Clark Leads in early Alabama poll; Gep in second.

[Julien Sorel]

An Alabama poll released Sunday shows retired Gen. Wesley Clark ahead in the 10-candidate field for the Democratic presidential nomination, but with only 13 percent support.

The Mobile Register-University of South Alabama poll of 405 likely primary voters had U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri at 11 percent, and U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York at 9 percent each.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean had only 5 percent; and U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina came in with 4 percent.

...

The results confirm findings of surveys elsewhere that show little consensus building around a single candidate. Eight months before Alabama's June 1 presidential primary, the showings of all 10 Democrats were dwarfed by the 38 percent of poll respondents who registered no preference.

Political science professor Natalie Davis of Birmingham-Southern College found Clark's performance a sign that he could potentially perform well here as the Democratic standard-bearer against Republican President Bush. The last Democratic presidential nominee to carry Alabama in a general election was Jimmy Carter of Georgia in 1976.

Link

By June 1, when the the 'Bama primary will be held, the race is likely to be wrapped up; the Dem convention is being held at the end of July. Dean's 5% showing is indicative of what a tough sell he's going to be in the South; I'm a little surprised at Edwards' weak showing, though, and I would have thought Lieberman would do better as well.

[Fight_n_back]

1. Billy

are you aware of Clark's full bio?

[Julien Sorel]

2. Well, let's see.

I've read both his books, and every single article he's written that I've been able to find. Watched every single media appearance I could find online, as I don't watch TV. So while I'm sure there are a few things about him I don't know, I think it's fair to say I'm familiar with his bio.

[Rowdyboy]

3. I haven't read either of his books...

but I really want to, Do I need to read them in order. Would it make a difference if I read his 2nd book first? Just curious...













s

[Dookus]

5. I just got his new book....

about to start it. I haven't read his first yet. I'm sure it's pretty self-contained.

[Julien Sorel]

7. The second one is better overall I think,

but the first one gives you a better view of the person himself, as I suspect he wrote it before his political ambitions crystalized, and it was certainly written before 9/11, so you get a 'purer' glimpse into what Clark believes than I think you get in the second book. But the second one is a little more polished.

Since the second one builds on the first, I'd say read them in order. You can also get the first one pretty cheap in soft cover; whereas 'Winning' is currently hardcover only, and may not even be in wide release yet, so you can buy and read the first one, then wait for the softcover version of the second book.

Clark has a solid writing style, so he's fairly readable, but I like these kinds of books to begin with, so my own judgment is a little bit biased. ;-)

[TLM]

4. And you're Ok with stff like...

CLark being a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger... and Clark supporting the killing of journalists and civilians?



Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

[Dookus]

6. well...

when you figure out a way to win a war without hurting people, let us all know.

Clark fought the administration during this war because he wanted DECREASE civilian injuries and deaths. He was overruled. He still managed to end a genocide, remove a dictator and bring relative stability to the area WITHOUT LOSING A SINGLE US LIFE!

I think the person in charge of the largest military power ever assembled in the history of humankind is well-served by having some experience with it.

[Pastiche423]

8. Only U.S. lives are important?

[Dookus]

13. I never said any such thing.

Why would you think that I did?

[Pastiche423]

15. Maybe because you capitalized it?

"He still managed to end a genocide, remove a dictator and bring relative stability to the area WITHOUT LOSING A SINGLE US LIFE!"

For what other reason did you emphasize "US LIFE!"?

[Dookus]

16. If you're asking me...

would I have preferred for Americans to die in that war, I'll have to answer no. I'm glad no US servicepeople died.

That in no way implies, however, that I think US lives are the only ones that count. I supported that war because I was opposed to the genocide.

It would be unfair of me to accuse you of supporting genocide, but it would be the same leap of logic you made.

[Pastiche423]

18. So, why DID you capitalize it?

[Dookus]

19. because...

it's an important fact.

I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.

[Pastiche423]

20. The point I was trying to make

was the point I called you on and the one you're trying to backpaddle from.

Forgive me if I don't believe it's any kind of fucking victory when THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LIVES WERE TAKEN TO PREVENT GENOCIDE (?????) ,yet not one U.S. life was taken.

Killing innocent people to prevent them from genocide DOES NOT COMPUTE IN MY WORLD.

I am not a nationalist, nor do I believe the lives of USians are more important than any other life, in any other country in the world!

[Dookus]

21. Then we agree!

I have never said American lives are more important than others. You seem to think I did, but I did not.

As for the war itself - yes, it is better for a few thousand people to die than for a few hundred thousand people to die. Hence fighting a war to stop a genocide. I happen to think that's a good reason to go to war. You can disagree... but this area of our disagreement has no bearing on Clark at all.

Remember that Wesley Clark did not decide this war. It was the US and NATO (with a lot of support from the UN) that decided it. Wesley Clark simply executed it. Brilliantly.

You still haven't shown any evidence that Clark is any more likely to engage in warfare than most of the other Dem candidates. From what I've read and heard from him, I feel he is LESS inclined to than most of the candidates. He speaks often and eloquently about using diplomacy to solve problems, relying on our allegiances and international friendships, and using our economic and cultural power to institute change rather than using our military power.

Now, for the record. I don't for a second think you'll ever even consider this information, much less change your mind. You have, for months, haunted every Clark thread and posted one-sided propaganda. I respond so that others reading can see whose side the facts are on.

[CoffeePlease1947]

9. And your ok with a mass murder and rapist?

Stop with the flame bait. He was targeting radio stations because they were broadcasting information to the enemy. Nobody was even in the buildings, and if they were, they were warned.

Mike

[TLM]

22. You didn't even read it did you... just barfed up the meme...

" It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians. "



"Nobody was even in the buildings, and if they were, they were warned. "


This was far from the only incidence of Clark ordering attacks on civilian centers... tell me were the civilians in the nis market also broadcasting information to the enemy?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.



Were the hospitals, schools, water treatment plants that Clark showered with depleted uranium all also part of the enemy information network?

http://www.examiner.com/opinion/default.jsp?story=OPhallinan0706w

America's war criminals
By Conn Hallinan
Special To The Examiner

The Geneva Convention prohibits bombing that is not clearly justified by military necessity, and the protocols specifically bar targets that have a civilian function. But NATO aircraft bombed railway stations, bridges, power stations, communication networks, factories, petrochemical refineries, warehouses, sewage and water-treatment plants, hospitals and schools, killing almost 2,000 civilians in the 78-day bombing campaign. In the words of Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Study, "The NATO bombing violated specific rules of war. Our government has committed war crimes by bombing civilian infrastructures."

[Rowdyboy]

10. Absolutely okay with this!

Most Clark supporters really aren't looking for a saint. There exists a strong desire to repay the bastards that stole our country in December 2000.

[Pastiche423]

14. Most anti-clark supporters

aren't looking for a warmonger.

[Dookus]

17. and yet...

there's no evidence he's a war-monger. No matter many times you say it.

The chicken-hawks in power right now are the war-mongers. Read what Clark has to say on the subject of war and PNAC and internationalism - he's NOT a warmonger by any means.

[TLM]

23. I just posted proof of the fact he is a war monger...

he's ok with bombing civilians and journalists...and was working for Henry Kissinger as a lobbyist.

Funny that one accused war criminal would end up working for another accused war criminal... trying to sell influence in DC in the same sick war profiteering way as Halliburton and Cheney.




Also a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Fax [phone] ]
2000 CSIS budget, $16 million,
CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.

[Dookus]

26. Sorry...

but that's not proof. It's a propagandist appeal to emotion. You have no evidence he's "ok with bombing civilians". We can't even begin to address the question without having a lot more information, like:

What was the military target? Why was it being targeted? Were people warned? Did we know how many civilians were there? At what level were such decisions made? What were the alternatives? How important were the targets? And a lot, lot more.

If your argument is simply that people die during wars, I won't disagree. But you can't fairly draw any conclusions about Wesley Clark from that simple fact.

[Julien Sorel]

11. No, I'm not OK with Deanhonest propaganda.

Nor with those who continue to disseminate it no matter how many times they're called on it.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Sorry,I may not fully understand

the question

[TLM]

24. You do this over and over again... billy

you claim something is dishonest propaganda or a slur etc... yet that's all you do.

Are you saying that Clark was not working as a lobbyist for Henry Kissigner?

Are you saying that he did not defend the act of killing journalists and civilians?


Are you saying he did not bomb so many civilan targets that he was accused of war crimes and criticized by the UN human rights commissioner?

[Julien Sorel]

27. I'm saying that your pathetic and repeated

failure to do anything but post the same garbage endlessly demonstrates some kind of problem on your part. 'I do this every time?' You have done nothing but seize on the latest Clark slime job for weeks on end. You make disgustingly dishonest posts in which you put words into the mouths of people here, and when you are called on it, you slink away from the thread, only to pop up someplace else and post the latest slime job all over again. Seriously, look at your life and figure out of you can find a better use for your time. Because what you're doing with it now is a little bit creepy.

[HFishbine]

31. You just proved the point

Evade the facts and avoid the issues.

[Fight_n_back]

33. Aren't you worried

he'll be a little "too close" to Israel?

You know, like Lieberman?

[Julien Sorel]

25. Amazing.

A poll is posted with some useful information on the election, and the thread immediately devolves into mudslinging, as the exact same set of paranoid conspiracy theorists pop up and start re-posting the same links and arguments they do on every thread, no matter how many times the garbage has been refuted. It should be obvious to everyone by now that they don't care about the truth or accuracy of their charges, but rather, they post to annoy, and obstruct legitimate discussion. Yet nothing is done.

In the meantime, not one person has made a single post that deals with the actual poll, or the primary itself, despite the fact that the poll contains some useful information for those who actually care about the election. This is after two hours and 20-odd posts. Those new rules, which I voted for, but which I knew at the time did not address the underlying problems here, are really working wonders for the quality of discussion.

[Kahuna]

28. TLM's act has worn very thin. He...

just doesn't know it yet.

[bicentennial_baby]

29. Oh I know

I posted 3 separate Pro-Clark threads in the last week, and every single one devolved into a flame fest in under 5 posts, very few of them actually talking about anything related to the article I posted. I feel your pain :P

[HFishbine]

30. The Nominee will be decided

well before the Alabamy primary.

[Julien Sorel]

32. I suppose congratulations are in order.

You are, after all, the only person who made a post in any way related to the actual thread topic, even if all you did was repeat, almost word-for-word, something I said in the original post.