Dean,

Very interesting article - though you do downplay the signifigance of it being a national poll a bit too much; its State by State that we choose a nominee, and right now Dean's in the cat-bird seat in both IA and NH...that said, it does point out the vulnerabilities of Dean and the prospects of Clark.

What is really interesting, and disturbing, however is that in the poll Democrats and Democrat-leaners have as favorable an opinion of Dean as they do of Clark. Presumptively, there is not much cross-over (I can't really see too many people having a genuinely positive view of both men), so we can see a growing rift in the Democratic Party - this is disturbing in the larger sense because a healthy American polity requires to strong major parties, but its also disturbing in the more narrow sense that it shows that a significant portion of the Democratic Party is rather thick-skulled when it comes to Dr Dean; nothing, it appears, will shake the Deaniacs from their Messiah...and if Dean doesn't get the Democratic nod? Then these Deaniacs will not just sit on their asses...they'll back a strong Third Party challenger.

Getting down to brass tacks, it does seem that Clark has firmly emerged as the Anti-Dean - and this shows yet again the weakness of the Democratic Party; essentially, they have to pull in a GOP re-tread in order to have someone genuinely in contrast to Dean. Lieberman should have been the Anti-Dean, but his Jewish faith has disqualified him...and this is an even more disturbing thing about the Democratic Party.

Can Clark pull it off? No. Not enough time, not enough money, not enough fervent support.

Dean losing the nomination: I won't believe it until I see it. I would certainly let out a huge sigh of relief if it was Clark in his place, I can tell you that much. Although I've been secretly longing to see Dean meeting with some big important foreign leader with his sleeves all rolled up.

Howard Dean meets a foreign leader, then the first thing he'd have to do after the meeting is wipe off his chin....

Ironically, with his sleeve.

I never thought I would say it: Dean, you have your head firmly shoved up your bum.

No, the "bad things" said about Clark don't parallel what's been said about Bush. Clark, for example, has never held an elective office in his life. Or have you forgotten that?

Clark is, politically speaking, a fucking idiot. Less than two years ago he was licking the arsehole of the GOP, and now, suddenly, he's the "sane, moderate, centrist" part of the Democratic party? I don't think so...

That's it. I have to conclude that you have just started to spout about possibly controversial topics just to feed your hit rate.

As a Democratic moderate: Lieberman, yes. Gephardt, maybe. Clark? Never.

Or are you trolling for Clark in order to undermine a solid Democratic candiate?

I would note a couple of other things about the poll:

George Bush has a 65 percent favorable rating, still light years beyond any of the main democratic challengers.

The split in the Dems appears to be between men and women. Clark is gaining among men, but women are staying with Dean.

There are still 15 percent of the people who don't have a preference. That's a sizable number to influence.

Finally, the margin of error on the democratic subsample is plus or minus 5 percent, a pretty wide margin to be making pronouncements on. It could be 29 percent to 15 percent or 19 percent to 25 percent.

Clark is merely the current beneficiary of the "anyone but Dean" push. He's a terrible candidate. As more people see him rather than hear his resume from supporters he'll fall.

Dean- I think it's OK to hate Dean and remain a democrat. Don't abandon your party just yet. Until 2008 they afford to send out loose cannons. I'm personally pleased that they are.

It's Joe Leiberman that worries me - but he seems to have been snubbed by his party once again.

All day I listen to right wing views (home and on the radio), and I come here to get fresh opinions.
Thanks Dean!

Casey:

Or are you trolling for Clark in order to undermine a solid Democratic candiate?

Dean isn't trolling at all. Lieberman has no shot. Gephardt has a small chance to overtake Dean but is unlikely. Both Dean and Gephardt have pledged to get rid of the tax cut, so IMO they both suck.

Clark, for example, has never held an elective office in his life. Or have you forgotten that?

I'm sure nobody has forgotten that, in any case, it isn't relevant. The Constitution doesn't require candidates to have been previously elected. Have you forgotten that?

My Dean doesn't like the other Dean. In his opinion the devil who won't raise taxes is better than the one that will.

Polling suggests that Clark is the only one with a real shot.

The WaPo, Comrade Bill Schneifer, and other bloggers have noted the "plurality" factor.

With such split field, Dean can winthe nomination with 30% to 40% of the vote. Yes, with about "one-third plus" of the fabled "activist" Democratic primary voters.

Schneider, Bill Schnieder at CNN

I read a while back at One Hand Clapping that Clark's experience as a commander has revealed the military's...how do I put this mildly...distaste, for Wesley Clark. Seems like any military man who's ever had dealings with him can't stand the guy. From the same source I read that there appears to be two types of generals, the career general, and the purely military general. Clark seems to be the former.

From the moment I saw him on CNN where he predicted heavy casualties last March in the Iraqi war, I knew I had found living proof that ass-monkeys do indeed exist.

Aw, bullshit. You can say bad things about anyone. Clark's positions, for the most part, are moderate and defensible.

Sure, he's never held elective office. So what? We have elected something like five Generals to the White House, and their record is no more mixed than any other type of politician. Grant sucked, Eisenhower was both subtle and effective, Washington was amazingly great, Jackson was incredibly influential, Taylor was rather undistinguished, and so on.

In fact, many of the criticisms you're leveling at Clark, Casey, are things you could just as well have said about Eisenhower. The bottom line is that he's not an ideologue. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Never mind whether generals are good. He just seems kinda dumb, you know? And of course his positions are defensible. They were selected by a panel of experts:)

I don't care what reasons there may be for a surge in popularity for Clark. It will be worth it just to watch the moonbats start ripping each other to bits in the Dean forums. Better than reality tv.

Getting my popcorn, now. (And my other ISP, since they banned me once already....)

bryan:

George Bush has a 65 percent favorable rating, still light years beyond any of the main democratic challengers.

You ought to read a little further on the topic; dig below the surface of the current polling as Ruy Teixeira did re: the last Time/CNN poll. Here's what you'll find:

51 percent said they were very or somewhat likely to vote for Bush's re-election, compared to 46 percent who said they were very or somewhat unlikely to vote for him, with very unlikely (38 percent) being 5 points higher than very likely (33 percent).

And, significantly, among independents, where Bush had been picking up some ground since the capture, those saying they are unlikely to vote for Bush's re-election (52 percent) now outnumber those who say they are likely to vote for him (46 percent).

The former figure includes an astonishing 42 percent of independents who say they are very unlikely to support Bush's re-election, far higher than the 26 percent of independents who say their support is very likely.

Why is Teixeira's statement so much better? It reflects one poll that he doesn't even provide a link to. How can I comment on his statements? It doesn't mention numbers, margins of error or anything else.

Sounds like spin to me.

According to this poll, Bush leads Dean 59-37, 47% say they are definitely going to vote for Bush while 20% say they will definitely vote for Dean. (questions 12 & 13)

Hei Lun Chan:

When I clicked the link I got an ad entitled, "Dunk the Punk." If I were Howard Dean, I'd be pissed.

How is his tax plan defensible? It is income redistribution pure and simple.
It is not healthly for our economy to be financed by the rich. I don't like paying income tax but I think everyone should. Should the rich pay more? Maybe a bit more but at some point this is going to have negative effects. I get very unconfortable when you ask people to pay more than say 25-30% of their income in tax.
The idea that he is going to lift any children out of poverty is total hogwash.

Rose: Ok, Dean ism't trolling. :) So, does the fact that Lieberman (or Gephardt) has a poor chance make Clark good? Or just possible? I fail to see the connection.

His lack of qualifications are quite relevant. Yes, it isn't required to have previously held office, but the record shows that the Presidents with little political experience generally do poorly.

Dean, you're trying to blow some smoke here. All but one of those other generals you mentioned had significant political experience before gaining the White House. Washingtong was the de facto leader of the United States during the Revolutionary War, with a similar experience for Eisenhower. He spent three years building, then leading one of the most fractious alliances in history. If you want to see how not to do it, check out the First World War. So Ike had practice.

As for Jackson, he also had experience. Taylor was the first man without political experience in the White House, but since he died less than 18 months after being sworn in, I'm not sure you can use him as a very good example of a "good" (e.g. qualified) president.

Which leaves Taylor and Grantas the only "Generals without experience" that you can cite, and Taylor nearly doesn't count due to his short time in office. So that leaves pretty terrible example, Grant.

Even if you add Ike (who, again, had spent several years leading SHEAEF) that still gives only 50/50, decent/terrible. Not good.

When you fold in the generals who did have previous experience, the conclusion is obvious: previous political experience is a good predictor for success in the White House.

I have to say your defense that "You can say bad things about everyone" is self-evident, and begs the question.

The problem with Clark is: that besides even less experience than Eisenhower, he has left a trail of very unhappy servicemen behind him, which is telling for a general, and he's completely and obviously flip-flopped on major issues worse than anyone else in the campaign save Kuscinich's position on abortion.

Go out and ask Blackfive, Citizen Smash, Chief Wiggles, Sgt. Hook, Sgt. Stryker, Goldilocks, or anyone on the Milblog circuit. They all despise him. Tim the Soldier is the only real soldier I'm aware of that has a good opinion of the man.

This should tell you something.

Add to that his obvious flip-flops; I repeat, do your remember it wasn't that long ago he was singing the praises of the same adminstration that he's now bitching about?

Be honest, he's a two-faced opportunist. He's even said that he would have become a Republican if Rove had answered his calls!

Or are you going to say that anyone can say that about Eisenhower, too? Because it just ain't true.

Clark ordered one of his generals to retake an airfild occupied by Russian toops during the War in Kosovo. This was an almost unimaginable real-life leadership failure. When you combine this with the crazy accusations he's been making recently, he has even less of a chance than Dean in the general election. At least Dean's got a constituency. Right now the only thing non-activists think they know about Clark is that he's the "moderate", and the Clinton are for him. If Clark continues the momentum Dean's going to chew him up with this.

None of the Dems has a chance unless there's a major setback in the war or to the economy. Bush is over 60% approval with the twelve angry dwarves in the news bitching about him constantly. He's not even responding. The Dems who have a prayer of winning the nomination are eggs waiting to be cracked.