Of coure he is. But notice how the leftist media is trying a “bait and switch” where they say “Dean is too radical, lets have Clark instead” when both Dean and Clark stand outrageously against the liberation of Iraq. It is as if the media doesn’t clearly understand that 99% of Dean’s unsuitably for office is his stand on Iraq.

Because none of the Dem candidates, including Lieberman, have been forceful enough in defending the liberation of Iraq, that no Dem candidate has a chance in 2004. Lieberman should have already announced that he and his followers would NEVER vote for an anti-war candidate in a general election.

Posted by: Jim Peterson at January 18, 2004 04:58 PM

Jim,

You’re an idiot, that is their appeal. If not please explain Dean’s ability to raise 40 million so far on basically that topic. The dems can win. How? Democrats have been farther behind in national polls before and have came back to win it all. Please dont think history cannot repeat itself.

The dems are not going to elect bush-lite. While YOU!!! think that Iraq is their demise, the dems think that Iraq is their strength. Surely you cannot be comfortable with the current situation there.

Posted by: what2 at January 18, 2004 09:21 PM

Jim,
Perhaps you should check out Intel Dump for an actual discusion of Clarks being ‘relieved’ command.

http://philcarter.blogspot.com/
-the jan 15th post..

As for the ‘leftist media’…WTF are you talking about?

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at January 19, 2004 05:17 AM

“As for the ‘leftist media’…WTF are you talking about?”

NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR for starters.

You libs can’t face reality.

Posted by: jones at January 19, 2004 06:42 AM

More on Clark:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013551.php

No he was not relieved, he retired first.

So he “quit” before he got “fired.” Stop the presses.

Posted by: jones at January 19, 2004 06:49 AM

“But notice how the leftist media is trying a “bait and switch” where they say “Dean is too radical, lets have Clark instead”“

I don’t see any nefarious intent.

Rather than look solely at Clark, focus on Edwards and Kerry as well. The third or so of pissed off Dems were early for Dean, but no event explains the completely unexpected surges by Edwards, Kerry, and Clark (in NH). I can’t remember so many candidates returning from the dead at the same time, so this is suggestive to me. I think the more deliberative democrats were never going to back Dean, but were waiting for someone else to impress them. I don’t think anyone really has, so their support has split to the other candidates.

Clark has simply picked up a share of that support, at least in NH where he is running. Dean suffered more scrutiny by becoming the frontrunner, but Clark will receive his share as his numbers increase. Eventually his numbers will drop for many of the reasons Steyn states. His drop will be even more precipitous than Dean’s since he isn’t going to have the core anti-war support.

I think the nominee will be either Kerry or Edwards. The undecided voter was not representative of the Democratic electorate, but essentially was non-Dean waiting for an alternative. This suggests they’re a lower risk crowd. Clark isn’t going to meet that description as more people become familiar with him. He’s an eggshell candidate.

So, Dean stays roughly where he is. Clark rises then dies. Kerry and Edwards fight for the soccer mom vote. In the end, either of these last two will be preferable than the alternative (Dean) to each other’s voters, as has already been expressed. So whichever one wins between them eventually gets the other’s supporters.

Kerry has the resume, and Edwards has the personality (both comparatively, of course). I’d like to say Edwards since I think Kerry’s a weathervane. But I think the “electability” factor is going to weigh heavily as the general election nears, and that will be a big Kerry plus.

I’m looking forward to watching the results.

Posted by: mj at January 19, 2004 09:17 AM