A Left Turn FOR CLARK

Some very interesting little data nuggets regarding Wes Clark are available for unearthing in a very recent Rasmussen Poll titled: 2008 Democratic Candidate Updates. Very interesting, starting with the fact that Wes Clark was included as one of the 9 candidates listed in this poll, although even Al Gore wasn't.

The emphasis for this poll was on comparative favorable vs unfavorable numbers for all represented candidates, including a break down of same by ideological inclinations. Also included are records of some potential head to head match ups between Democrats and Republicans. Wes Clark is only included once in the latter, with him losing a hypothetical match up with John McCain, but that polling dates all the way back to December 17th, 2006.

Here are some highlights, from a Clark supporter perspective of course. Wes Clark has the lowest unfavorable rating of any Democrat listed. Second to John Edwards, Clark also has the best favorable to unfavorable numbers ratio comparison of the 9 Democrats listed (Gore was not included). Clark also has the second highest favorable numbers among Liberals, with 52% of Liberals holding a favorable opinion of him, while Hillary scores highest in that group at 55%. No other Democrat scores above 50% with that group, Obama comes in third at 46% (figures for this measurement were not provided for Kucinich and Gravel).

But what makes the above figures even more interesting, is that Clark also tops the 9 Democrats listed for favorable opinions held of them by Conservatives, with 12% of them so inclined toward Clark. Edwards and Richardson follow at 11% in that barometer of support. Hillary Clinton, despite being viewed by most activist Democrats as the most centrist of the current leading candidates, lags at 9% approval among Conservatives.

To summarize then, Wes Clark has the lowest unfavorables and the second best ratio of favorables to unfavorables, when compared to all of our current candidates. He is very highly regarded by the Democratic Party's Liberal Base, but is also the most acceptable (of all the Democratic candidates listed) to Conservative voters. So why is it again that this man is not being seriously courted by influential Democrats who would like our Party to regain the White House with him as our Presidential candidate in 2008?

Here is the link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

General, being the astute observer of political and social phenomena that I know you to be, I am sure that you have noticed how a number of us are still attempting to encourage you to run for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. And being the slightly less astute but still observant followers of all things political that we are, we in turn have noticed that you have not ruled out running for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. We have been at this stalemate now for quite a while.

The neocons have selected the designated next enemy of the United States, and they are hard at work convincing Americans to fear Iran. The public comments we just heard Joe Lieberman utter about the need to bomb Iran are just the tip of the iceberg. They position populist right wing pitch man Glen Beck on the air nightly at CNN Headline News, ranting about Iran. They pepper Jewish media with polemics about Iran, playing up fears for Israel’s security where few non Jews will notice their efforts. They have multiple front groups widely distribute email warnings about the urgent need to stand up to Iran, playing on every fear of radical Muslims imaginable, playing “the Christian card” without hesitation, while they label Iran our arch enemy at the center of a “clash of civilizations”. Republican candidates for President like nothing better than an opportunity to turn their tough act toward Tehran, where they leap frog each other to the heights of belligerency in the name of protecting America, providing cover while they safely back peddle on Iraq.

Just like they morphed Osama Bin Ladin into Saddam Hussein in 2002, neocons morph Al Qaeda into Iran today, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the new Saddam Hussein who we must be trained to fear. And it is working. They are making significant steady progress in alarming the general public about Iran. They act like slippery weasels and say "True, Iraq was never a grave threat, but Iran actually was, and now the Iranian threat is getting greater all the time. It doesn't matter if you think attacking Iraq was a mistake, because Iran is the real deal, and now we finally must face up to something we should have dealt with a long time ago"

Don’t count me among them. What I am looking for in a candidate now I simply am not finding. Of those who actually might have or could still run in 2008, I think Al Gore, Wes Clark, Russ Feingold, or John Kerry would be more to my liking than those who are now running. And that is just sticking to those who at one point or another expressed any possibility of running in 2008; it’s not a fantasy list. There’s not a Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, or George Mitchell among them. OK, I will grant you that John Kerry was unlikely to be embraced again by our Party as our standard bearer so quickly on the heels of his failure to secure the White House in 2004, but there are many in our party who do still yearn for his experience and leadership. And while I disagreed with him about the importance of learning from our mistakes on how we got into Iraq, Mark Warner was a formidable potential leader too. On a "good day" I might include Warner also in the field that should have run instead of the one we now have. So why am I not impressed with those now being offered to us?

Subtitle: When Pushers Sell You a First Hit Cheap – Worst Case Scenario.

The Neocons are mobilizing again, this time pushing hard for an American strike on Iran. Few any longer doubt their remarkably tenacious resolve to seek further war, but many seem to doubt that they can sell that program once again, given the deteriorating state of their currently sponsored debacle in Iraq. I was blogging recently on another site where someone threw out the question, “Where would they find the money to pay for another war?” which led me on a journey that brought me to this Blog. And let me be upfront about it; I decided to throw moderation to the wind with this one. This time my worst fears are given free reign.

Before giving my bleak answer to the question posed above, prior to detailing the admittedly nightmare scenario it derives from, let me first tell you where I’m coming from. I think neocon true believers view the world as a giant version of the board game RISK. In that game one empire triumphs, while all else lose. They believe a war larger than the one we momentarily are confined to, one fought to secure strategic Middle Eastern oil reserves which America “needs” for our future, is inevitable. And by triggering that war sooner rather than later, the cost to win it, by their accounting, will be lower than the tab putting it off would add up to. But the American public is reluctant; we have seen too much war already, and few are willing to now pay the price that an expanded war entails. So what is a good Neocon to do? How about the following: