganda, but are also incapable of reading the first post and understanding the teeny tiny words used there, that indicate the poll only includes people with DU GROUPS!

I thought it was only elected official and CEO's of major networks who had reading comprehension disabilities.

Create your own group if you like. Inspire your like minded friends.
Carpe Diem!



Let's do a little less crowing about the approach of dawn and a lot more work to make sure we'll like what the sunrise brings.
--Wesley K. Clark

[jpgray]

104. I'll vote/caucus for Kucinich as long as he wants to run

Unless something extraordinary is going on, like Lieberman and Feingold being neck and neck and MN would make the difference.

[im10ashus]

105. Maybe we can do this monthly?

Aren't there more pressing issues? Come on. AND this is a "hot" topic on DU? 2008 is not even on the freaking RADAR people. We can't even get a hold on who is running in 2006 for crying out loud. Let's deal with some REAL issues here.

[Eloriel]

109. Howard Dean -- and he already has a group, sorta: DFA n/t

[WLKjr]

145. I would like to see a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket

That would be a wet dream though.......


:( it probably wouldn't even come close to happening.

[goodhue]

112. Kucinich!

[Adelante]

115. Clark supporters who have NOT ever started an '08 DU Poll

Please raise your hand :hi:

[Coexist]

116. :::::::: waving::::::::::: I don't even vote in all the Clark polls

because of the knee jerk reaction that some people here have whenever the good general's name is mentioned!

[x_y_no]

117. I'm one!

Never started a poll in my life. O8)

[Jai4WKC08]

120. Ooh ooh! Me! Me!

Nary a one. :hi:

Do we know of a single '08 poll that was started by a Clarkie?

[Adelante]

121. Rinaldo started two, I think

But they don't count, because he was making some kind of point at the time, and was fully transparent about it. So I'll let him off.

[Tom Rinaldo]

133. You just wanted me to mention it, eh? Not a conventional poll:

Poll question: For People who voted for Clark in a DU 2008 Presidential Poll http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1522696

People kept starting polls and Clark kept winning, same as now, and people KEPT COMPLAINING. So I asked Clark supporters to tell other DU'ers something about themselves so people might see that it wasn't three fanatics cloning themselves that led to Clark winning. That was a tense time around here, I would rather NOT go back to it.

Fine with me if we suspend these polls here for two years. Or it's fine with me if we have 20 a day, as long as people STOP COMPLAINING about them. If they can't I hope all these polls just go away. I never started a real one.

P.S. the other poll was not directly about Clark , it was about how people felt about linking to DU polls from other sites.

[Leilani]

124. I'm innocent!!!

Never started a poll for Wes or ANYTHING.

[dogman]

125. No polls here.

:hi:

[kevsand]

128. We can start polls ourselves?

Kidding. I knew that. Never started one, though. Ever. For anything. Vote all the time. LMAO, too, when I'm not gnashing my teeth... :hi:

[MoonRiver]

139. Don't think I have! There are always so many available, why bother?

:hi:

[Sparkly]

143. ::raising hand:: n/t

[BootinUp]

147. hallo?

I think this is my que. :hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

163. Never have and never would.

:hi:

[spunky]

122. If those were my options, I think I'd stay home. n/t

[dogman]

155. Must be a lot of people that feel that way.

Probably why Bush is in power.

[TroubleMan]

146. Kucinich all the way

nt

[gristy]

149. Everyone's voting for Clark, huh?

Sure hope he figures out how to put a web site together for his next run. Visting his site last year, it was pretty disorganized. Or maybe just overwhelming, to me anyways. He couldn't possibly have implemented everything he touched on in various white papers. It really was a morass, and I found myself feeling like I was wading through it. He needed an editor, if nothing else...

[goodhue]

158. 45% is not everyone

eom

[LWolf]

150. Kucinich. No question, no contest. n/t