Edwards tops Iowa poll (DesMoines Register) Clinton 2nd

Vilsack fourth in presidential poll
Edwards, Clinton top Democratic choices for president in 2008

JONATHAN ROOS AND THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITERS
Copyright 2006, Des Moines Register and Tribune Company

June 11, 2006


Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina leads a list of potential Democratic presidential candidates while Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack holds fourth place, trailing Edwards by 20 points in an early test of support among likely Iowa caucus participants.

A new Iowa Poll conducted for The Des Moines Register shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2008 caucuses.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York follows on Edwards' heels with 26 percent in the Iowa Poll.

Experts say it's the first poll showing anyone besides Clinton as the preferred Democrat in the race for the White House.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who used his victory in the 2004 caucuses as a springboard to the Democratic presidential nomination that year, is a distant third in the Iowa Poll with 12 percent.

-snip-

Five other potential Democratic presidential candidates listed in the poll bring up the rear with no more than 3 percent each.

-snip-

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS09/606110338/1001&lead=1

***************

The poll did not include Gore.
"If the Iowa caucuses were held today, for whom would you vote? Clinton. Edwards. Vilsack. Kerry. Bayh. Feingold. Warner. Clark. Daschle."

I would say my vote would be leaning towards Feingold right now. Too early for me though. :)

is a lifetime are right!

Back in Nov. 2005, would you hahve ever believed Shrb would be at -30% in the polls in less than 6 months?

I think it's telling that Vilsak finished a poor fourth. If he was truly that great I think he would have won the state from which he was recently governor.

of 'em.

Very strong showing for Edwards, though.

or Warner/Edwards, which I think would be the stronger ticket.

My ideal ticket is Schweitzer/Feingold or Schweitzer/Warner, neither of which is likely to happen.

tickets is the Dems' offering in 08, ruggerson.

The hinge for me would be, Would you feel better with people like Warner, Edwards, Schweitzer, and Feingold in charge of government than you do right now under the amorphous evil of the Bush administration, and all four of those people elicit a powerfully positive response.

A former Iowa friend who used to work precinct work for Dems emailed me this recent poll and says that he feels Gore-Schweitzer would be almost impossible for Republicans to beat, but says his people tell him that Edwards remains deeply popular.

But you have been one of the earliest -- if not the VERY earliest proponents of Brian Schweitzer on DU, and I believe your instincts there are solid. Schweitzer's refreshing as hell. I really like him.

runner status, and it indicates that there may be greater obstacles in her path than she previously supposed.

I'm not surprised at Edwards' strong showing; he finished a strong second in 2004 in the Iowa caucus and I feel his chances are very good for 2008.

The other candidates, IMO, did not do poorly, but have not enjoyed the media exposure HClinton is given almost daily. When they have time to gather forces in Waterloo and Ames and Iowa City, I expect they also will pass HClinton in the polls. I don't think FOX and CNN analysts hold the same weight as actual, real-live candidates campaigning in coffeeshops and grocery stores and pig farms.

This poll is too early to predict a reliable winner just yet, but not too early to be a possible red flag for Hillary Clinton.

with real voters. Yes, mighty early, but interesting, nonetheless. This thing is wide open.

I've bookmarked this Des Moines REGISTER poll so that when the next Iowa caucus poll comes out I can chart the candidates' progress.

I wish I'd done the same thing in 2004.

Anyway, we have a crowded field of talented people, and it's going to be REAL interesting.

Democrats historically have a history of toppling media foisted frontrunners in favor of dark horses. Especially in years with no incumbents.

I could very well be wrong, but I think all the inside the beltway polling on Hillary's "frontrunner" status is just name recognition. Plain and simple.

and I wish not to underestimate the woman.

She even has my vote if she's the nominee.

But in the last couple weeks, before this poll, I'm calling Gore, Kerry or Edwards for the top slot, and that still sounds right to me.

Feingold, Warner, Bayh, and Clark are also likely to finish ahead of her in Iowa in January of 08.

I think there is a very good chance that her own internal polling will tell her, a couple weeks in advance of the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, that she does not enjoy the support of enough Iowans and New Hampshirites to make it worth her while to run. I believe she will end her candidacy a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucus.

He is a good populist, but he was very pro-invasion until long after it wasn't cool. He wasn't like Hillary or Clark, where he begrudgingly supported the IWR hoping that Bush would use it for diplomatic reasons, he was an active supporter, and during the early primaries he was almost hawkish. His attacks on Dean and Kucinich, and even Kerry, for being against the war put him in Lieberman's camp for me, and it took a while for me to see him differently, after he changed his position.

Add to that the fact that he's won only one election in his life, has served only six years in government, and has been out of office since being on the losing ticket last time... I guess I'm surprised he's got so much support. It's not that I don't like him, it's just that I don't see anything in him that looks like a strong candidate, or even like a purist alternative choice. He is pretty, I guess. And his speeches are great.

Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for him, and I supported him as VP. He just wouldn't be in my top three choices.

who didn't attack the other candidates. The closest he came, was chiding Dean for "talking down" to Southern voters - and I think he was right on that. Edwards was wrong about the war, and admitted it - and was one of the first to do so.

Finally, Kucinich himself said he was closest to Edwards, among the candidates. It was also believed Kucinich and Edwards supporters joined forces at the Iowa caucuses, swinging their support to whichever candidate had the most support in the room.

"Attack" may be a strong word. Criticized, campaigned against, may be more accurate. But he criticized others for their opposition to the war. Including Kerry, so he wasn't "one of the first" to do so. (on edit: by "do so," I meant one of the first to change his mind on the invasion).

Again, I like him, personally. I like his social positions. But the war support is exactly my fear about him. He didn't have the experience to know it was wrong. How many other learning experiences will he have? I don't doubt his heart or character, it's his wisdom and leadership I worry about, and his lack of experience makes it worse. He's never held an executive position. Being senator requires very different skills--you aren't the "decider," you are one of those who debate the issues and work out the details. I just don't really trust his experience level. His support of the invasion was based on his lack of experience.

There are much better candidates out there, is all I'm saying.

taking the time to respond in a measured fashioned - something of a rarity around here, these days...it seems we're already in "primary mode" - you rmember that, right?

Edwards war vote was wrong. Was it inexperience? How do you explain Kerry's vote, or Clinton's or so many of the Dem votes? Among those who did vote for the war, Edwards was the first who came out with an op-ed in a major newspaper. blm and other Kerry supporters say Kerry had said as much in a speech a week earlier - which I applaud, as well. Consider how many Dems aren't even admitting the mistake (most of them - Clinton, Biden...).

Anyway, I think we've got a very strong group of candidates running. I would love to see a Gore/Edwards ticket.

I'll never understand what caused Gore to not choose Edwards.

IMHO, Gore is not going to run. I guess we will have to wait and see on that one. Heck, Clinton and Vilsack might not even run. It's all speculation right now anyway.

less than two years.

And, I'm sorry, being a personal-injury attorney doesn't really give one the experience necessary to handle policy.

Gore wanted someone to help him in certain areas. Lieberman had more experience, plus he had spoken out against Clinton's sins early on, so Gore (and his advisors) felt that Lieberman would distance the ticket from the Clinton scandal. (Gore's biggest mistake was over-estimating the Clinton scandal--he listened to the media and not the people too much on that one). Also, Lieberman was perceived as a strength in Florida because he was Jewish, and Florida, everyone knew early on, was likely to be the key to the election.

Edwards was too inexperienced. If Gore could have been sure that Edwards would carry the Carolinas for him, he may have chosen Edwards anyway, but in the end Lieberman brought more balance to the ticket. Also, Gore was worried about the Dan Qauyle syndrome, of being accused of picking Edwards just because he was pretty. Though Edwards was clearly intelligent, his lack of experience would have opened him to that attack.

none of them will be the nominee. Mainstream Democrats will be instinctively looking for a new charismatic face to inspire them. The only one of the "retreads" who stands a chance of being on the ticket is Edwards, as he is seen as something of an outsider and a self made, pull yourself up by your bootstraps kind of guy. JMHO.

The point he is making is correct. Edwards, who was on the intelligence committee and a co-sponsor of the IWR, was saying in late 2003 that he didn't think there were WMD, but that there were other reasons for wanting Saddam out. Kerry, as the poster you are replying to said, voted reluctantly for the authority and in his floor speech repeated the promises that Bush PUBLICLY gave. Kerry spoke out throughout the fall and winter before the invasion for more diplomacy and for the inspectors to have more time and demanded that Bush NOT GO TO WAR.

This is not a trivial distinction. I feel very comfortable that a President Kerry would never take the country to war unless it was absolutely necessary because of a real iminent threat, all diplomacy was used and it was a last resort. That is consistent with everything Kerry has said over his entire career. I am somewhat comfortable with Edwards - mainly because Kerry chose him as VP, so he trusted him. I will listen to what Edwards says about war between now and 2008.

So Kerry and Edwards really had different things to renounce. From his floor statement, Kerry if he were President would not have invaded Iraq; Edwards might have, as he was very pro-war in the lead up to war and at least the first year. Kerry had to admit that he was wrong to trust Bush to negotiate in good faith with the Senate - the reasons that Bush went to war per the DSM - were reasons Bush took out of the original IWR to get more Democratic votes. Edwards had to admit that he was wrong to support the war.

Kerry renounced his vote in October 2005 in a major speech given at Georgetown university when he proposed a major new plan for Iraq that included getting out in 12-15 months. More importantly, he had said he would not have gone to war much earlier than that - the December 2003 meeting with liberals at Al Franken's house described in Will Pitt's Truthout column. (Clearly, Kerry was reluctant to accept that the vote was a vote for war - even though Bush said it wasn't. He has said he profoundly regrets it.)

Edwards was a BIG supporter of the war. He sponsored the IWR. If all the democrats had held together, they could have gotten a better bill that would have made it clear that Bush couldn't do whatever he wanted but thanks to Lieberman, Edwards and the other sponsors of the IWR that couldn't happen. Edwards sponsored the IWR because he was fine with attacking Iraq even if there were no WMDs. Looking at Kerry, he was very hestiant; he talked to many people in the adminstration and in other countries. It was only those assurances and the memory of Gulf I that gave Kerry the needed comfort to vote for the IWR. He believed that Bush would have exhausted diplomatic efforts, would not have squandered the lives of troops and would have gotten an international coalition. To imply that Kerry and Edwards had the same position is wrong. Edwards wanted the war. Kerry did not.

Something I don't understand is why Edwards' simple apology is accepted at face value especially given his sponsorship of the IWR while Kerry who always qualified his support is treated as a political opportunist.

to these absurd comments. Edwards attacks? Where did that come from? Edwards never attacked Dean, never attacked Kerry and certainly would never have attacked his good friend Dennis Kucinich. I was at an Iowa caucus and I witnessed first hand Kucinich asking his supporters to join forces with Edwards.

Let's not confuse disagreeing on an issue with an attack.

What do Iowans see in Edwards? They see someone who is NOT part of the Washington scene any longer and they LIKE it. His time spent out of office has been working primarily with the poor, standing up for labor and trying to get the minimum wage increased in many states. He is working tirelessly campaigning for Democrats in the 2006 election. He has traveled internationally meeting with leaders of other countries, most recently in Israel.

There is a reason he currently hold the #1 spot in the Iowa poll. This man is honest, sincere, smart and the best thing going for him is his wife, Elizabeth. It is no accident he holds the current #1 spot in the Iowa poll.

He has this Iowan's full support and I cannot wait for him to announce his intentions to run. I plan on spending every spare minute campaigning for him. I believe he will win Iowa and I believe his chances of being our nominee in 2008 are very good.

Honestly, the things Edwards champions are the things Democrats are already polling higher than Republicans on: poverty-prevention, helping the middle class, providing safety-nets for those less-fortunate - you know, "Mommy" issues.

Where we need to improve is in the "Daddy" issues - the perception that we aren't good in international affairs, foreign policy and national security and Edwards won't convince any mushy-middle voters that he's capable of handling those issues.

He also didn't help Kerry in South, what-so-ever and we NEED that. We need to flip some Southern and/or mid-Western purple states.

Edwards is a nice enough guy and I applaud his work with his poverty center, but I think he's simply not seen as strong enough to handle some of the foreign policy issues this country faces.

We need someone who can be a "Single Parent" and incorporate both the Mommy and Daddy issues in order to win both the Congressional races in 2006 and the presidential race in 2008.

be Republicans, and then we'd win."

Funny, I thought National Security and Foreign Policy were an American and international issue. I had no idea that these were Republican issues.

The GOP being strong on National Security was just a myth perpetuated by the media. Are Dems buying into that? and if so, should we be ignoring the issue that is cited as the main issue that put George W. Bush back into the White House....and the issue that is in the News media, day in, day out, everyday for the past 5 years?

The Democratic Party must be a "Full Service" Party, which is why anyone advocating a Edwards/Warner or Warner/Edwards ticket is begging for a whoopin'!

national security/foreign policy than the Republicans?

They do.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

If your concern is the differences between good and bad, republican and democratic, Clark's and Edwards', etc position on foreign policy, then talk about those.

if you're talking about the need to look strong on foreign policy and ignore candidates whose appeal is tied to strong identification with progressive issues (because you think we have those bases covered no matter who is nominated), then I repeat, it sounds like your'e sayign that the best Democrat is one who looks like a Republican.

since he is leading the Iowa poll.

Sorry... but I used to be a reporter. I can see what they're doing.

posted here by the Edwards people. He has been in Iowa at least 5 times and has been doing the hard work needed to get supporters. The articles have been very positive to him - while often knocking the competition (Hillary, not Kerry - so it's not just my bias - I'm ambivalent between the two.)

The Des Moines Register also endorsed Edwards in 2004.

you don't need to tell me a thing about how he is covered by my local paper. Vilsack is our Governor and he is the media darling of The Des Moines Register. Clinton is the media darling of the national press.

btw, Edwards has been in Iowa a lot more than 5 times. He is in Iowa today and will be here tomorrow as well. He will be campaigning very hard for his friend, Chet Culver, who just won the Democratic primary for Governor. There are many positive things going on in Iowa with Edwards right now. His political strategy has been brilliant since the '04 election.

I knew from some nice articles posted here that Edwards had been there a lot (I said at least 5 times because that was as many as I could remember hearing about.) I hadn't seen any articles on Vilsack because I don't live in Iowa and hadn't read them.

Clearly Edwards is getting a head start on the race and it does shatter the Hillary is a sure thing myth. I don't dislike Edwards, but think he's too inexperienced, but he is intelligent.

as in someone who has actually run for something and won. And we need someone with governing credibility. As in someone who has actually run a state and can point to concrete results.

Why doesn't Clark run for Governor of Arkansas?

You can have all the experience in the world on any give job, but I want someone who can actually get elected.

Apparently winning an election without any real leadership is all that matters to you.

I don't guess being on par with Heads of State, running a military installation the size of a small country, writing economic proposals and winning Audoban awards is enought for you.

But, pinning your hopes on a personal injury attorney who didn't pick up any Southern or mid-Western states, who would have lost re-election (according to polls) had he re-run for senator and who doesn't know the first thing about foreign policy IS a good thing.

Me? I want a proven leader, not a political hack.

Geesch.

Please don't act like you are the only one with a brain and you demand we all agree. Sorry but Geesh!

No one would have expected him to. It would have been a step down. People who aspire to elected office never step downward. They either go up, or they find something else to do.

A regional command equates to a state governorship in scope of responsibility and the actual functions the commander performs. Clark has been there, done that. Twice. In two different regions.

NATO Supreme Allied Commander has head of state status.

The only thing that running for governor would give Clark is campaign experience. He has a lot more of that now than he did in 2004, and he didn't do badly then. Lots of folks have lost their first campaign and come back to win the next time. We'll just have to see if Clark can be one of those, won't we?

Eisenhower was a national hero. Both parties were at his feet begging him to run for President. He was adored nationwide. Wesley Clark is a good man who served his country admirably, but he is not a national hero of the status of Eisenhower. The analogy is just completely irrational.

an elected office, at least indicated that he was interested in executive experience withing a context very different from the military and that he appeared to care about something other than wall street and making millions of dollars (judge for yourself the effectiveness of that appearance).

which gives him more experience than Bush had when he took office. Republicans don't tend to care as much about experience as Democrats do. Most voters don't care about it that much either, which is why four out of the last five Presidents had little to no foreign policy experience.

Just what I want - a president with ONE, count 'em, ONE more foreign policy committee experience than the current fuck-up.

Yeah - that's what I want. NOT.

And those voters... they voted BEFORE 9/11. Bush got in on its media-driven coattails and the fact that voters simply don't see the Democrats as strong on foreign policy and national security.

who had a good military background and lots of experience going for him. Obviously it takes more than that. Don't think Clark would not have had his own swift boat group. America has been focused on foreign policy before, during the cold war, so I don't think 9/11 changes things as much as you suggest.

Kerry's deficit was that - not his foreign policy credentials - although his protestations after Vietnam didn't do him any favors with the mushy middle.

Kerry's lack of appeal in the South and Midwest was a big problem and a mistake that the party shouldn't make again. Of course, that's a major reason I like Edwards.

... and comparing him to Kerry? There is no comparison.

Clark's got a lot more going for him than being a NATO commander. Lot's more.

In fact, he testified to Congress that they SHOULDN'T go:

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway."

I think if you re-read what I said above, you'll see what I'm saying. Hillary's language when anouncing her suport of the IWR was similar to Clark's from this speech, and there's no doubt she had the same motivations. Neither supported the invasion. Both supported the IWR, though when Clark made this speech, it was not yet named.

who heard Clark's testimony in person would beg to differ with you. They both cited Wes' testimony when explaining their votes agains the IWR. And I think there were others, too.

Which is the one that Edwards Co-Sponsored (Lieberman's) and Hillary and Kerry Voted for.

Wellstone, Kennedy and Levin all quoted Wes Clark in their senate floor speech they gave prior to voting "NO".

Hillary, Edwards and Kerry did not.

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King a few weeks ago....


and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and here's what Clark said on 9/16/02 (one month before the vote)...

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?"

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

Clark opposed the Bush Administration's ill-advised war in Iraq, often citing its inability to involve allies and properly plan for post-war reconstruction:

On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions."

August 29, 2002--Clark said there is "War Fever Out There Right Now in Some Quarters of the Leadership Elements in this Country...Where is That Coming From?"

On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French."

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone."

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons.

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one."

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world."

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions."
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

On September 25, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "If we go in there, this government will be displaced, and there will be a new government put in place. But what about the humanitarian issues? What about the economic development? What about the energy? What about the opening of commerce? What about tariffs? What about taxes? What about police? What about public order? All those issues, we should be working on now, because they will help us do a better job of reducing the adverse, potentially adverse, impact of the war on terror if we have to do what we might have to do?"

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed."

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now.....You need the cover of legitimacy, and afterwards, you're going to need allies and other people to help share the burdens of peacekeeping."
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

...too simple a question."

From: The New York Times, September 19, 2003 :

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question.

A moment later, the Times quoted Clark adding:

I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

And that's from this discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2121094&mesg_id=2123255

I remember during the early primaries when Bush first asked for $80 Billion or so more for the war. Kucinich and Sharpton came out against it right away. Dean straddled the fence and flip-flopped on it between two debates. Edwards was the first candidate after Kucinich and Sharpton to say he would vote against the huge spending bill for the war. The others followed later. At that point, it took some courage. Edwards also said he was wrong about his Iraq war vote, something Hillary never did, and Kerry did much later.

He renounced the vote in Oct 2005, Edwards in Nov 2005. The media has played a came of asking Kerry constantly if he will renounce it "like Edwards" - Kerry does and is asked the same thing the next time he is on.

Additionally - Kerry said he would not have gone to war in 2003 (one source Truthout - Will Pitt's description of Kerry's meeting with liberals at Al Franken's house.) Edwards at that point was FOR the war - and said he was on Hardball even if Saddam had no WMD.

I'll take your word for it that they were separated by one month rather than take the time to look online in an attempt to find otherwise.
My point remains, that Edwards was not a cheerleader for the war during the primary, as the other post suggested, and he started to reconsider his support at that time, as evidenced by his early opposition to the spending bill.

he was pro-war at least until late 2003. He even said in one Hardball interview that he didn't believe there were WMD when he voted and still thought there reason to attack. He was on the intelligence committee and they got more information than the other Senators and were not allowed to share it. That may well be the period he is speaking about.

I don't remember his reason to vote against the spending bill. I certainly don't recall any call that we should pull out. I know that Kerry voted for a bill with congressional oversight on the contracts and the provision that some high income tax cuts be rolled back, then against a bill with no oversight and no attempt to pay for it. I suspect that Edwards did the same.

Because I seem to remeber Kerry coming out against his vote much earlier, so I want a date because my recollection is that Edwards turned against the war in Oct/Nov of 2005.

I don't know if its still online at their site but I'm sure you can find it somewhere. If Kerry apologized for his vote much earlier than that, I missed it.

Please don't foist that on us, Iowans. PLEASE!

So is DU that out of touch with Democrats nationwide?

Wes Clark wins every poll at DU and has a fierce cadre of uncompromising supporters here.

But in Iowa and elsewhere in real life, he is merely a tiny 2% blip on the screen.

What's the disconnect?

They champion the DLCers and politicians and don't report a blip about Clark.

That happened during the 2004 race, too.

When people hear him, they love him - but, sadly, they don't get to hear him very often.

That's why an unknown named Bill Clinton rose to the top in 92 over far better known names.

:crazy:

remember the infamous 60 Minutes "I've caused pain in my marriage" interview.

Geesch. Short memory span.

and the media was trying to slap him down and going wild with stories of marital infidelity and draft dodging. That interview was given by the Clintons solely to quell rumors that could possibly sink his campaign. There is no way that you can credibly spin that as the press wanting to give Clinton free publicity. When Jennifer Flowers gave her news conference, Clinton was already emerging as a very plausible dark horse winner of the nomination. She wouldn't have bothered if he hadn't already emerged from the pack and was gaining momentum.

in which they both competed, but you couldn't tell that by the media coverage.

Hell, Clark beat Edwards in Oklahoma and the only thing we heard out of the corporate media was that Clark's diver got a speeding ticket.

he seems like a perfectly nice guy. He has just never caught fire with Democratic voters. And if he didn't in '04 as a fresh face, it stands to reason he probably will not in '08. I think he's dead in the water as a Presidential candidate for the next cycle. I do think he would make an outstanding Governor or Senator from the state of Arkansas and am baffled why he does not pursue those options.

I hope, but doubt , he'll run for president in 2008. I'm afraid he'll be unwilling to run against Hillary Clinton. They're very close politically and I just don't see it.

Arkansas is a small state with two young Democratic senators and a slew of well qualified people waiting to run for governor. Wes won't run against his own party-thats not his style.

He has a role to play, I just look forward to seeing exactly what it is.

I don't remember the particulars, but Edwards outperformed Clark, except in NH (by a small amount), and Okla (another close one, which Clark had staked his candidacy on).

And this is the first I'd heard about Clark's driver (or was it his diver?).

What's the point in the re-hash? Let's look to the future. Good luck.

add Oklahoma and New Hampshire...that's 5.

In contested states (NH, MO, NM, SC, TN, VA) Edwards won 4 to 2. The most Clark beat Edwards by in a contested state was 9.2%. Edwards' biggest margin of victory was 47.9%.

DC: Edwards +9%,
NH: Clark +.3%
AZ: Clark: +19.6%
DE: Edwards +1.5%
Missouri: Edwards +20.2% -- everyone competed there
Oklahoma: Clark +.4% -- Clark really worked hard in OK only to see Edwards eat into his lead.
NM: Clark +9.2% -- everyone competed there.
ND: Clark +12% -- I think Clark was the only candidate to campaign in ND
SC: Edwards +47.9% -- everyone campaigned in SC

WA: Edwards +3.4%
Michigan: Edwards +6.7%
Maine: Edwards +3.4%
Democrats Abroad: Clark +.7%
Tennessee: Edwards +3.4% -- everyone competed there
Virginia: Edwards +17.4% -- everyone competed hard
DC (this one counts): Edwards +9.1%

Many campaigns simply wrote MO off, expecting it to back Gephardt as their favorite son. MO has two major media markets (St. Louis, Kansas City) and it was an expensive state to contest as a result, which led to many early decisions to cede it to Gephardt. Clark definitely did NOT compete in MO. Free media was the deciding factor in that state, and free media was all running to Kerry and Edwards by that point. AZ was much more contested than MO.

I never fail to give Edwards credit for his showing in contested primaries in 2004. He indeed did come in second. He connected with many voters and deserves credit for that. Edwards benefited from competing strongly in Iowa while Dean and Gephardt were collapsing there. It allowed him to far exceed prior expectations for him and he skillfully rode a wave of free media attention from that point on. Note that I said he "rode a wave". He didn't fall off that wave, he rode it skillfully to his credit. Any surfer will tell you that the timing of catching a wave is critical, but then you have to ride it, many can't pull that feat off, Edwards did.

Clark's failure to compete in Iowa and how the media subsequently ran with the Iowa results fatally hurt his campaign. My fast and dirty evidence is that although Clark still edged Edwards out in NH, despite the attention being given Kerry and Edwards in the media in the week preceding the NH vote, the media continued to give much more attention to Edwards immediately after NH than they did to Clark.

I only bother to comment on the 2004 primaries when I feel that people unfairly say that Clark did poorly in them, because he didn't. I don't deny that Edwards did well.

Gephardt dropped out two weeks before the MO primary and only got 2% of the vote in finishing 7th place behind Sharpton's 6th place. It would have been a mistake to concede it.

My memory was that there was a lot of ad spending and appearances in MO at the last minute, but I could be wrong.

Also, I didn't count DC twice. DC voted twice.

How he did it, and why not another Democrat, is now fodder for political science classes, but I will never dispute that fact. I only stand to argue with those who claim Clark did poorly his first time running for a public office. Clark beat out a lot of more experienced Democratic politicians who had a years head start on him as well as greater name recognition going into the race. If a few things had gone a little differently, so too might have gone the results for Clark, but that can be said by almost everyone who comes up short at the end of the day. If a few things had gone a little differently, perhaps Edwards would have beaten Kerry.

The fact is Edwards was a relative long shot who ended up doing very well in 2004. I will always grant you that.

He lost in Iowa and this was before the NH vote. These stories could have killed his campaign. After the 60 minutes, he came in either 2nd or 3rd and was labelled the "Comeback Kid" by the media. He then swept the first multi-state day - winning a lot of Sothern primaries and became the front runner.

The media did signal that the accusations were unfair or unimportant. (Contrast to how they treated the UNTRUE SBVT lies and you will see the media tamped this down.)

He did not even contest Iowa, as Harkin was running for President, and as the hometown candidate won something like 75% of the Iowa caucus.

Clinton had already emerged from the pack poll wise before New Hampshire. Tsongas was from neighboring Massachussetts and was expected to win NH easily. When Clinton came in second, even after the media beating over Jennifer Flowers and the draft, it cemented his credentials as a national candidate who could win.

My point is Clinton caught on with the public organically, because he was an inspiring campaigner. The media did not launch his candidacy, as a matter of fact, before 1992 he was primarily known nationally as the man who gave the worst keynote speech in the history of the party (1988).

I do think that the media saved Clinton at this point by dropping the issue after the 60 minutes interview. I think you're correct that he was little known - but there was a very positive NYT magazine cover story that really did have an impact. I certainly don't think he was "created" by the media - just that the media fell for him just like many of us (including me) did. People wanted to believe him.

It likely accounted for his doing as well as he did - I think he was third, but maybe second. At any rate, the media then refered to him as the Comeback Kid. He was very clearly treated well.

that Bill Clinton got a huge, very positive NYT magazine cover story in 1990. This was the start of many positive articles. Clinton WAS a media favorite. (Note: Neither Edwards or Kerry got a NYT magazine cover story until Kerry had one in Oct 2004.)

Which other potential candidates have regular paid gigs in the MSM?

Before Clark was on Fox, he was a regular on CNN.

Before that, he was a favorite of the print press. Didn't Time do a story on him back during Vietnam, and then, during Kosovo, didn't his name appear more in the press than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense?

Resolution that led to the Iraq War. That's something that Wes Clark didn't do.

Vietnam was 35 years ago, Kosovo; 7 years ago.....so not, those stories didn't make him a "Household name".

And no, Wes Clark clearly doesn't have more or the same name recognition as the ones who actually participated in the Iowa Primaries in 2004....came in 2nd place, and went on to be the "Vice Presidential" Nominee in 2004.

In the poll 32% say they view him as either "mostly" or "highly" unfavorable. No one's combined unfavorable ratings are higher. This suggests that people in Iowa who know him, don't like him.

I'm sorry for the people of Iowa then.

That approach will work very well.

It must suck to be you right now. Show me 1 state where Clark is leading the polls of potential candidates....outside of internet polls.

I'm fully aware that Clark isn't leading polls - and I know why. He's NOT given the attention in the media that Edwards is or Hillary or Warner.

The fact is that I think too many Democrats - in Iowa and elsewhere - are living in the past. We're not going to win a national election with a candidate with no foreign policy or national security credentials. The Republicans, despite the nightmare that is Bush, STILL have the built-in media perception that they're stronger on national security. The Democrats have to work TWICE as hard to overcome that perception.

Yet, Democrats (and I am one) in these polls keep tapping candidates who are more 1992 than 2008 in regards to their international capabilities.

I just wish the Clark supporters would stop trying to tear Edwards apart whenever he shows any movement in the polls.

The only thing that would keep me from campaigning for a Clark/? ticket might just be the supporters themselves. It gets to the point of being ridiculous and the rancor is bizarre.

deference to Edwards.

Clark was actually doing better on the primary trail than Edwards, but he never got the credit from either the party or the media.

It's also because so many Clark supporters see the Democratic deficits in national security and foreign policy and think Clark's head and shoulders better than Edwards (or Warner or Sen. Clinton) in that regard. In 1992, a little-known Democratic governor COULD take the lead and win it all, but, after 9/11 and with wars upon wars on the horizon, we simply don't see why Edwards, with his abject lack of experience in these matters, is so popular.

Sorry to have been so harsh, but I really, really don't get Edwards alleged "populism" nor why people think he could win it all considering he didn't help Kerry in the South or mid-West in 2004.

I don't hate him and think he does fine work with his poverty center, I just have next-to-no faith that he could win a national election.

Edwards's LONG-SCHEDULED official campaign kick-off day...Clark leaked his intention to announce the next day - ending weeks of speculation - but completely overshadowing Edwards day in the sun.

Perhaps it was politically savvy, because Clark knew Edwards would be his biggest opponent. But it was a pretty class-less thing to do (though I think Clark is a good guy - this just was not cool).

Edwards went on the overshadow Clark throughout the primaries, and then was picked for VP. Clark's admirers at DU are ardent, but let's not re-write history...or rely on such flimsy excuses for Clark's poor performance in the primaries.

And please quit hatin' on Edwards because of it.

:eyes:

Here's ink on the first announcement in January 2003.
Networks' Nightly Newscasts (Jan. 2, 2003)
Of the three nightly newscasts, CBS provided the most generous coverage related to Edwards' announcement, including a bit more than a minute of an interview anchor Scott Pelley did with him earlier via satellite. This gave viewers an opportunity to hear from Edwards directly. ABC's coverage included a montage of clips showing Edwards in action while anchor Elizabeth Vargas talked about him. ABC also devoted a bit over a minute to a discussion between anchor Elizabeth Vargas and George Stephanopolous analyzing Edwards and the Democratic race generally. NBC's coverage was the thinnest. Although the audience heard as much from Edwards--19 seconds--as in the ABC piece, the overall presentation was distracting. In one way or another, all three broadcasts used footage from Edwards' 10:30 a.m. press conference outside his house in Raleigh. All three ran the story before the first ad break.

The Morning Papers (Jan. 3, 2003)
The New York Times and the Washington Times provided fairly standard, no frills coverage of the announcement, putting the story inside the paper and using unrevealing headshot photos. USA Today went further, running a front page article on Edwards and another article inside the front section. The inside article used two rather creative photos--a wide shot showing Edwards and the reporters, and a nice shot of Edwards with his young daughter. The Washington Post put the story and a color photo on its front page, although the photo was a fairly standard shot. However, the Post added a unique angle, another article in the "Style" section addressing the question "What Makes People Like John Edwards Think They Can Lead?" Three of the four papers included a profile box with their articles.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw010203med.html

Maybe John Edwards should have announced everyday, and then no one else could have done anything. That might have done the trick! :eyes:

Upward and onward.

that Wes Clark stepped on Edwards announcement in September of '03, when Edwards had clearly been running since January of 2003.

That's what I was talkin' bout! :eyes:

NO ONE talks about Clark. They never have. Is there a disconnect? I'd say. It is a little early to be announcing a victor but 2% isn't good.

I have nothing against Clark, in fact I like him. We all have a favorite and Clark appears to be the poster boy of the internet. The average American doesn't spend time on websites talking politics though. They probably don't know anything about the DU.

his "celebrity" is internet created and sustained, as you note. Average Democratic voters, in real life, do not have him on their radar screen, despite the fact that he has received a lot of media attention and has a regular speaking gig on cable news. IMHO, this is because he has never held elected office and is not a particularly charismatic figure, though he seems to be a very nice guy with some sensible ideas, especially in regards to international diplomacy. If he wants to be taken seriously by bread and butter Democrats nationwide, he should run for Governor of Arkansas and serve a term or two.

have actually completed his FIRST TERM as a Senator representing the people of NC instead of going off to Iowa and New Hampshire trying to get into THEIR good graces. He NEVER TOLD us those were his plans when we worked for him to get elected to be our Senator.

He said he would lead the charge against Bush's plan to do exploratory drilling off the NC coast. He missed the vote so he could attend a fundraiser for himself in Tennessee.

He and Joe Lieberman were the two co-sponsors of the IWR. The Democrats were in charge and Senator Bob Graham was the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Graham spoke vehemently against the passing of this resolution. John Edwards was on that committee.

When Peace Activists, who had voted for Edwards, went to petition him before his IWR vote, he had federal marshalls greet them at the door of his office instead of speaking to them himself.

When Eastern NC was devastated by Hurricane Isabel, John Edwards chose to fly out to attend California fundraisers, instead of flying to Eastern NC to comfort the people who had lost almost everything.

When my Senator would schedule townhall meetings, he would miss them and send his assistant Ed Turlington in his place. He missed them because he was out on the road campaigning to be President. And this after he had only been in office for three years.

He did make the statement that he enjoyed being on the campaign trail in '04 a lot more than he liked being a Senator. On that statement, I believe him.

<shrug> He ain't my first choice either, though I think he's charismatic and has a very powerful message and I would support him if he won the nomination.

I fail to see what your litany of complaints about Edwards has anything to do with Wes Clark and his 2% standing in the polls.

I think Democrats are living too much in the past.

And, I answered your question about the 2 percent in the polls: the media, but you want to dismiss that one.

I believe that the majority of Generals never ran for any other office. Generals were just considered natural leaders. Of course, some of them made better Presidents than others; just as some civilians have proven better than others.

John Edwards served briefly in the Senate, and while doing so broke the faith of the people of North Carolina. He campaigned for his first term in the Senate by saying, "I will remember each and everyone of you". That turned out to be a joke.

So why are his three years in the Senate considered better credentials than a NATO Supreme Allied Commander (who happens to be a progessive by the way), and who is known and respected around the world? Apparently John Edwards is popular in Iowa, but it was at the cost of his thumbing his nose at the people in NC who put him in office.

I bring all of this up because you said Clark needed to run for Governor, but you give John Edwards a pass. Maybe Edwards is the one who needs to run for Governor??!!
:shrug:

Edwards was elected to the United States senate. Whether you approved of his job performance or not is another story entirely. Edwards also was nominated by his party to run for Vice President of the United States, in no small part because the voters ran him second to Kerry in the primary process.

Clark has never been elected to any office nor has he been nominated by his party to run for any office.

The point being Clark may do better running for statewide office in Arkansas and then gearing up in 2012 or thereafter. If he runs in 2008, more power to him, it will be fun to watch his campaign and see how he tries to catch fire this time. But history is not on his side.

And most of the generals you have mentioned were NATIONAL HEROES. Washington, Jackson, Tippecanoe, Grant, Eisenhower, etc. So the analogy is flawed.

Guess that won't do us any good. :sarcasm:

America, it's time to start educating yourselves. We are in very troubled times.

at flipping some red states.

But, in all honesty, I'm not hearing that he's not being talked about. Maybe you don't travel in the right circles:

The nation is bogged down in a war. There seems to be no way out. A president's job-approval rating tanks.

Iraq, 2006? Yes. It's also Korea, 1952. And in 1952, a war-weary nation grew tired of its president and turned to a retired general to be the next chief executive - giving him the mission of getting the country out of the conflict.

This presidential cycle, retired Gen. Wesley Clark is showing up in Iowa, hoping to repeat something of the same feat Dwight Eisenhower accomplished when he succeeded Harry Truman in 1952.

While there are parallels, they can't be carried too far. Eisenhower was the political equivalent of a rock star in 1952, the man who organized the successful attack on Nazi Germany. Clark is respected, but he's not achieved the icon status Eisenhower - and many other generals - attained before the country put them in the White House.

SNIP

Also, Democrats may finally be learning that the nation's mainstream voters just aren't going to elect a president near the pacifist end of the political spectrum. Democrats have rarely won the White House unless they nominated candidates who were seen as strong on national-defense questions. That's what they thought they were doing when they nominated John Kerry in 2004.

Democrats looking to take back the White House in 2008 need to consider the lessons Eisenhower and the Republicans taught them in back 1952.

And this was written by David Yepsen, oft-considered one of Iowa's leading political analysts (and isn't a "blogger on the internet," either: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060516/OPINION01/605160355/1035/OPINION

who had won WW II. There is no way one can make a credible comparison between Eisenhower in 1952, who had both parties BEGGING him to be their nominee, and Wesley Clark who is merely a vaguely familiar face to most Americans. The analogy is detached from reality. The two men and their status and standing amongst the American public are not even remotely comparable.

He wrote it - not I.

Why doesn't he run for Governor or Senator? It would be great to have him as the leader of the great state of Arkansas, no?

His talents lie in his foreign policy, international diplomacy and national security issues. What good would that do for Arkansas?

He needs to be on the national stage. If not president, then Secretary of State (not vice president - he won't be anyone's Cheney and he's said so).

and Wes supports him.

I think you're protesting otherwise is just a bit much.

Still smarting from the blowback about your guy spending more on a party than most Democratic candidates have in their entire warchest?

I'm in Cedar Rapids, and Clark is on the radar..

He didn't poll high in this poll because 1) he wasn't campaigning here in 2004 (unlike Edwards and Kerry), 2) He doesn't have nor ever has had the national spotlight (the way Hillary has), 3) He isn't the Governor of Iowa (unlike Vilsack), 4) He isn't campaigning here in Iowa (unlike some others, Edwards included).

Sure, Clark has been around Iowa twice this year, for 4 days total...both times working on fundraising for unions and local candidates. Clark is focused on 2006, and until he actually sets a course for 2008, I don't think 2% is all that bad.

and many folks just "don't Know" much about Wes Clark.

It's not so much a disconnect, as simply a lack of information on this individual based on the lack of media exposure.

DU folks know the issues, and know what Wes Clark has had to say...and so many do support his approach....and the fact that unlike John Edwards, Wes Clark knew better about Iraq PRIOR TO THE FACT....as opposed to 3 years later. That's important.....cause it denotes "Judgement"...something I do not believe John Edwards holds in large quantities.

Because Edwards Co-Sponsored the blank check resolution, voted for it, supported it...and then, when the polls in support of this war turned, apologized for being Misled (meaning that Edwards is not at fault) 3 years later....we should reward him with the Presidency?. Why would that be? :shrug:

Many in Iowa don't even know that John Edwards co-sponsored that IWR, cause no one has bothered to tell them. Many may not be putting two and two together to understand that Edwards' championing the Iraq War in 2002 means that he played a part in the current results; A cost in lost treasures accounted at 1/2 a trillion as of today...which is one of the reason that we need him to now run the "Poverty Center"; to help those who have been kicked off various Government programs now cut due to budget shortfalls. The irony is amazing....but, if I have anything to do with it, Iowans will know more about Edwards than they did the last time...and Iowans will have more choices than they did last time....including being able to choose Wes Clark.

than you give them credit for.

Whenever the subject of why Clark has not caught fire with the electorate surfaces on DU, there are a myriad of excuses offered by the Clarkies: the media, they just don't know him yet, they misunderstand where his rivals stand...

There is no conspiracy to keep Wesley Clark from the American people. He had in 2004 the same media venue that the other candidates had. Howard Dean was lesser known than Wes Clark, but somehow HE managed to catch on fire and inspired the imagination of a huge segment of the Democratic party. Clark did not. For whatever reason - lack of charisma, muddled message, who knows? He may look great on paper, Dick Gephardt may look great on paper, but if you cannot light that flame in the voter's hearts and minds, you are not going to win the nomination.

The salient fact is he has been unable to fire up enough support from grassroots Democrats to even begin to gain critical mass.

His supporters on the internet seem to refuse to see that reality, which is quite clear to the rest of the world. It is a fascinating cultural dynamic.

but he lost me somewhere along the way. That was the media's fault? Clark did NOT run a good campaign in '04. He made mistakes, starting with Iowa. He did OK in some primaries though. Being an Iowan, I just don't see any Clark momentum in my state at all. It baffles me.

About Democrats being smarter. But it just ain't so.

Clark has almost zero name recognition among Democrats. They don't watch the news. They don't know who led the Kosovo war. They can't even find Kosovo on a map. Most probably don't even know it's in Europe.

I will grant you that likely caucus participants in Iowa, which is who was polled, are probably better informed than the public at large. But I'd bet the vast majority of 'em know nothing about Clark, even if they recognize his name.

But you keep on believing what you want to. If/when Clark starts a 2008 campaign, he won't be passing up Iowa this time. The Democrats there will have plenty of time to get to know him. If they like him, and I think they will, the caucus results will show it.

Clark was a strong but distant second.

Wes Clark is 89/1 to win the nomination at politicalbetting.com. A few days ago he was 137/1.

can place a bet and make some real money on someone that could really win, .....the general election, that is!

Again, I don't get the fascination with Edwards who was sooooo wrong in judgement and was so easily "misled" into supporting this war and cosponsoring the blank check given to Bush (I'm talking war vs. peace, 1/2 a trillion, countless lives). When he should have been standing up for what was right and attempting to stop a disaster. But nooooo, he was supporting it and saying....hurry up, and get it done already so that we can get on with the elections of 2002!

Now Edwards gonna get the big reward for totally lacking the leadership skills that a President would require.

I'm just missing something here....and I'm really just not that "slow".

He has some sort of Hillary Cliton fixation

Iowa Dems don't have a good track record picking Dem candidates. They essentially gave us Kerry in 2004. We would have had more fun if Dean had been the nominee. (If Clark had been the nominee, we actually would have won.) Iowa also went for Bush in 2004.

I think Iowa is confused.

I think if they did a poll asking to how many people the name Russ Feingold meant anything, for example, many people would be surprised how low it was.

If you've seen many of my posts, you know that he is far and away my first choice for president. Good to see that other people are thinking the same way.

Isn't this the first notable poll that puts him ahead of HRC? That will grab some media attention!

in the Midwest than we thought. Cripes. Time to seriously rethink the primary-causcus system, if this is what you get.

They knocked off the media declared "front runner" in '04 (Dean) and it looks like they might do the same to Hillary in '08. Apparently they don't do whatever the big donors and corporate media tell them to do. Smart people.

on the ticket in '04. Think where'd we be now if that'd happened. Whew! Yep, we really dodged a bullet there, all righty.

You say they don't do corporate bidding...they take down front-runners.

So...how did that work out in 04? We sure are lucky that one state, a small one, gets to bring down front-runners. I guess we were sure lucky on that one.

Dean would have moved back to the middle, disappointed liberals, made rookie mistakes like he did in Iowa, and lost.

President
1. Edwards
2. Boxer
3. Feingold
4. Clark
5. Kerry
6. Gore
7. Kucinich
8. Warner
9. Ron Wyden
10. Barack Obama
11. Bill Richardson



V.P.
1. Boxer
2. Clark
3. Schweilzer
4. Clinton
5. Ron Wyden
6. Kucinich
7. Kennedy
8. Maxine Waters
9. Barack Obama
10. Bill Richardson

Honestly, I would expect Hillary to have the highest negative ratings. But Clark has the highest number of people who view him as "mostly unfavorable." His combined negative ratings of "mostly" and "highly" unfavorable is 32%, more than any other candidate.

http://cmsimg.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?

Seems pretty simple to me. Iowans take their first in the nation status very seriously. However, in a 2007 primary race they will have a better chance to get to know him. Will they forgive? I don't know, but there are 49 other states if Iowa continues to hold a grudge.

Edwards has been doing great working talking about economic issues for the last few years. His kind of populism appeals in the Southern and Midwestern states that we need to be competitive in again. The fact that he's beating Vilsack is surprising. I thought Vilsack was more popular there.

Just wondering.

Edwards was not born into wealth. He's populist because of the values/issues he stands for and articulates. The fact that he earned his wealth suing corporations that harmed average citizens is populist.

I think a lot of it is contrived. Which is my main problem with Edwards. I think he's totally and completely a politician.

I doubt you're going to change my mind about that.

If you think he has a record in primaries and as senator of turning his back on working and middle class in favor of neoliberalsm and globalization and wall st and defense industries, point to it.

He made his money suing the corporations that harmed working class individuals. Since he left the Senate he has toured with UNITE/HERE and spoken out on poverty issues constantly. He had a good record on trade while in the Senate and opposed CAFTA. I don't know who this post was about, but it doesn't describe John Edwards to the least.

and how bad she would do as the nominee.

in political circles.

The rest is pretty much just tofu.

That "DINO" Edwards, being a DLCer and all would be a fantastic candidate. I imagine his fellow "DINO" Vilsack will probably go up in the polls though as time progresses.

Damn DINOs anyway!

:)

I think John Edwards would make a terrific president in 2008. I think he could make a serious break with the economic policies of the past 25 years as a result of coming into office in the wake of a disaster like the Bush administration. It would give him a warrant to fix a system that is broken and institute some serious pro-working class, pro-middle class economic reforms that he is excellent at articulating. He can connect with people on pocketbook issues and effectively critique contemporary "economic royalists" like FDR did with his rhetoric.

So he is not my first choice, but I will support
any nominee.

Edwards dealt with this QUITE effectively during his Senate race. His work as a trial attorney is a GOOD THING. Try not to drink the rightwing Koolaidl! Here's a short review of the book from Amazon:

An Unconventional Campaign Biography, October 24, 2005
Reviewer: John Orfield (Cincinnati) - See all my reviews

Four Trials is an unconventional campaign biography from 2004 presidential and, later, vice-presidential candidate, North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Edwards reveals his philosophical approach to life and politics through four of the cases he handled as a trial attorney, each at a different stage of his life and career.

For a campaign biography, Four Trials barely discusses nuts and bolts politics at all. Of course, most conservatives are not fond of trial attorneys, but I can't imagine anyone cheering against Edwards' clients in these particular cases. These folks were obviously wronged.

It is clear that Edwards longs to be a champion for the little guy, a by-product of his humble, blue collar upbringing. With his trademark sunny disposition, boundless optimism, and ferocious drive, Edwards was determined to right these horrible wrongs within the confines of the judicial system. It sounds idealistic, but Edwards is idealistic. And his concern for his clients feels genuine.

This isn't entirely a feel good book, however. Edwards candidly reveals several moments of personal doubt where he wondered if he was capable of doing the job or if he was promising his clients more than he could deliver. And, of course, there's the story of the shocking and sudden loss of his oldest son, Wade. Edwards explains how he dealt with the pain of the loss by pouring more energy into his work and into public service. Judging by his father's words, it is apparent that Wade Edwards was someone truly special.

It may have been released as a campaign biography and the 2004 campaign may be long gone, but Four Trials is still emotionally and intellectually compelling. Whatever your personal political leanings may be, Four Trials is just a great read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0743244974/002-3056092-1796856

I was just pointing out what to expect from the repuglicans.
Trial lawyers in general are not all that popular and they
will exploit that, you can bet on that.

But John Edwards is quite capable of overcoming that attack.

My personal preference leans towards Sen. Bayh of Indiana, he is
virtually attack-proof from the right. He will get the most
crossover votes of any dem candidate in the running.

Lincoln was a trial lawyer.

And a Republican.

during JRE's Senate race? From what I remember, his trial victories were for the "little people" which showed what a compassionate person he was. His book "Four Trials" is a tearjerker, and the health corporations HATE THAT :D

Bush has handed a lot of corporations windfall profits protections and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Edwards' trial record flies in the face of those corporations' greedy self-interest.

Iowa is not that big a State, individuals Iowans are getting an awful lot of attention from John Edwards, and they like that. In all fairness to John Edwards, they also seem to like him. But since no one is openly running against him yet the press coverage of his visits all tend to be positive, and Edwards gets to stay on his message when he gives speeches without having to fend off or respond to attacks.

I'm glad Edwards is polling well in Iowa because that helps show Democrats across the nation that Hillary isn't a shoo in. It is pretty obvious to me that Edwards is putting a lot of his personal time into building his campaign for President in 2008. There aren't all of that many Democrats needing his help in getting elected from Iowa in 2006 to explain why Edwards keeps passing through Iowa on average every six weeks.

comments from supporters of another candidate who enjoys fanatical support here at DU, but polls at 2% in Iowa?

Folks, I like Wesley Clark, and considered supporting him in '04 when Edwards' campaign was not getting off the ground. But through the primaries, and especially during the Veepstakes, this level of vitriol against Edwards is inexplicable, and just plain...old.

Yes, he's laying the groundwork for a potential Presidential race - and he's helping candidates raise money in Iowa and numerous other places. Don't blame him because voters are seeing him alot - and liking what they see. Tom, yes, you pointed that out as well, and you are not one of the worst/serial offenders, but the little twist at the end of your comment...your slip is showing.

I almost wish we could get together...what they used to call an "encounter session" to work out these "issues". We ARE on the same team, right?

but I don't think mine was one of them. What we forget about the ugly 2004 campaign season at DU was the wonderful unity of purpose almost everyone on DU showed after the 2008 Democratic Ticket was chosen. Virtually every poster pulled in strongly behind the Kerry/Edwards ticket to bust our butts to get them elected. Passions come with the political territory, and there is no state mandated requirement for a "Poster's License" on DU. Every day I can find numerous snide quotes from supporters of this or that Democrat against this or that other Democrat. It is rarer to find snide remarks being specifically directed against one segment of posters, and your post falls into that special category, and the target is usually always the same, people like me who support Wes Clark. Want to try counting how often "Edwards supporters" get held up for blame about anything? I would be very hard pressed to find two posts like that a month on DU, even though I would have no problem showing you dozens of posts by Edwards supporters that range from belittling Clark, to doubting him, to simply thinking he would be the wrong person for Democrats to run for President for one reason or another. Still, Clark supporters don't make generalized denunciations of Edwards supporters. I can't say that the opposite is true though.

Please don't generalize. Every leading Democrat on DU has at least a few regular posters who plain out just don't like them. Sometimes those posters are self identified free agents, sometimes those posters identify directly with a leading Democrat. For every Clark supporter who routinely points out that Edwards has less foreign policy experience than they think is necessary, there is an Edwards poster who routinely points out that they think General Clark needs to run for some other public office before he runs for President. That is even visible on this thread. It just so happens that John Edwards and Wesley Clark exhibit different obvious strengths, and I don't mean that to say that either man may not or does not have additional strengths that are less obvious. These obvious differences naturally lend themselves to strategic debates about what approach is needed to win a National Election.

Clark was brought up on this thread by someone (not a Clark supporter) who commented in a non derisive way that Clark grudgingly supported the IWR, which led someone else to present a different opinion. Subsequent to that the discussion opened up and positive comments about Edwards were joined by negative and positive comments about Wes Clark as well by negative comments about John Edwards. Such is life on DU GD-P.

I made my post above because it has become one theme on this thread, supported by your post also, to point out how little support Clark currently registers in Iowa. We can call that a thinly veiled attack on Clark or a simple presentation of facts, which ultimately is how almost all of the negative comments about Clark, Edwards, Kerry or you name it, can be described, depending on your personal view point. Since some posters made a point out of emphasizing how low Clark's Iowa polling numbers are on this "Edwards positive thread", I felt it fair to point out that Edwards is spending a hell of a lot of time in Iowa this year, which I think has a lot to do with how well Edwards is polling there.

I also think Edwards is spending much more time in Iowa than in other states because he wants to build his Iowa support for 2008, not because he sees Iowa as the crucial swing state in the 2006 Congressional Elections. If getting Edwards elected in 2008 is important enough for America to prioritize in this way, then his behavior can be defended. But that in fact is my opinion about what Edward's Iowa behavior is about, and I will fully own up to that. I will also admit that it frustrates me some times that Clark isn't spending more time in Iowa than he has (he did make a visit relatively recently). But Clark has clearly decided to spend as much road time as he can campaigning in districts scattered across the country that Democrats need to win in order to take back Congress in 2006. Edwards is fighting for Democrats in 2006 also, but I do think their personal emphasis is slightly different, and the relative amount of time each is spending in Iowa so far this year is part of my evidence in support of my opinion, which ultimately is all it is, my opinion.

So if it seemed I was being subtle of veiled before, there it is. That's my opinion about the relative choices these two men are making. I am proud of what Wes Clark is doing for Democrats across the nation. I will acknowledge that John Edwards is helping the party for 2006 also, and I appreciate that. Please note that I did NOT say a single negative word about John Edwards in either of the posts that I made here.

I have been trying to hold my tongue while reading this thread. Clark supporters ALMOST make me NOT like Clark and that makes me feel bad because I think he is a good person, just not my pick because I happen to like Edwards. People don't have to destroy another Dem to support their own! It sure does turn off some who might consider supporting Clark. Good way not to build more supportfor your candidate. And yes I do run on sentences when I'm wound up. I say, smart people in Iowa!!! So there!

Because I know if I say ANYthing, I'll be labeled a "Clark supporter" out to "destroy another Dem."

It's hard to say ANYthing short of praise for other Democrats without getting that reaction. I certainly do not want anyone to dislike Clark because they dislike his supporters, so it's hard to weigh in at all; on the other hand, it's amazing what a hair-trigger that is. I don't see Clark supporters -- and you know who we are -- starting slanted polls, refusing to offer information with "just Google it," or jumping to conclusions based on long-refuted myths or based on nothing at all.

Like most Clark supporters, I've waxed enthusiastic about many Democrats for doing/saying many things -- Edwards included. Like most Clark supporters, I supported Kerry/Edwards all the way in 2004. But I have to choose carefully when and how to say anything less than enthusiastically positive about some Democrats -- because I know I'm easily dismissed as another "swarming Clarkie."

So I haven't weighed in here with my opinion of Edwards' frequent appearances in Iowa and the ways he's chosing to use his name recognition this year. If it were Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman or Joe Biden or anybody else, no doubt the entire dialogue would be different. And if I weren't a Clark supporter, I suspect nobody would attack my motives.

There. Now we both failed to hold our tongues! :hi:

I can't stand this Dem against Dem flame war that goes on here sometimes. We ARE all on the same team, and our attack energy ought to be reserved for those who deserve it. John Edwards does NOT deserve to be attacked by his own kind, and neither do his supporters. We're all patriots here, regardless of who we personally like the best for '08.

I'm proud of Edwards' poll results, and I hope he takes it as a green light to announce his candidacy.

If the IA caucuses were held today, I would be very surprised. This is meaningless.

have name recognition and have also made trips to Iowa. Its not so meaningless.

polls anyway.

I'd agree that it only has significance for Edwards, Vilsack, Hillary and maybe Clark. The lesser knowns haven't gotten their chance yet.

General Clark didn't campaign in Iowa, as you know.

Edwards' momentum in 2004 was all about the Iowa results.
Vilsack is IN Iowa.
Hillary Clinton is nationally-known as former First Lady.

And General Clark is in that category, as far as name recognition, why??

Despite all the revisionist protestations of the Clark crowd, he did get a lot of press coverage in '04 and is a nationally recognized figure. He got 100 times the media coverage Kucinich had, for example. Most active caucus voters have at least heard of him, and that is evidenced by the fact that he has such a high negative rating in the poll. People who are unknown don't have high negative or positive ratings.

given to Biden, who is a pretty prominent National Democrat, given how often his face is on TV, as is Tom Daschle also, the Democrats former leader in the Senate, who gets the same degree of support as Clark.

What Iowans know is that Clark "snubbed them" in 2004, and Iowa is fiercely protective of being the first presidential political contest in the nation. When candidates like Clark decide, for whatever reason, that they can get away with skipping Iowa and go straight to New Hampshire, that threatens the special role Iowans take such pride in having within the Democratic Party. I think that attitude is reflected in Clark's negatives in Iowa. If Clark runs again, I guarantee Iowans will not feel snubbed again, even though Edwards has already been to Iowa over four times as frequently as Clark has been so far this year.

.. but if he developed campaign momentum, I could easily support his candidacy. At least he seems to stand for something and he can articulate his stand.

Edwards has been hopping to city after city on his own stump for president. He speaks to middle America well and this is why he has done well in Iowa. He also will give Hillary Clinton a run for her money in middle America. His southern roots and his ablity to speak with conviction will win over many. He will need to strengthen his voice, organize a solid campaign team, and polish his message and will be ready for prime time.

You said it. :eyes:

Or is it just me?

His schedule is clearly public on http://oneamericacommittee.com/ and you see who and where. What's admirable, he's also stumping for local and state campaigns. Not hardly front page national news.

Edit: corrected link

From reading this thread it appears that Dems will once again be split apart.

And, once again, Dems bashing Dems will just feed ammunition to the opposition.

comment?

Edwards and this poll ain't talking about anyone running in 2006...which is the election coming up that should bear the focus. I fault the DeMoines Register for even coming up with this "Poll" 5 months prior to the "real" elections that count.

The Presidential election is 2 years away. How long do we wait before we can express ourselves on a blog? Please let me know.

Is that too much to ask?

But if infighting to you means reminding those who find Edwards "perfect" for the Presidency, that he co-sponsored the IWR and voted for it, and then took 3 years to admit his mistake, then so be it.

That he supported a war that cost 1/2 trillion, and at the same time is using the platform of championing Poverty......for me conjures up an Irony that I see clearly and will describe whenever I see a poll putting him on top.

Too many don't know about Edwards real words during the build up to war (cause they were just praying that we wouldn't have no damn war)...and some, I dare say, don't want to admit this about Edwards and they therefore choose to ignore the whole incident as though it never really happened and use his "apology" as though it reverses all of the damage done.

Well you know what? We are still fighting that War. People are still dying, and because John Edwards felt that this war would bring "Stability" to the Middle East and keep our most trusted ally, Israel, "safe", I will say that he was wrong. he wasn't so much misled......he believed that the war was justified and that it would be a quick war....and he was gonna be running for Prez, and didn't want to be on the wrong side of the issue. It was wrong of him, and I don't mind saying so.

I forgive John Edwards, but am sure in the hell ain't gonna forget how he failed to stand up for what was right when he had the opportunity....and instead allowed himself to be conveniently misled for 3 years...till the polls turned...and now folks want to reward him and his bad judgement with the presidency?

So if speaking out based on a poll posted here means "infighting" to you, so be it.

energy for the Repubs, not fellow Dems.

I'm not getting into this crap any further.

I have plenty of energy....don't you worry bout that!

If you think this is infighting, you must not have been here that long? In fact, based on the fact that your profile is disabled, I'll just ask you. How long have you been posting at DU?

He, Mark Warner and Al Gore are my favorites. Evan Bayh, and Hillary are just below them

Welcome to DU republicancowards :hi:

As early as tomorrow, Senator Kerry's Resolution 36, an amendment to bring home our troops by the end of 2006 may be introduced. Please take a little time, and contact your senators and any other Senators willing to listen. It is time for our Democrats to take a stand on the issue of the Iraq war. We either stand for something or we stand for nothing. It is so important that you make your opinion known to our Senators. Please help bring our troops home!!!


http://www.johnkerry.com/action/call/senate/?sc=hp

I like where Edwards is right now. I'm just not sure if a one term senator has the necessary gravitas. Paired up with Clark would be great.

to me, after seeing the respect and affection Iowans had for him in 2004.

They evidently haven't forgotten him.

All is hardly lost for any other candidate who may eventually run in the caucuses, but Edwards' showing here is an early suggestion of his viability as a national candidate at the top of the ticket.

There is an earnestness to him that has enormous appeal for voters who have grown weary and wary of any syllable that comes out of George Bush's mouth.

I believe they sense Edwards to be not the un-Hillary, but the un-Bush.

John Edwards may be someone's first choice or not for our nomination, but his appeal is inarguable. People like him. They like Elizabeth. It doesn't hurt in American politics to be thought well of.

with Indies and Repubs. Looking at the Big Picture, of course :D

the rats.

Yes. Edwards has strong corssover appeal.

Our nominee is going to be Al, John, or John.

Nice to see you again on DU -- hope things are hoppin' down there in the Old Dominion on this election day.

~Re: Nice to see you again on DU -- hope things are hoppin' down there in the Old Dominion on this election day.~

Just came screaming into Virginia ahead of Alberto from FT Lauderdale....missed the vote, but just found out Webb's our guy to take on George "sweet nectar of liberty" Allen. !

Should be a fun campaign season in the Old Dominion :hi:

made it ahead of the storm.

Yep. It looks like Webb's the one to take on Allen. We will send you lots of good vibes down that way. Allen is not my favorite senator. If somehow Webb could defeat him in this senate match, that would really put the hurt on Allen's White House plans.

O yes let it happen!

If there is one thing I learned from following the Dean campaign, is that these polls mean nothing. Dean went from 2% to first place and back down to third place. It is interesting to see that Edwards still commands so much support in Iowa though. Shows Clinton that there are other candidates that already have an entrenched base of support.