Imus Said this Morning That Edwards, Obama, & Clinton Are The Only Ones Who Have A Chance

[Dinger]

I sent a little e-mail asking him about Clark, and 5 or 6 brief reasons why I support him. If you haven't made up your mind on who you are voting for, or if you support someone else, drop him a line. It can't hurt.


[e-mail]


P.s. Did anyone see Kerry on Imus this morning? I did, and he was great!

:patriot:

[mzmolly]

1. I think he's talking about those who've announced?

:hi:

[SteppingRazor]

2. Well, at this point, Imus is right.

I mean, say what you want about Clark, the dude hasn't even announced yet, and he's been completely out of the press, except for brief mentions after the DNC winter meeting.

I listened to that Imus bit, and I think he was saying that as things stand now, they're the only ones who have a chance (i.e. if the ellection were held today). And, clearly, that is the case. Every other potential Dem. candidate polls in the single digits, other than these three.

[redqueen]

3. Well if he said it, then it must be true!

FALL IN LINE, DEMS!

:rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

4. He's a crank that people should ignore. nt

[blm]

5. That will change when Clark takes the jump. It's up to him, at this point.

.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. I wonder what Las vegas says about this

There's money to be made in the "won't announce this year" category.
If the rumors from last cycle about him working for the Clintons as a stalking horse are true, he'll announce when Obama has a sizable lead and a big head of steam.

[blm]

12. It would be hard for me to believe that after watching Clark work so hard these last few years.

He certainly strikes me as a stand up guy. If anything, I can see the Clintons ATTEMPTING to use him, but can't see him allowing it to continue.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Las Vegas always goes with the conventional wisdom.....

didn't you know?

So according to the legends, who was Clinton's real horse in the race before Clark was inserted in there?

and if he was a "stalking" horse, a little bit more media and help from the Clinton would have been greatly appreciated. :eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Capn, you should know better

Even in jest you should know better than to dick up that moldy chestnut again. So here's a question for you. Who do you figure Clark feels the deepest loyalty to, the men and women who make up our volunteer Armed Forces that Wes Clark dedicated 34 years of his life to, or the wife of the guy who was in the White House when Clark was N.A.T.O. Commander?

I ask because if there it looks like Clark and Clinton are moving in opposite directions on a key issue; Iran.

No doubt Wes Clark gives Hillary Clinton all due respect but Clark has some some very strong feelings about how to keep us out of a war with Iran that Hillary seems to differ with

Someone posted on another thread a letter that Hillary Clinton sent to a constituent about Iran. A lot of tough talk with a little sweetener about the value of gaining strategic information about your adversaries through discussions. In that letter Clinton used this phase about Iran:

"we should engage with our enemies "


OK, compare Senator Clinton's wording to what Wes Clark wrote during a live blogging session today at Kos with his Diary called:

"Is War with Iran Inevitable?"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478

Clark was asked a question by a kos blogger:

"Short question: do you consider Iran to be an enemy of the United States?"

Clark replied:

"An enemy?

I wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling."

Do you think Wes Clark is clueless about what Hillary Clinton is saying in public about Iran? I don't think so. Do you think they see eye to eye on Iran? I don't think so. Do you think Wes Clark is likely to paper over those differences and stand aside and allow the United States to be pulled into a war with Iran because he doesn't want to say anything that would hurt Hillary's run for President? I don't think so.

[Clark2008]

33. But he wasn't, so you can lay that rumor to rest.

[Le Taz Hot]

50. Bingo!

The big money boys use him only when needed. They used him in 2004 to take support away from Dean.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. That's what Clark boosters were saying last time

Problem is, the General waited far too late to start his campaign. He may be making the same mistake as last time.

[oasis]

6. Didn't Kerry say something about Douglas Fieth should go to jail or

give testimony on how Rumsfeld and Cheney manipulated intel on the run up to war?

[Dinger]

7. Yes He Did!!! I Liked That A LOT!!! (nt)

[karynnj]

18. If you want to hear the Imus interview (or 2 others Kerry did today)

they are all on the front page of http://www.johnkerry.com

[oasis]

29. Thanks.

[Doctor_J]

8. Who?

Is that old fool still on the air?

[politicasista]

13. You mean old pimp? n/t

[endarkenment]

9. Chicken necked old fart: who cares what he says?

Since when did imess and his band of rightwing fruitcakes get to be pundits?

[MrSlayer]

10. Well eveyone else should just quit now.

Now that the racist, cokehead asshole has spoken.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Looks Like Big Trouble Ahead for Clinton and Obama. - A Repost

I did a pretty thorough study back on December 27th of what tends to happen to Democratic frontrunners, and the wisdom of the pundits who trumpet them. It's up at my own blog site (in December's archives) but this is a good time and place to repost it again:

Looks Like Big Trouble Ahead for Clinton and Obama.

The recent performances by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in national opinion polls measuring the support potential Democratic Party Candidates for President currently have, is enough to set off warning bells in both of their camps. That’s because their early poll results are grim. Consider the facts; Clinton and Obama are far and away the current front runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination. This is very bad news indeed for the supporters of these candidates, as history clearly indicates. Let’s stroll back in time to review a few previous hotly contested Democratic Presidential nomination contests.

On November 13, 2002, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, 32% of Democrats thought Al Gore should be the 2008 Democratic nominee, followed by 22 percent for Hillary Clinton, 11 percent for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and 8 percent each for Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, and Missouri U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, with 4 percent supporting North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Of course those standings changed as the election drew closer. By the time a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was taken in January 2003, Gore, Clinton and Daschle were all off the 2004 list. The new front runners were Lieberman at 25% and Gephardt at 17%, followed by Kerry at 14%, Edwards at 7%, Graham at 6%, and Dean at 3%.

We all know how it turned out; Gore, Clinton and Daschle all chose not to run while Howard Dean topped the polls in early January 2004, and Lieberman and Gephardt both followed up on their early front runner status with an early crash and burn in the primaries.

For 2000 sitting VP Al Gore was always the Democratic favorite and was not denied, but 1992 was a different story. That time the race was wide open, and we remember who won it, but the Gallop poll from December of 2001 didn’t exactly show Bill Clinton as a front runner. Topping the polls then for Democrats was Mario Cuomo at 32%, followed by Jerry Brown at 15%. Doug Wilder came next at 9%, Bob Kerry was at 8%, then Tom Harkin at 7%, with Bill Clinton coming in 6th at 6%.

While Walt Mondale had opposition for the nomination in 1984, as a former Democratic VP he remained the favorite from start to finish, but 1988 was another one of those wide open years. A Gallop poll from Mid January 1988, not long before the Iowa caucus, showed Gary Hart as the odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination, polling at 25% nationally, followed by Jesse Jackson at 19%. Michael Dukakis lagged at 10%. When the results from Iowa were in, Dukakis came in 3rd there, trailing Representative Dick Gephardt and Senator Paul Simon from Illinois.

So what about 1976, the year Jimmy Carter was elected President? Jimmy was a slow starter that year. A Gallop poll from early January 1976 had Jimmy Carter polling at only 4%. The front runners at the time were Hubert Humphrey at 29% and George Wallace at 20%. Surely though for 1972, with protests against the Viet Nam War filling the streets, George McGovern must have been a front runner for the Democratic nomination. Actually no he wasn’t. In Gallop’s late December 1971 poll McGovern was polling in 4th place at 5%. The front runners for the nomination at that point were Ted Kennedy at 32%, Ed Muskie at 25%, and Hubert Humphrey at 19%.

In reviewing the results from prior years it looks to me like leading in an early Democratic Presidential preference poll is a fate you should want to wish on your worst enemy. In January 2004, the Gallop organization even ran a story on the fate of front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, which made researching this piece a whole lot easier for me since it’s hard to find archived poll results prior to 2000 without paying a fee to access them. For the curious, here’s a snippet and a link:


January 06, 2004
History Shows January Front-runner Often Does Not Win Democratic Nomination

Only 4 out of 10 January leaders over last half-century have won nomination

by Frank Newport and Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The presidential election primary season is upon us, with the Iowa caucus now less than two weeks away, and with the high visibility New Hampshire primary taking place in only three weeks, on Jan. 27. Not a single vote has yet been cast, but former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has already been anointed the front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination (and is on the cover of both TIME and Newsweek magazines this week) -- based in large part on his strong showing in recent public opinion polls at both the national and state level.
But just how predictive is this type of strength in early national polling in terms of a candidate's chances of actually winning the Democratic nomination?

There have been 10 races over the last 50 years in which there was a significant contest for the Democratic nomination: 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 2000. (The omitted years of 1964, 1980, and 1996 were ones in which a Democratic incumbent president ran for re-election with little or no opposition.)
http://tinyurl.com/yd9uql


Of course with Howard Dean coming up short in 2004, Gallop’s running tally for Democratic front runners in the December or January preceding a Presidential Election who actually went on to win the nomination should be revised to 4 out of 11 (excluding incumbent Democratic Presidents running for reelection). And if you also omit Al Gore and Walter Mondale in those tallies (our two nominees who had previously served as Vice President), you have to go back to 1960 to find a Democratic frontrunner heading into a Presidential election year who actually ended up winning the Democratic Presidential nomination

From all of this I conclude that the track record for early polling being able to predict an eventual Democratic Presidential nominee is staggeringly consistent in its inaccuracy. Not only has the Democratic front runner in all those years failed to actually secure the nomination, the Democrat polling in second place in December preceding an election year has always failed to win the nomination also.

I am expecting big staff shake ups from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Early success like this can’t be tolerated if either of these potential candidates is serious about seeking the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.

[flpoljunkie]

15. The Note says Kerry's "apparent venom directed at Edwards provided the more supercharged moments."

(Kerry's apparent venom directed at John Edwards, however, provided the more supercharged moments, even if Imus was doing the egging on.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238&page=2

Interesting, no DUer seems to have picked up on this. Did The Note get it wrong?

[karynnj]

22. Kerry said nothing against Edwards - nothing

go see the tape on Johnkerry.com. The closest is that Imus said that Edwards was saying bad things about Kerry. Then when Imus said that he had defended Kerry, Kerry laughed and said "Thank you". But Kerry did not play along in attacking either Hillary or Edwards.

There is NO way you get to venom. Kerry did not leap to defend Edwards - but why should he? Remember the note is written by the guy who admired Drudge. The lead story in his book that said Drudge is the Murrow of our day, was a made up story that transformed a newless $75 hair cut to $1000 styling, highlighting experience. The fact that it was not true - didn't bother him.

[Cameron27]

34. You're right.

Imus was trying to provoke something, but Kerry didn't bite. What the heck did Imus say about Teresa? I thought that was pretty funny -- whatever it was, Kerry said he didn't tell her! :rofl:

JK was very good, glad I saw it.

[karynnj]

37. Apparently a couple of weeks ago Imus was saying that he liked Kerry

but he was a phony - then went on to say Teresa was a phony too. So, apparently Kerry called him and told him to leave Teresa alone. So, here he was saying that both Kerrys would be on to talk about their book. So Imus asked if he had told Teresa what Imus had said and Kerry said something like "no, I want her to come on the show."

[Cameron27]

42. Oh, that was nasty.

Good for Kerry. (I thought it was something more benign. Blech on Imus.)

[flpoljunkie]

45. I wish JK would not go on his show. Imus is no "American patriot"--even if he gets good ratings

Especially after Imus called Teresa a phony. Imus is the phony. Why would Kerry "want her to come on the show?" Why do people call into his show and let themselves be abused by this jerk? Because Newsweek dubbed Imus an "American patriot"? I really do not get it.

[karynnj]

53. Kerry's reason is that he wants to

reach people who can not be reached on CSPAN, the Sunday talk shows or the cable news shows. Kerry is strong and smart enough that he can get what he wants said heard through Imus's nonsense. When he and Teresa come on it will be to discuss their book on the environment - an issue Kerry has accomplishments on going back to when he led the effort to institute a cap and trade program on Sulphur emmissions to work against acid rain. The NE governor's association implemented that program and it was later the mechanism used in the Clean air act. Teresa was an environmental activist well before she met John Kerry. Because Imus's wife is interested in this issue, he will almost certainly not attack either Kerry. (If he does, both Kerrys could easily beat Imus verbally. Teresa herself is incredible.)

[flpoljunkie]

44. Thank you. Apparently, it was Imus who trashed Edwards, and not Kerry. Shame on The Note!

They just flat out lied!

The Note is not only petty, evidently they are delusional--if they think Drudge is the next Murrow. Really messed up!

[Mass]

48. What did the Note smoke?

Have they even listened to the show? Kerry went after McCain strongly (and had Imus silent for a minute after that). As for Edwards, except that he did not jump and declare an undying love for him, I am not sure where the venom was?

[karynnj]

54. Kerry going after McCain was far more interesting

Most Democrats, especially Biden, can not say McCain's name without saying what a good guy he is and how muich respect they have for him. Kerry attacked McCain's positions on the war. He sounded rational and fair. Who else is calmly saying that McCain is completely wrong?

McCain is now saying things like it is dishonest to say you support the troops while saying you don't support "their CIC". At a different point, Kerry countered that by noting the similarities of his senseless trips up river where he got shot at and he and his peers couldn't see that anything was accomplished. Kerry saying this helps all Democrats without his experiences by saying this because even if McCain is not the candidate, McCain will use this type of comment to attack ANY Democrat.

[blm]

51. The Note got it completely wrong. Imus TRIED to get JK to trash Edwards but

Kerry would NOT rise to the bait. It's useful info to know that ABC Note is NOT known for its honesty.

[The Count]

16. The MSM spoketh. Like usual Don't even think of crossing them.

[karynnj]

17. Imus is a self admitted Republican

Who is backing McCain. He hates the war and always liked Kerry as a person - so he endorsed him, but then persistently picked on him too - though less than he wil if Edwards or Hillary (he really doesn't like them) are the candidate.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Was Imus sober when he said that?

I can't stand that man or the morons that work on his show.

[Dinger]

43. Am I A Clarkie?

He did seem "out of sorts."

[FrenchieCat]

20. Imus is part of the media.....read my sig line....

to know what I think of him and his ilk.

What kind of a name is Imus, anyways?

[sendero]

21. I really like Clark..

... but if he doesn't jump in soon he might as well not bother.

[Tellurian]

25. Gen.Clark is busy deciding which candidate will be the benefactor of his support

no way- is he considering a run against this field of Titans-

[Auntie Bush]

27. I hope you will soon eat those words!

[Tellurian]

30. Granted, you're no Oliver Wendell Holmes...

but the General has other plans. You'll just have to get used to it.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Well you must be Sylvia Brown, the faulty psychic.....

making her rounds.

Sorry if I don't rush right over, but this ain't Montel! :eyes:

[Tellurian]

36. Actually, that prediction was a freebee...

when he announces he's not running...I'll send you the bill..

[FrenchieCat]

38. Charity starts at home......

and so when he announces, just eat the bill. I won't even ask if I can watch. I'm not into watching others choke.

[Tellurian]

41. What Charity? You started it..

If charity was such an important component you should have thought of that
before you started tapping those keys...

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. I am afraid that you are flat out uninformed wrong

Clark runs a very grassroots friendly operation and I have been tied into it closely now for over three years. I have multiple extremely informed sources that absolutely know Wes Clark is very much considering a run for President in 2008. I say that with 100% informed certainty, this is not speculation. What is not yet known by anyone is if Clark has 100% decided to definately run.

And if you wonder why he has not already declared, it is because of the work he is doing behind the scenes with Democrats in Congress to head off a war with Iran. Once Clark declares as a candidate that complicates his ability to conduct briefings and negotiations with other Democrats; as it is almost 10% of the Democrats in the Senate are running for President, and competition, unfortunately, does intrude at some point. Clark holding back from announces prolongs his effectiveness organizing against the next war internally.

See Clark's kos Iran Blog from today for more information (It already has 770 comments):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/12/122254/478

[Tellurian]

40. TR- I genuinely like Gen Clark

I think what he is doing is of vital importance. His keeping a steady pulse on the disposition of Iran and the WH is one of the most crucial tasks to oversee. He is using himself in the most efficient way to focus and observe foreign policy for the good and welfare of all Americans. I'm really thankful he is doing this in the name of security both from any shenanigans from the the WH and for the benefit of the country.

Iran vs the WH isn't going away anytime soon. He is in a critical situation at a critical time. To me it looks like he is committed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. That is possible

It largely depends I think on what type of platform, in the sense of a staging area, Clark thinks he can work most effectively off of on those issues. He could decide being in the midst of the fray that everyone is concentrating on is the place he needs to be also to be heard, or he could chart a different path as you say. I think all of that is a lot of what Clark is considering right now.

[Clark2008]

35. Titans who are all senators.

And senators haven't won the presidency since...

[Larry in KC]

56. Titans?! First, a dictionary definition...

From Merriam-Webster: "one that stands out for greatness of achievement".

Now, as clearly as possible:

As measured against the declared candidates, Wes Clark is the ONLY one who fits that definition.

Incidentally, he fits it brilliantly. Little offense meant to the others, but to use the word in connection with some of the better known of them borders on the laughable.

[PresidentObama]

23. Imus is part of the media.

What do you expect?

And yes, Kerry was awesome!!

[bigdarryl]

28. Why the heck would a young woman like Deidre marry Imus ?

[karynnj]

39. show business, fame, money?

It certainly can't be his nice personality or heart.

[cooolandrew]

46. I always remember that Eddie Murphy film and name reconition is everything the top 3 are well known

[cooolandrew]

47. Guy James said if people all looked at the issues they would pick Kucinich every time.

[Vinca]

49. Best not to email Imus.

If he gets a million emails about Clark, he'll be all over Clark (in a negative way) until the end of time. That's the way he is.