Soldiering on for Wesley Clark

Imagine that.

Rassmussen conducted a national poll of voters from both parties (as well as none and other, presumably) to assess what percentage view favorably or unfavorably the various potential 2008 candidates. Of the ten Democrats on whom they collected data (Biden, Clark, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Kerry, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson, Vilsack), only THREE were viewed favorably by a significantly larger number of voters, statistically speaking, than viewed them unfavorably. In other words, only THREE had more people like 'em than not.

Care to guess who those three are?

Well, I won't keep you in suspenders. But I will withhold some detail until I can apply a little analysis. So in alphabetical order, the only three with more to the good than to the bad, in numbers large enough to matter, are Clark, Edwards and Obama.

UPDATE: New data from Rassmussen, as of 1/4/07. Hang on for a new blog entry after I get a chance to take a look.

In my last post, I took a close look at Rassmussen's favorability ratings for the three (and only three) potential Democratic 2008 contenders whose favorability is statistically higher than their unfavorability: Clark, Edwards, and Obama. Since that time, Rassmussen has new data on Edwards and Obama (but alas, not on General Clark).

The new polling data are dated January 4, 2007, and were most likely collected since New Years.

Briefly, Obama's numbers changed only one point in each direction -- both to his benefit, but with no effect on my prior analysis and, statistically speaking, not significant at all. And for what it's worth (since I didn't report on her before), they must have also done another poll on Hillary Clinton, as she gained a point in the unfavorable column -- likewise an insignificant change.

But Edwards is another story. His new numbers are 54% favorable, 37% unfavorable. That's a bump of 7 points in the good column, a loss of 4 points in the bad, and (obviously) an increase of 11 points in the difference between them.

Just a quick note here. Published my first dKos diary, even tho I've been a registered member there since Jesus was a corporal. The subject is, "Flood the WH with letters; Tell Bush NO SURGE!" and it's a plea for Kossacks to respond to General Clark's letter campaign.

My dear friend Gordon Suber writes this insightful analysis of how the battlelines are being drawn over escalation in Iraq:

2007: It’s Clark versus McCain By Gordon Suber January 9, 2007

President George W. Bush will tell the American people why it is necessary to escalate the Iraq war, adding 20,000 American troops.

Writing in the Washington Post last Sunday, former presidential candidate (2000), Senator John McCain wrote that a small, short surge is a terrible idea. He advocates a larger number, for a longer period.

Writing in the Washington Post last Monday, former presidential candidate (2004) and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Wesley K. Clark set forth why he believes a surge in troops in Baghdad is a terrible idea. He advocates diplomacy.

None of us knows who will be battling for the presidency in 2008, but what I know now is that when it comes to finding a solution in Iraq in 2007, it's Clark versus McCain.

Well, ok, so don't forget Iraq completely. We all need to write our Congress-critters and demand they stop the escalation while there's still time. This war needs a strategy -- I doubt it's ever had one -- or we need to get the hell out. I prefer the first option. But twenty-two thousand more troops is not strategy, folks; it's tactics. Probably not even good tactics, but that's not the point. Congress needs to hold the President's feet to the fire, make him do his job, and stop him from telling his generals how to do theirs.

So by all means, write your representative and senators about this insane escalation. Just be sure to tell them, Don't forget about Iran! This administration, driven by neo-conservative ideology, has always wanted to take on Iran. Seems likely they have done it already if everything had gone the way they planned in Iraq.

The two voting-age members of this household wrote a letter to our congressman just yesterday.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I heard the "Fried Rice" moniker after the Senate smacked her around on Friday, and thought it right on the money... so I had a yen to use it.

But on to the main course.

In her Congressional testimony of January 11, 2007, Condoleezza Rice said:

“It is bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if the strategy you are working on doesn't work”

OMG, OMG. Did she make that up on the spot, or is that what passes as planning philosophy in the Bush White House? I know she didn't learn if from anyone at State.

Just over a week ago, the White House announced the President would call for a "surge" in the number of troops in Baghdad. Since then, General Clark has been all over the airwaves, and in print on two sides of the ocean, trying to drum up resistance.

Our favorite Dead Messenger has compiled a directory of links to the General's most recent words in every medium. If you want to know where we are, and where we should be, follow the bread crumbs.
UPDATE: DM missed a link to The Stephanie Miller Show

Wes Clark was a guest on Hannity & Colmes the evening after Bush's State of the Union address. And soft pudgy too-good-to-enlist Sean Hannity presumes to lecture the four-star general and decorated combat veteran on military strategy?

Un-effin'-believable.

There's a video of the relevant piece at Crooks & Liars, or you can watch the whole interview at WesPAC's website. But here's what Hannity said: