Anyone Notice The Two War Heroes Beating Bush?

[DrFunkenstein]

The poll, for CNN and USA Today newspaper, showed the Republican Mr Bush was now behind the Democrats' General Clark and Senator John Kerry in a head-to-head vote on who should be president.

General Clark, who declared his candidacy only last week and was little known to voters, secured 49 per cent support in the poll, while Mr Bush got 46 per cent . Senator Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, beat Mr Bush by 48 per cent to 47 per cent.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7355354%255E2,00.html

<>

<>

[George_Bonanza]

1. Never thought of it like that

But it should've been obvious. Another clear reason why Kerry deserves the nomination. Not only is he the best candidate, he is also fully equipped to defeat the incumbent. It's useless if you're a great candidate but cannot win an election.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Kerry's Experience Transcends The Cold War Mentality

Kerry is singularly qualified to lead the war on stateless terrorism, having had over 10 years of experience studying it on the Subcommittee for Terrorism and International Relations. Not to mention that he literally wrote the book on the subject.

<>

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Do You Think He Meant Something Larger Than

The first WTC attack/Oklahoma City?

For some reason, I got a flash of the old Orson Welles "Nostradamus" movie that scared the bejesus out of me as a kid.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Answer this question first, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=391308&mesg_id=391308

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Symbolically They Can

Because the media starts creating a narrative that they are very hesitant to deviate from (God bless their intrepid souls).

Just like Dean got that big-ass Zogby poll, which became the story of Dean as the full-on front-runner, even though most other polls were considerably more muted.

I think polls are kind of BS, and a sad excuse for journalism (remember, you know, policy?), but they are a part of the process.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Symbolism? Or Reality?

Polls are BS unless they show your guy ahead. (Same goes for me). But which is more indicative? National or local?





All politics are local.

[Nicholas_J]

12. Depends

Local can be very misleading. Dean after all has visited Iowa over 60 times in the last 2 years stumping for president all of that time, more times than all of the other candidates put together, sane thing with his New Hampshire public relations machine, so it could be that polls from Iowa and New Hampshire are EXTREMELY skewed.

Also, there is no major difference in the percentage of the population of both New Hampshire and Iowa who recognize the candidates. That is to say, the last time polls were taken, in those states, which were taken at the same time as the national polls, the same figures applied to these states as to national recognition. That is 2/3rds of the people in Iowa and New Hampshire wre not aware of who was running for president on labor day of this year.

The argument that local polls someway more valid thant national polls is far less likely, as they are more likely to be skewed by political activity on one candidates part and regional name recognition than the national polls.

[cliss]

7. Ironic, isn't it?

Must be humiliating as hell, for these pros speaking from the sidelines, must just bug the shit out of them.

Oh, but that's right: they're "armchair generals" and "revisionist historians".

[Khephra]

8. Only if you discount margin of error

"But the poll, which had a margin for error of 3 per cent, had Mr Bush narrowly ahead of other prominent Democrat candidates.

He leads former Vermont governor Howard Dean by 49 per cent to 46 per cent, Al Gore's 2000 running mate, senator Joe Lieberman, by 48 per cent to 47 per cent, and former Democrat leader in the house Richard Gephardt by 48 per cent to 46 per cent."

And with numbers this close, it's unfair not to count them.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. HawkerHurricane was the first last night

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=384994#385675

[Nicholas_J]

11. Yup

And as long as Iraq remains a critical issue to the public, anyone with foreign affairs experiecen or military/diploamtic experience will end up out doing anyone else, when all is said and done.

If the situation in Iraq gets worse, the public will inevitably turn to those with foreign relations EXPERIENCE at the national level to get us out of the mess.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. But Who Will Take On Al Qaeda?

Stateless terrorism doesn't line up in a row next to some artillery. This is a 21st century war we're fighting, Iraq is mostly a mess made by 20th century thinking. We need a commander in chief ready to leave the cold war mentality behind to confront a new kind of threat to American security.

Kerry has long said this war would be fought mostly through intelligence gathering, not conventional warfare. We need someone who can see the big picture.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. AWOL Boy is probably regretting glorifying war over the past two

years, now that men who actually served in combat are vying for his job. Of course he'll still get the GOP Tough Guy Poseur vote ("You guys go give 'em hell, I'll be cheering from in front of my TV.")

Military service shouldn't matter in presidential politics but the GOP has made it matter, with all their false accusations about Clinton being a "draft dodger" and Rove's building up of Dubya's TANG duty with the "fighter pilot" stunt on the USS Lincoln.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap."

[DrFunkenstein]

15. Some Questions To Answer

<>