MSNBC Veepstakes Update: Clark by 20% over Edwards...

[cosmokramer]

Clark wins for the fourth straight week, beating Edwards in a landslide, receiving 20% more of the vote than Edwards. Edwards switches place with McCain, but only by 200 veepstakes votes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4565073#survey

[ibegurpard]

1. completely unsurprising

Clark supporters have been quite effective at stuffing internet ballot boxes.

[cosmokramer]

2. Nay, Nay...

To those who complain that Clarkies must have freeped the MSNBC poll, if that were the case, we wouldn't have been in 2nd place for 8 weeks (which MSNBC reports incorrectly at 9 weeks), we would always have been in 1st place.

Over the last month of prison abuse scandals, administration lies, and foreign policy nightmares, no wonder the non-Clarkies are now voting for Clark in this poll.

No matter how many Clark supporters still online voted, we couldn't creep past 2nd place for 8 straight weeks. Suddenly, we ALL come back and bombard this poll to beat Edwards by 20%?

I don't think so. This is OTHER democrats voting in this poll as well.

[Adelante]

3. I think you must have meant to say...

something less insulting. I am a Clark supporter who votes once in internet polls. I can't imagine I am alone in it.

[sparrowhawk]

31. You're not.

I only voted once, too.O8)

[LTR]

135. I didn't even vote.

I could give a shit about MSNBC polls.

But I may go over and give my regards.

[cosmokramer]

129. Some tend to be extraordinarily rude...

...guess we have to be like ducks...

[atre]

138. If there is any word that would aptly describe many Clark supporters here

it would have to be "rabid." Of course, there are some good, reasonable ones... And you may be among the latter, but it would be foolish to deny the existence and numerosity of the former.

Unfortunately, even the reasonable ones are unreasonable in their belief about the popular support for Clark. Yes, he polls well on the internet. But he doesn't poll nearly as well in any poll that IS conducted in accordance with the scientific method.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Jumping to a conclusion

I hang around in Clarkie circles. I go to Clark places most people don't know about. And I see no signs of Internet stuffing going on. Yes, I have seen the MSNBC site posted. Yes Clark supporters are happy when Clark does well. No I have not seen anyone urging anything more than that people cast their vote for Clark. It's a big country and everyone is King of their own computer, so I would never point blank claim that no one has ever "cheated" for Clark, just like I hope that supporters of other candidates would not not make such blanket claims about all supporters of their candidates. Even If a cheating suggestion were ever made somewhere, that does not prove many people took part of it. Had that been true of Clark, I would have run into evidence of that.

Look, activists are not a whole lot different in profile from each other just because one backs one candidate and another backs another. It's not like Cheats are attracted to candidate X and Saints are attracted to candidate Y (at least not among Democrats lol). I find the implication that Clark supporters are disproportionally inclined toward "stuffing ballots" personally insulting. As a Dean supporter surely you went through enough of having been tarred and feathered because of the strength of your convictions for Dean. That wasn't right, nor is it right to smear Clark's backers as ballot stuffers.

[cosmokramer]

6. You put my thoughts...

...in better words than I could!

:toast:

[Null Pointer]

24. You hang around in Clarkie Circles?

Wow. Half the people I know wouldn't even be able to pick him out of a crowd. You're lucky.

I'd be happy with a Lieberman Circle to chill with.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Let me know when you find one

I'll make a point of being somewhere else lol. Did get to physically "hang" with other Clarkies at the launching of Clark's Wespac event in NYC, mostly it's just cyberspace though. I'm getting to physically hang with Kerryites nowadays, and I won't complain.

[Null Pointer]

27. Sounds cool

I'm going to a Kerry Meetup in a few weeks...

[cosmokramer]

136. How was the NYC event?

[Scoopie]

124. Must be the difference in the North and the South

I don't know of ANY circles besides Clarkie and Kerryites (which have now blended).
No one else even HAD a circle around here. :)

[cosmokramer]

126. Nor here.

[cosmokramer]

134. Or there...

[Doosh]

8. when it came to real ballot boxes

Edwards wiped his feet with Clark during the primaries.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Doosh]

12. talk about overstaying

How about Clark wanting to drop out after Oklahoma, despite winning(and blowing a 20pt lead)? Edwards stayed in as long as he had a chance since he finally got it down to a 2 man race, Clark was done after Ok. and only stayed in because Gert wanted him to.

[cosmokramer]

19. Totally unsubstantiated RUMOR, doosh.

Complete rumor not at all based in fact.

Sounds like there is much to learn...

[AP]

23. Except for AZ, when Clark beat Edwards it was by a tiny margin.

And IIRC Edwards got more votes in just VA or TN alone than Clark had beaten him by in ALL the states combined where Clark beat Edwards.

I think on VA and TN day, Edwards got 200K more votes than Clark. In OK, AZ, NH, and the couple other states where Clark had beaten him, he had only beaten him by about 50K.

In the archives somewhere I added the numbers. I'm not going to do it again.

[Scoopie]

125. It wasn't in TN

They were only separated by a few thousand votes here.
And TN had a low turnout.

[cosmokramer]

137. He is also forgetting New Mexico, and North Dakota....

...where Edwards did not fare well against Clark and it wasn't even close. But memories can be short...or rather, short sighted...

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kahuna]

25. He did? He won one state. What are you talking about?

:shrug:

[AP]

28. Edwards got almost ten times the delegates (567 to 68) and 6 times

the votes (3.2 mil to 571k).

He won two states, and, prior to Clark dropping out, Edwards had 100s of thousands more votes than Clark (IIRC).

[cosmokramer]

40. Uh, no he didn't win two states before dropping out...

He won ONE state--his birth state of South Carolina. And the silliness of even counting NC is ridiculous...he was out, and it was his home state, and Kerry was already the nominee. And if you want to count delegates, count them at the point Clark dropped out--not the end of the primary. By far, Edwards did not 'wipe the floor' with Clark.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Meet our friend Mr. Reality: he won two states

He won SC and he won NC, the latter even after he'd withdrawn.

He beat Kerry in three states, lost to your hero by less than four tenths of a percent in OK and missed third in NH by essentially the same margin. Georgia wasn't a total blowout for Kerry either, and remember this: Edwards won SC by fifteen and a half points.

(He also lost 2nd to Lieberman in Delaware by 26 votes.)

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

49. So what was the delegate count when Clark dropped out?

[cosmokramer]

53. They were separated by 20 delegates...

...all of which were super delegates.

[AP]

54. Why'd Clark drop out then?

[MontecitoDem]

56. because he was running against Kerry not Edwards!

[AP]

62. But edwards remained with the same (alleged) number of delegates.

But we see that Edwards actually and almost twice the delegates, which is why Clark dropped out.

[MontecitoDem]

65. Why does it matter?

WHo cares when he dropped out and when Edwards dropped out. I just don't see any logic to your posting.

Kucinich is still in - does that mean he BEAT Edwards?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MontecitoDem]

71. So you're just here to provide a public service

very noble indeed.

[AP]

74. What are you here for?

[MontecitoDem]

75. hmmm. thread about Clark as number 1 pick for VP on MSNBC

kind of obvious, huh?

[AP]

77. Is this a discussion forum?

I thought it was.

[MontecitoDem]

78. Yes, have you got anything to discuss?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MontecitoDem]

81. wow, that's charming

[cosmokramer]

58. Because it would have been stupid to stay in and spend the

donations from your supporters when you have NO CHANCE to win against the leader, which was KERRY, not Edwards.

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. My opinion, take it or leave it

Though I know others have this opinion also. Clark, being a General who has had to plan actual military campaigns with live ammo killing real people, takes strategic analysis very very seriously. And he is damn good at it, meaning he looks hard at the full range of facts in an unemotional essentially objective way, no wishful thinking. For awhile Clark was head of Strategic Planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he is good at forseeing consequences of different courses of action. Clark decided, when all was said and done, that he could not defeat John Kerry for the nomination, and that no one else could either. Once he achieved that clarity, given his own objectives, the choice was clear for him. Withdraw and endorse Kerry, the inevitable winner.

Events turned out the way Clark foresaw. Of course we can never be certain that they might not have turned out differently had Clark stayed in the race, but I for one am convinced Clark was right. It was painful for his supporters at the time, because we all still had gas in our tanks, the campaign was still raising money, and Clark had some good organization in place for some of the upcoming states. Rightly or wrongly, we thought we had better prospects in some of them than Edwards had. It isn't worth arguing about whether we were right about that or not. Even if that were true, Kerry would still have come out on top. We were seeing the race emotionally, Clark wasn't.

AP one of the reasons why I try to stick to saying positive things about my guy without saying negative things about anyone else's is that I don't know who Kerry will pick, but I am confident he will have his own good reasons for choosing whoever he does. I am also confident I will enthusiastically fall into place supporting our ticket after Kerry makes his choice. That will certainly be the case if Kerry picks John Edwards.

[LuLu550]

95. well put, Tom

I have to agree with you on just about everything...especially the part about Clark being a great strategic thinker....

[Jai4WKC08]

106. Taking your opinion, but adding my own refinements

I wholeheartedly agree about Clark's strategic thinking, but would point out that evaluating courses of action is mostly a process of estimating risk vs. resources. When possible, the strategist leaves the door open to multiple courses, time and resources permitting, in order to minimize risk. Hence the decision to forego Iowa. It was the wrong call, but the only one possible given the resources available at the time.

After Iowa, Clark says he saw the writing on the wall and I believe him. But again, there was some risk (not negative in this sense) that he might be wrong, and he had the resources to continue. There was still a chance, a reasonably good chance, of some reversal in NH and the later primaries, and until there was NO reasonable chance, he owed it, to us and to himself, to stick it out. Even after the Feb 3rd primaries, there was still a reasonable chance, albeit much slimmer, and there was still money, and a lot already invested in TN and VA that couldn't just be pissed away. When Kerry started winning Southern states too, the reasonable chance was gone and Clark folded his tent.

But I don't think Clark was 100% sure at that point that Kerry would win. Election dynamics can be funny things, and while we can see now that Clark was not splitting the vote with Edwards any more than he was splitting it with Kerry, I'm not sure he could be sure of it on Feb 10th.

So my only nit-pick with your post, Tom, (and nit-pick is all it is) is where you say, "...he could not defeat John Kerry for the nomination, and that no one else could either ...the choice was clear for him. Withdraw and endorse Kerry, the inevitable winner." As I said, I'm not sure that Clark was SURE that Kerry would beat Edwards once he dropped out, and I take particular exception to the implication, one I sort of doubt you intended, that Clark endorsed Kerry because he was "the inevitable winner."

I think the reason Clark signed on so quickly with Kerry is because he wanted to help make damn sure Kerry won the nomination. That's why he did all he could to encourage us to support Kerry too, and went to the trouble to coordinate the transfer of his super-delegates. It's why he took such a short break and campaigned in GA, where I'm told the Kerry people believe he made a real difference. I do think he felt certain that Kerry had it after that, and he wasn't as much involved in the Kerry campaign until asked to sub when Kerry went on vacation.

If I may digress, Clark got into the race because he knew how incompetent the Bush White House was on foreign policy and defense. At the gut level, it hurt him deeply to see what was happening to the soldiers in Iraq, and he knew all along it would only get worse (as it did). And it frankly scared him to consider what other adventurism the Bushies had planned, what they were doing to our international relations, and what they were not doing to stop terrorism, were even doing to increase it.

Quite frankly, Clark didn't think Dean was much better qualified that Bush had been ("I will not be Dean's Cheney" owtte), and back when he entered the race, Dean looked likely to win the nomination. That's not to say he didn't think Bush was screwing up the economy and environment too, but I don't think he was concerned that any of the Democratic candidates couldn't do a better job. I do think he was as concerned that Dean could not beat Bush, because he always believed the general election would come down to the war in Iraq and the war on terror. He was right about that too, altho some people still don't get it.

That's why I think Clark felt as strongly about Kerry beating Edwards as he did about someone taking out Dean. It's NOT to say he was running as a spoiler in either case--far from it. Clark has never suffered from a lack of self-confidence, with good cause, and he knew he was the best capable of any of the other original nine candidates (eight when he entered the race). So once he was in, he was in to win. But I sort of doubt he would have ever entered the race if Kerry had looked strong back in the summer of '03. Perhaps not if Graham had still been running and doing well, or even Gephardt.

That's also not to say he wouldn't have supported Dean or Edwards against Bush if either had won the nomination. Just that from the beginning he was most concerned with having a nominee he thought had the best chance of beating Bush (he thought it was himself), and one he thought was best qualified to serve (he probably still does ;)).

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. A very friendly amendment

No I was not simply implying that Clark immediately backed Kerry upon withdrawal because Kerry was the inevitable winner. I believe Clark strongly believes that Kerry is the best of the possible Democratic nominees other than himself.

Interesting point whether Clark thought Kerry was inevitable at the point when Clark withdrew. I have no inside knowledge about that, other than reading the comments Clark made about the handwriting on the wall after Iowa. Your comments regarding "process of estimating risk vs. resources" are right on the money. I think Clark still had a small but real chance of winning had he been able to pull off a win in TN, and just maybe even had he come in second rather than a reasonably strong third there.

Clark had been swimming upstream against lack of free media coverage since shortly prior to Iowa. Edwards was the media favorite, after his strong Iowa showing, to become Kerry's primary primary challenger, and the media moved quickly at that point toward covering the primaries as a two man Kerry/Edwards horse race with a side human interest story regarding "the collapse of Dean". Only by refuting those perceptions through facts on the ground could Clark upset that entrenched media coverage dynamic, but without free media coverage, Clark had little chance to do that after the campaign left the retail politics states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Winning Oklahoma gave Clark a tiny window of opportunity but did little to change overall coverage of the race. Clark had to repeat in TN in order to force more serious media coverage of his campaign, or at the very least he had to defeat Edwards there. Failing to do either closed his last window.

The reason why I suggested that Clark thought Kerry was inevitable at that point has to do with the fact that Kerry kept gaining momentum AND that Kerry was a candidate credible in areas of National Security. That gave Kerry victories in Iowa and New Hampshire to begin with. Once Clark withdrew, Kerry had no other competitor with obvious strength in that area, and I think Clark perceived that the Democratic electorate was seeing the race much as he did, our candidate needed that credibility in order to successfully take on Bush this year. That meant Kerry.

Having said that, a good tactician does not relax when victory seems assured prior to it actually being secured. Strange things happen in "the fog of war" so to speak, unexpected turns of events can be expected. By backing Kerry strongly when Clark did, he helped move forward the process by which the party united behind Kerry, a good thing assuming he was going to become our standard bearer. And indeed Clark further helped ensure that Kerry became our standard bearer. I think what was more in doubt at the point that Clark withdrew was not whether Kerry would win the nomination, but how convincingly he would win it. Edwards did just fine by remaining in the race though he was unable to beat Kerry in any of the contested contests. Edwards gained invaluable exposure and recognition. But Kerry gained the aura of a winner by convincingly reeling off a string of victories, including the deep South State of Georgia, with Clark's help as you point out.

One minor point that I "differ" with you on as expressed (though I bet we actually agree) is in regards to Howard Dean. Yes Clark believed that Dean suffered from the same lack of International experience as George W. Bush did, and Clark believes that is a serious liability in the current world, absolutely. I have no doubt though, based on things I heard Clark say, that he thought Dean had far better instincts and a superior basic foreign policy orientation than the chicken-hawks in the Bush Administration. Clark's basic point was that if the President himself does not have a strong core set of experiences to draw on, he is in a poor position to cut through policy differences expressed by dueling "experts" at the Cabinet level. That role fell to Chaney in the Bush Administration, and Clark thought it inadvisable to repeat that problem.

[Jai4WKC08]

114. Oh, Dean over Bush to be sure

Not just instincts, but education and willingness to consider new information to make informed decisions. And he reads books. lol

I spoke too strongly, trying to make the point that Clark considered both Dean and Edwards insufficiently prepared for the role of commander-in-chief.

And, if I didn't make it clear, I also agree that Clark thought Kerry would win, just not that he was sure (100% sure) of it and intended to do what he could to clinch it. Perhaps I took your use of the word "inevitable" too literally.

Good point, tho, about the advantages of Kerry winning decisively, as opposed to stretching it out and wasting Kerry's resources (which was a major concern at that point). Not to mention the psychological factor of there being no doubt that Kerry IS the man as far as the entire party is concerned. Clark could have hoped for a brokered convention, as some (very few) of his supporters did, but he knew that would be very bad for the ultimate goal of sacking Bush.

Also a good point about the media coverage. I think Clark knew he'd be running at a disadvantage on that score--that's mostly what momentum is all about. But I don't think he anticipated it would get as bad as it did. He likely estimated his post-Iowa odds differently based on the assumption of an equitable amount of free media.

[cosmokramer]

127. I never figured out...

...just 'why' networks wouldn't even say his name...

[Tom Rinaldo]

128. Interplay of corporate agendas and "lazy journalism"

Even without remarking on Clark's surprisingly populist agenda, corporate interests had less "hooks into" Clark than they do with most other Democrats. Clark never had to depend on raising money from special interests to get anywhere in his life. They had no track record to determine how pliable Clark might be in different situations, since he hasn't held any public office. That doesn't mean that they were sure Clark would be more dangerous to their interests than some other perfectly respectable liberal Democrat might be, for example. It does mean that Clark was a relatively free agent, and an unknown, and business in general hates unknown quantities. They can plan for any specific disaster, but they are control freaks at heart. Clark's relative independence scares them in my opinion.

As for "lazy journalism", it is one part of the "dumbing of America" that I really really hate. Look at what has happened to news coverage over the last decade. More and more it is an extension of media entertainment divisions. Everything is increasingly by formula, with tried and true plot lines that are played on endlessly, the way "hit songs" are recycled forever. Coverage of politics has increasingly devolved into Sports coverage. It's like the way the Olympics are covered. Before a single muscle has been flexed, the media already knows who they will focus on. They pump up the competition between a battle scarred veteran holding onto glory vs. the up and coming young Turk, for example (that's one of their favorite plot lines). They pre can Bio spots on both, and then they go on endlessly about their competition as if they were the only two athletes in the world competing in that one event.

The media tried out two simple story lines for the Primaries, in progression, which actually is twice as many as usual so maybe I shouldn't complain (NOT). Dean Dean Dean was the first, and guess what the second one was? Yup, "the competition between a battle scarred veteran holding onto glory vs. the up and coming young Turk", in other words, Kerry vs. Edwards. What, was anyone else running?

[TLDHOME99]

130. your theory makes sense

Clark only got media coverage right after he declared. If you wanted to keep up with him after that you had to stick pretty faithfully to his own website.

I couldn't tell if it was deliberate (most of my fellow Clark supporters thought it was) or not.

Hope he gets VP, but it doesn't matter to me that much if he doesn't -- he will just find some other way to contribute to the Democratic cause. He is a rare treasure. I think we'll be seeing lots of him no matter what the outcome of the Veepstakes is.

[cosmokramer]

132. It was definitely a purposeful 'ignore'...

...my husband, who watched faithfully Clark's coverage of the march in to Bagdad, often commented, after he declared, "Why won't they even say his name???".

[TLDHOME99]

150. That is certainly what Clark campaign volunteers thought

And I thought so too. But this other theory certainly deserves some credit.

[cosmokramer]

152. I think there are many things that can be factored...

...I don't believe it was any one reason or theory. I suppose it really doesn't matter since we already know how the chapter ended. It is just very disheartening to watch the news and not even get an acknowledgement that you exist.

[TLDHOME99]

153. no point in splitting hairs now . .

Is there? You've got a point, no matter what the reason was, there was a definite news blackout on Clark . . .

We all noticed it.

[cosmokramer]

154. By the way...

...LOVE your signature quote!

[TLDHOME99]

157. Don't you just love

Just about every word that comes out of the General's mouth?

My boy's wicked smart!

}(

[cosmokramer]

158. Not only is he wicked smart...

...that is one beautiful mouth! :loveya:

[TLDHOME99]

159. uh-oh . . .

Cosmo has a crush!!! Me too! But I like his brain much better than his body. I like what comes out of those lips even better than I like the lips.

Gert is a lucky lady!!!
:loveya:

[cosmokramer]

160. The brains are always the most attractive part of any man...

...but he sure is easy on the eyes!

Not only is Gert lucky to have him, HE is so lucky to have her...she is simply wonderful.

[TLDHOME99]

161. listen to us, preaching to the choir --

but we can't help it, can we? He really is the greatest.

:hug:

[cosmokramer]

162. INDEED!

:TOAST:

[TLDHOME99]

163. right back atcha

:toast:

[Jai4WKC08]

131. It was more than his being an unknown

Altho I'm sure Clark's independence from the "political favors" game was a factor.

But one of Clark's greatest concerns, expressed before he entered the race and central to his campaign, is that the decline in the quality of debate and discussion threatens our very democracy. He felt (feels) the media is partly to blame, and took them to task for it on several occassions. I think they saw him as a serious threat to corporate profits.

The following ran in Advertising Age back on Jan 5th (before the black-out), with the headline,

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
(all caps, underlines, big font):

"...Mr. Clark told the audience in Portsmouth's South Church that 'I don’t think it is in the American public interest to further consolidate the media.' Answering this reporter's question, the candidate said media consolidation 'is damaging to putting out diverse opinions and fostering public dialogue... We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place.'

'Course, the "Mr Clark" is a dead giveaway as to the bias of the author.

[cosmokramer]

133. I noticed that...

It was "Mr." all the time...rarely was he called "General" when the press was deciding to run a negative story...

[MontecitoDem]

69. Geez, after we lost AZ to Kerry

all of Clark's supporters knew what was coming next.

[AP]

59. Oops. I checked. You're wrong. After TN/VA, Edwards 126, Clark 68.

Edwards had doubled up Clark by the time Clark dropped out, and that doesn't count super delegates.

Here are the numbers for states in which either of them got delegates.


- va tn mi sc ok nd nm mo az IA total
ed. 28 20 4 28 13 0 0 23 0 10 126
clark 0 18 0 0 15 5 8 0 22 0 68

So where you getting your facts today? First you want to pretend that NC doesn't exist, and then you disappeared almost 50 Edwards delegates.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

76. The numbers speak for themselves.

[MontecitoDem]

79. Great, then no one has to say anything else about them!

cheers!:beer:

[atre]

144. This is quite humorous

Look at that earlier post. Note how cosmo throws in the fact that the count included super-delegates as if that would have helped Edwards' total against Clark's. (Note the context: that is clearly his intention). Now, when he is confronted with hard numbers, he claims that the superdelegates helped Clark against Edwards, justifying the discrepency in his allegation and the subsequent refuttal.

I hope you can forgive me, cosmo, if I have a hard time believing you on this one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. OK, but the difference in the relative delegate totals was not a problem

The difference in the number of delegates Kerry had won relative to Edwards was a far larger gap for Edwards to have to close, but that did not deter Edwards from trying anyway, and publicly stating that he could still win the nomination. The problem with focusing on a 60 or whatever delegate gap between Edwards and Clark is that that number was trivial compared to the amount of delegates any candidate needed in order to win the nomination. A good showing in New York or California alone could have more than wiped out that spread. The gap that really mattered was between Kerry and the rest of the field.

[MontecitoDem]

55. Hey AP -

a friendly suggestion to you (well, trying to be friendly)-

if you want all us Clarkies to feel good about Edwards if and when he gets the VP nod, you should stop trying to say that Edwards beat Clark, and all the other candidates, and relentlessly pushing Edwards in every thread with the same story. It's really becoming excessive, and I think is working against you if your goal is to gain support for Edwards.

I understand clarkies can also be annoying (yes, we can!). I have just noted repeatedly that you are trying to convince everyone that Edwards is a winner, regardless of facts and circumstances, or the topic of the thread. And you try to do it at the expense of the other candidates. Who lost and by what slim margin here or huge margin there is just a waste of breath - isn't it? I mean, what is your point?

They all lost the primaries.

This thread was a celebratory one for Clark supporters - please stop raining on the parade with old news. (New news is, of course, welcome!)

[cosmokramer]

57. Ditto!

[AP]

61. I"m not really saying anything other posting numbers.

Some statements were made which contradicted the facts, so I just thought I'd try to provide facts.

I didn't make any argument about Clark in this thread. I made no comparisons and used no superlatives.

i try to respect the Clark celebrations, but when I see a factual error, I can't help but note it (see the delegate count post, by the way).

[MontecitoDem]

63. But why?

We all know Edwards has more delegates that Clark. OK.

But tell me why that matters and why it matter in this thread?

[AP]

64. But cosmo didn't seem to know the delgate count. Is it OK that I ...

...corrected that error? And Kahuna didn't count NC. What's wrong with correcting that error?

If people were in a celebratory Edwards thread and throwing around factual errors about Clark, would you step in to correct them?

[MontecitoDem]

67. No, I wouldn't....

I'm not your teacher, and I don't need to interrupt people enjoying something about their candidate for no reason at all.


besides you started this crap with your post 23(?) from what I can see.

[AP]

73. Post 23 is basically math.

And I think my last post addresses your post in full.

[cosmokramer]

93. You didn't read my reply...

...you are counting elected delegates. I said the difference was Super Delegates. Clark had more than Edwards at the time he dropped out and that was the difference...about 20. And I didn't count Iowa as Clark did not compete there. Head to head, there wasn't much difference at all between the two when Clark decided to withdraw his hat. He released his pledged delegates at that point, all of which moved to Kerry. So the allegation that Clark was a mop for Edwards is absolutely ridiculous and unsubstantiated. The FACT is that KERRY wiped the floor with everyone.

[cosmokramer]

72. See my reply post...

[in_cog_ni_to]

84. annoying?

:cry:

[MontecitoDem]

86. Ok, OK

I had that coming!

I should have just said that I can be annoying! You know I love my fellow clarkies.

[JohnLocke]

139. He won THREE states.

[Adelante]

29. Flamebait posts are really boring

No to mention tiresome.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

35. Clark won once in 13 races; Edwards won once in 30 races

And guess what? They were both running against Kerry and they both lost.

[Padraig18]

38. Edwards won twice, actually. n/t

[cosmokramer]

41. No, he didn't win twice.

He one ONCE at the point he dropped out, and that was South Carolina.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. His home state later rewarded him, as did Vermont Dean n/t

[cosmokramer]

44. AFTER he dropped...

...don't know when the NC Primary took place, but it was definitely not before he dropped out, and would hardly matter.

[Padraig18]

45. A win is a win. n/t

[dogman]

48. But is showing up Kerry a wise move?

When you've decided to campaign for VP might it not be best to do like Clark did in Ark. and support the man who will decide?

[Padraig18]

50. I seriously doubt Kerry cared.

I don't think his ego's that fragile.

[dogman]

85. It's just that one of the criteria mentioned

was that he didn't want to be overshadowed by his choice. But I'm sure he would overlook some things if it meant a win. All things being equal however, I would also guess it would be a negative.

[JI7]

99. you are right

in fact i'm sure Kerry is happy for edwards that he won his home state. the same goes for dean. kerry knows he won in the places he did because of his hard work in campaigning and not because he was owed it. he didn't campaign in north carolina at all so he knows not to expect anything big. he still came in second though which was good.

[cosmokramer]

51. Precisely.

[atre]

141. Yeah?

Edwards' win in NC shouldn't count towards his total because his local supporters should have voted for Kerry.

Yeah, that's a good reason to support the claim that the field was actually level between Clark and Edwards (1 to 1)....

Oh, wait... No, it's not. It's actually quite stupid.

[atre]

140. Notice the maneuvering

Captured in a ridiculous logical contortion, the subject is quickly changed to a matter unrelated.

[dogman]

145. Matter unrelated?

Talk about ridiculous contortion, this is precisely what it is all about. A VP is supportive of the candidate, not in competition with him. It's simply a matter of common sense, and if you let your ego over ride common sense you are not a team player.

[cosmokramer]

156. It's enough to get you eliminated...

...as a future VP option.

[atre]

142. Great logic, cosmo!

If Smarty Jones were to suddenly collapse shortly before he succumbed to Birdstone in the Kentucky Derby, I assume you'd rush to give him the gold?

[Scoopie]

147. Actually, that is what you Edwards supporters

are doing.
He lost and you want to give him the gold.

He's not fit to be the vice president. I really don't care how good a campaigner he is or how well he smiles or that he's full of optimism. I'm sorry, NONE of that makes him fit to run the country if something were to happen to Kerry. None of it. Period. End of story.
I'm fed up the HERE with Edwards. He's a waste of my time and effort and if Kerry picks him, then I'll have to question Kerry's judgment.
I don't care how many sheeple answer "Oh, Edwards" in polls.
I don't care how much money Edwards raises (and he STILL hasn't raised as much as Clark for Kerry).
I don't care if he swings on vines in the Congo.
*I* have more foreign policy experience than Edwards and Bush combined.
I want an administration I can learn from, not some "feel good, be compassionate" shit.
That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

END RANT.

[MontecitoDem]

149. Yea Scoopie

Smackdown!:toast:

[cosmokramer]

151. These are the same folks, Scoopie...

...who argued that Dean's confederate flag flap was "a brilliant Clintonesque triangulation". So, clearly, we should consider the source...

[ArkySue]

148. Clark withdrew his name from the ballot in Arkansas.

He would have won by alot but he took his name off the ballot to avoid embarrassing Kerry in Arkansas. A team player, a class act!!!

[cosmokramer]

155. Class all the way!

[dogman]

90. It would be more likely that a group with a PR firm

working for their candidate would use those tactics. We are continuously told that Edwards has way more support than Clark from the public. I think it's more likely he has more name recognition but now people see a problem that requires a solution and Clark has an answer and the experience.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blackmoonlillith]

4. The man is extremely bright and good looking as well...

He looks better now than he did when he was in his twenties. I find him very sexy. Too bad he's married.

[sparrowhawk]

33. He just gets better all the time.

[cosmokramer]

97. check this one out!

Better all the time, indeed!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmokramer]

9. How RUDE of you to assume such!

To those who complain that Clarkies must have freeped the MSNBC poll, if that were the case, we wouldn't have been in 2nd place for 8 weeks (which MSNBC reports incorrectly at 9 weeks), we would always have been in 1st place.

Over the last month of prison abuse scandals, administration lies, and foreign policy nightmares, no wonder the non-Clarkies are now voting for Clark in this poll.

No matter how many Clark supporters still online voted, we couldn't creep past 2nd place for 8 straight weeks. Suddenly, we ALL come back and bombard this poll to beat Edwards by 20%?

I don't think so. This is OTHER democrats voting in this poll as well.

See also Post by TomRinaldo

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. Edwardniacs are just runnin' scared

They know their boy hasn't got a chance at VP, and will be lucky to have a job in January. So they make up nonsense about Clark in "single-digits."

Vice President Wesley Kanne Clark. It's gonna happen.

[cosmokramer]

122. you bet your sweet pickles its gonna happen.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. AWESOME NEWS!!!!!

WTG, General! WooHoo!!! Yahoo!!!!!

Go Wes!!!!!!

[cosmokramer]

17. Brighter everyday...

:toast:

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. It sure is!

Cheers!>>>>>>>Samuel Adams>>>>>>>:toast:

[cosmokramer]

60. How about some Samuel Adams? See here...

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."--Samuel Adams

See, even he was RIGHT about Bush!

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. Very good, cosmokramer!

No wonder Wes likes that beer! :smoke:

Hey! Where oh where did all of my BRILLIANT posts go??? I've been deleted! :evilgrin:

[cosmokramer]

88. So has...

...that nasty other person. Thank God!

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. It is like clockwork really

Something positive is posted about Clark, and next comes a flood of Clark put downs, most often not even related to the content of the original post, or tangentially at best.

Here is a news flash. The primaries are essentially over. Theoretically Democrats are now on the same Kerry team (Kucinich has been clear that he will back the nominee). Edwards goes out and says nice things about Kerry. Dean goes out and says nice things about Kerry. Clark goes out and says nice things about Kerry. None of them are saying not nice things about each other. None of them are bragging or putting each other down.

To those who want to relive past wars I respectfully request that you get over it.

[WI_DEM]

16. this post is one reason why there is such disharmony over VP

on DU. First, it is an internet poll which can be easily influenced.

Now my first choice is neither Clark nor Edwards, but the attitudes of some (certainly not all) Clark supporters here in the way they push Clark is a real turn-off.

[cosmokramer]

18. Excuse me?

How many articles/posts on DU have been about Edwards? Or Kucinich? Or Dean? Talk about pushing...Jeez!

DAILY many of the Edwards people post threads about him, and get vicious with many posters. Please don't allege something against the Clark people that can also easily be said about many supporters of other candidates as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Human nature will never change

Look around DU, almost half the threads deal with the VP choice. The issue is alive, and even though none of us (I assume) have any direct influence in who Kerry will select, lots of people want to talk about it. And partisans will be partisan. If that weren't the case Democratic Underground itself would not exist.

When Edwards won the CNN poll, Edwards supporters started threads to talk about that. When Kucinich picks up a few delegates, even though the race is over, Kucinich supporters start threads to discuss that. When someone starts a draft Dean for VP movement, Dean supporters start threads to talk about that.

The problem isn't that partisans are enthusiastically partisan. What the hell do you realistically expect in politics? The problem is underhanded attacks on either candidates or their supporters. Yes I know it gets old to watch the supporters of those candidates who are still in the running for a prize (in this case the VP nod) being all worked up over the possibilities. But a baseball season goes on even after your own team is eliminated from contention, and somewhere fans are screaming their heads off. Human nature.

But I would appreciate it if you would review some of the prior posts on this thread. I don't know what's been written while I was composing this reply, but I have not seen one derogatory word written about supporters of any other candidate other than Clark, but I have seen plenty of those. And don't think just by saying "some Clark supporters" that it avoids all difficulties. Not when "some Dean supporters", or "some Edwards supporters" or whoever are simultaneously given free reign by you to say whatever they want, and are using that freedom unchallanged to be directly insulting and/or highly provocative to others. If you intend to be critical of a behavior, fine. But critize it wherever it appears then.

The MSNBC poll, accurate or inaccurate as it may be, either now in week 11 or previously in week 5, is what it is, and it was just updated. That is what this thread started out announcing. Everyone was free to ignore it. What I read instead was insulting to me as a Clark supporter, and those are the comments that you made no note of.

[Adelante]

30. And "the attitudes of some (certainly not all) Edwards supporters"?

How do they stack up? Look through the thread and tell me who is posting flamebait? That's if disharmony on DU disturbs you.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Flame bait

Flame bait is accusing one group of people of rigging a poll. Flame bait is macho type bravado about so and so wiping his feet with so and so.

And you are absolutely correct that the header post was direct reporting from MSNBC's site. That's what made the sudden appearance of so much flame bait so discouraging.

[cosmokramer]

47. I reported a valid news item...

...regardless of your feelings on the matter. I will continue to post Clark-related Primary-related posts as I please, as supporters of other candidates will.

People are people, and this IS a political forum with open discussion. But why did you, being a tired as you are of these 'type' of posts, bother to come here? Why not just read a thread you like?

Curious.

[atre]

143. Exactly

I was a Clark supporter from before his announcement through the New Hampshire primary, but a contingent of rabid supporters here have completely turned me off to him. I wouldn't want to vote for him to be local dog catcher after the way his people here have acted here.

(Not because I think he would do a bad job, but obviously he's appealing to the worst in some people... not a good sign.)

[MontecitoDem]

146. pretty questionable

choosing not to vote for someone because his supporters are extremely committed and passionate about him? hmmm...

guess you are really committed to your ideals?

[robbedvoter]

34. Woohooo! Go Wes!

[cosmokramer]

43. Love the...

...pin!

[Sparkly]

87. Just got mine today!!

These pins are *beautiful!*

[cosmokramer]

89. I just don't have the bones to spare right now...

...since the economy is doing so friggin' well, so they tell me...

:mad:

[robbedvoter]

103. I get lots of compliments for it!

[cosmokramer]

108. who did the design work

it is awesome!

[Adelante]

109. Incapsulated designed and produced

I PMed you - check it.

[cosmokramer]

113. What a terrific job!

[dogman]

39. I think another reason for Clark's support

is similar to Tom Clancy's answer to Norville about a Zinni candidacy.
NORVILLE:  Tom Clancy, you‘re sitting here sort of chuckling and shaking your head as the general tells this story. 

CLANCY:  One of the differences you see between people like Tony here and politicians is politicians spend their lives studying, essentially acting lessons and selling snake oil, whereas professional soldiers, they have to do the real thing. 

You know, Tony has studied his profession the same way a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins Medical School studies his.  And so he knows his business.  Politicians are people who deal in images and perception rather than reality and perceptions are important but reality is important, too. 

I think many of us feel as he does, only substituting Wes for Tony.

[Darkamber]

91. Problem with this poll...

I don't like that you rank them 1-5. What happens between Clark and Edwards supporters mainly is they will Rank either pick #1 and knock the other one down to #5. This might go against all logic and it's also part of the reason why McCain has been #2 for so long. It comes from Edwards and Clark people putting him ahead other the other choices.

I first voted the way I would have which is #1 Edwards, #2Clark, #3 Richardson #4 McCain and #5...any of the new choices.

But then I followed the link to the Clark page and the cheer leading about dropping Edwards down to #5 and voting ofter and more. So I fell into the same situation of dropping Clark back.

Add to this the Repugs trying to get McCain #1 and goofing up any of the other results.

I'd rather see a poll that simply gave one choice and showed the percentages instead of giving you the chance to knock someone down to #5.

I'd be interested if any Clark supporters felt this way or if they like the way it is set up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. I see the advantage in that

It is just an internet poll, and it will never be scientific. All that it currently tells me is which handful of possible VP candidates currently have a fair amount of public name recognition and positive approval ratings. And even that information is of limited usefulness because someone who is unknown today but who possesses strategic assets for Kerry, would become more widely known than any of the current "contenders" within a month of getting the VP nod were that to happen.

This poll has some value for Clark only because some, in the media in particular, had attempted to deep 6 Clark's name from any public speculation. Clark finishing somewhere in the top three would be enough to help refute that tactic. Everyone already knows that Edwards has some popular support, so he has less to gain, and needs it less also I suppose. I think Richardson holding tough may be a better story actually.

[Darkamber]

98. A reasonable response

Thanks Tom...I've always found you to be a logical Clark supporter and well centered. If that makes sense...:)

I think Clark is considered and I would be happy if he is named VP. I'd just like to make sure we get the best of both worlds and I think Clark would be excellent for a cabinet position. I don't see Edwards as a good fit in any cabinet position though. And I'd hate for the party to loose either Edwards or Clark.

[Jai4WKC08]

102. Not a good reason, imo

If Edwards is not suited to a cabinet position, that's not a particularly good reason he should be VP, if he's not the best qualified.

Kerry really really needs the guy who will be best for his campaign, and the nation really needs the VP best able to step in if needed. (Really!) ;) I think it's Clark on both counts, but obviously people who supported Edwards for President are likely to think otherwise, hard as that may be for me to fathom.

I'm not sure I agree that Edwards isn't a "good fit" for Kerry's cabinet, tho. Probably not AG, since he has no experience as a prosecutor (altho he may get it anyway, to keep his backers happy). But I could easily see him as Sec of Commerce for example. Or Labor, if that's not Gephardt's already. I'm sure there are other possibilities, and I'd be very surprised if he doesn't get a prominent place in the Kerry administration.

Fwiw, I don't foresee Clark in a cabinet position (because I am not optimistic about winning back the Senate, and because Holbrooke seems designated for SecState, the only position for which Clark is suited), but I don't think it's a good argument for his being VP either.

That said, I suspect SOME of the fervor that we Clark supporters feel may stem from the concern that there won't be a place for him if he's not VP, and I can understand that Edwards supporters feel the same for their guy. Not to say those in each camp don't believe the arguments we make for VP, but perhaps explains some of the emotion behind it.

But I don't think it explains the attitudes each camp has against the other's guy as VP. I supported Clark for president because of his foreign policy and defense expertise, as well as his integrity and character--his not being a "typical" politician. So naturally, I can't support Edwards, who I see as the exact opposite. What is the source of the hostility toward Clark in the Edwards camp?

To tell the truth, I'm not sure there is as much. That what we see here on DU is more a reaction against Clark supporters, not against Clark. But it often seems to take the form of attacks on Clark himself, which is unjustified and only enflames the discussion more.

[cosmokramer]

115. Agreed...

But I do think Gephardt will be the Labor Secy...he is a natural fit, and the unions would CHEER big time, so I wouldn't put Edwards there.

Where do others fit? I think there is some versatility to be had here.

I think a very good choice for Edwards would be Secy of the US Department of Education. From my understanding, Edwards is a freshman member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. It is also my understanding (correct me if I am incorrect) that Edwards worked with some inovative education plans within his home state. It would be a good fit.

Holebrook does seem to be the choice for SOS. As for AG, I don't know if Edwards is qualified for that position because I know nothing of his law experience other than he was a trial lawyer. My inclination is that Eliot Spitzer of NY is slated for the AG slot.

As for Clark, he is so versatile he would fit anywhere. But because he is versatile, I think his best fit is VP. He is a total 'intellectual foreign policy economic package, a 'Washington Outsider', and has actually commanded a coalition of troops. He just brings so darn much to the table that it would be a big mistake to pigeon hole him in to a narrow role.

[Padraig18]

116. One place Clark would be invaluable.

I'm saying this as someone who likes Gen. Clark--- likes him a LOT. I think VP would be a waste of his talents, frankly. Waiting for the President to die and casting tie-breaking votes in the Senate is beneath Gen. Clark. National Security Advisor, however, is an INREDIBLY IMPORTANT job; we have all seen what happens when you put a ninny in charge of it.

I think Gen. Clark would shine in this job, and we as a nation would be far more secure with him in it, at President Kerry's right hand. Think about it, folks: VP, or NSA?

:)

[cosmokramer]

117. I appreciate your comments...

...however, I disagree with the NSA pigeon hole. He has so much more to offer than just foreign policy/military credentials, and wants to offer more. He may well be the most intelligent person in contention (that isn't to say any of the others are not intelligent, as they are all very , very intelligent--but Clark is really nine thoughts ahead of everyone else).

Kerry can make the VP position whatever he wants it to be--not just presiding over the Senate. And as a VP, he would be an additional voice to meld with the NSA, SOS, and SEC DEF. It would almost be like having a fourth security/military/diplomatic member of the team. I see no waste in it whatsoever.

More importantly, I honestly believe that if Kerry is going to win in November, he NEEDS to beef up the VP selection with a choice that will grab the foreign policy/military/diplomatic issue and slap around Cheney with it. There are not many who have the certifiable background to do that, but Clark certainly isn't the only one who could. A person such as Sam Nunn, Graham (even though he isn't very exciting) or Richardson, and others, could also do this. I do believe, however, that Edwards cannot do this effectively at all...he just doesn't have the experience to tackle the issue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. I don't (completely) disagree, lol

Clark would do well in that position, though for several reasons I still believe he would do best as VP. I suspect that if Edwards does not get the nod for VP, many of his supporters believe he would potentially do well in one or more cabinet positions also. Actually, I started a thread awhile back on the subject of why I would rather see Clark as VP rather than as Secretary of State (or National Security Adviser). Here is the link to that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=539053

Not everyone, not even all Clark supporters, agree with me on this of course, and all of this in in Kerry's hands to sort through anyway. Here is the excerpt from that thread most relevant to your suggestion:

"Clark would make an excellent National Security Adviser, but while potentially as influential a position as Secretary of State, it has an inherently lower International profile. That would be a huge waste of how Clark can best enhance a Kerry Administration; through his proven ability to help rehabilitate our standing in the world. Clark is a well known international figure who is beloved by some Muslim nationalities for his efforts on their behalf while in the military. He, through acts as well as words, is firmly in the camp of multi-nationalism and respect for International laws and institutions. He represented the absolutely finest qualities of the United States Armed Forces, and is the individual most able to counter growing contempt for the U.S. Military, as a byproduct of the prison scandals in Iraq. Clark should be given a position not only of influence, but also of ceremonial importance. That would be either Secretary of State, or Vice President of the United States."

Elsewhere in the post I talked about why I thought Clark for VP over Secretary of State is the way to go. There is a wealth of talent available to Kerry within the Democratic Party, and John Edwards and Wesley Clark are both in the foremost ranks of that talent. I trust he will use both men wisely.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmokramer]

121. and so it has some to pass...

[faithfulcitizen]

96. WHOOOO-HOOO!!!

Go Wes Go!!!!

For those who say it's internet riggin', why don't you just get your fellow supporters together and delete your cookies as many times as you possibly can for 7 straight days, then tell us it's rigged.

Geeez, who has that kind of time? There were nearly 10,000 responses, 12,000 last week...what, did someone just teach the Clarkies how to delete their cookies 4 weeks ago?

Edwards was at #1 for 9 straight weeks and the media is still gushing over him nightly...

CAN'T YOU JUST LET US BE HAPPY FOR A FEW MINUTES????

Cheers, Clarkies!! :toast:

[cosmokramer]

123. Of course they can't...

...they like to wreak the good parties.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leilani]

104. Wow, I just got here

& I cannot believe all the deleted posts from all those positive supporters of Sen Edwards.

Go Wes!

So many people are realizing the importance of foreign policy & military experience.

I read an article today that says Iraq is dominating all other issues.
And obviously, people who want to win, realize Clark brings the most to the ticket.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. Well...

Some of the deleted posts were by angered Clark supporters. But we didn't start it lol, and from what I remember of those deleted "Clark" posts that's all it was, anger that ran afoul of DU moderators. Some of the most offensive flame baiting posts managed to stay right where they are. I'm sure you've read them by now.

[Moderator]

107. Please post questions about deleted posts in Ask the Administrators.

That forum is the appropriate one for questions regarding the appropriateness of posts. Thank you.

---DU Moderator

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Sorry. Wasn't implying any moderator misdeeds...

Actually I was just trying to be fair to Edwards supporters by pointing out that not all of the deletions were to posts by some of them.

[Moderator]

112. No offense taken. n/t

[Moderator]

164. Locking.

Substantive discussion within this thread has been exhausted.

---DU Moderator