Why does Clark's get positive progressive press coverage?

Why does Clark's get positive progressive press coverage?

I NOTE that the national corporate media had very little positive to write about Wesley Clark in the last couple of weeks. The stories of his alleged flip/flops, resolutions questions, faulty campaign, stalking horse, Real Democrat or not, praising Bush, Kosovo/Ralston/Cohen smears, Crazy as a loon, have made more headlines than his policy speeches.

CONTRAST Governor Dean who seems to be enjoying wide spread corporate press adoration,
including some straight up right wing positive press coverage
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997166/posts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200310271043.asp Article says Clark's campaign has had it..........and that Dean is the guy......
While the New York post does a great front page story about Dean
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/41887.htm
and blessed it's page with this Pic

The Wall Street Editorial page was also very gracious to Dean
http://www.opinionjournal.com/politicaldiary/?id=110004203
The former Vermont governor now has the clearest path to the Democratic nomination of any candidate. If he wins in Iowa, he knocks out Dick Gephardt. If he wins in New Hampshire, he knocks out John Kerry. By then he'd likely be unstoppable, notwithstanding the inevitable Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark or John Edwards claim to be the "stop-Dean" candidate.

This time with a nice WSJ sketch portrait


MEANWHILE, I note that Clark has captured support from some illustrious Progressive publications and liberal writers. Gene Lyons, Joe Conason, Michael Moore, Robert Scheer, Josh Marshall, Michelle Goldberg, McCrudder, Bill Maher, Salon, Mediawhoresonline.com, dailygusto, Tnr, Buzzflash,, and others.
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz585.html
http://www.winternet.com/~trashman/
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000298.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/2003/10/08/clark/index_np.html
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/23/clark/index_np.html
http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=851
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/october/democrats-101503.html
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20031103&s=lizza110303&e=1
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=bjq57awwJ36hUmhMuLKmgm%3D%3D
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_28.html#002033
http://demwatch.blogspot.com/2003_10_12_demwatch_archive.html#106619446353495555
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102703.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/14/wclark14.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/14/ixworld.html
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz590.html
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz584.html Satire....Why I hate Wesley Clark

Many cable network talking heads have been writing Clark off for about 2 weeks. Drudge, Tucker Carlson, William Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Novak, Tony Blankley, and many other mediawhores are saying that he is has all but disappeared. Now this is based on the fact that Wes Clark (1.3 months) into entrance is now statistically tied with Dean in the National polls in first place (16%Dean/15%Clark/margin of error +/-5), and he's in the top 2nd or 3rd in most state polls. The whispers are out......Clark is finished.

But Why? Please share your thoughts.......

I just read a DU thread in Political Campaign: POLL: Support for Clark ebbing

mmm.....mmm......ARE SOME THAT GULLIBLE, OR WHAT?

October 27, 2003 - General Wesley Clark visited workers on the front lines of America's health care system Monday to discuss the challenges they face in events leading up to the introduction of his health care policy Tuesday.


October 27, 2003 Meanwhile in Wisconsin, today, Current and former elected officials who endorsed General Clark this morning include: Rep. Spencer Black of Madison, Rep. Marlin Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids, Rep. Lena Taylor of Milwaukee, Rep. Dave Travis of Westport, Dane County Clerk Joe Parisi, former Rep. Lou Fortis of Milwaukee, former Sen. Rod Moen, former Rep. Barbara Notestein, former Rep. Rosemary Potter, and the former Chair of the Madison City Council, Eve Galanter.

Among the troop of endorsers were Retired Major Hank Simon, a member of General Clark's class at West Point, and Representative Lena Taylor, a former board member of the NAACP. Representative Dave Travis, the former Assembly Majority Leader
http://clark04.com/press/release/043/

This could get ugly.

at political/campaign. In pondering the "flame bait" there, I decided to do some sleuth work.....you know, just to satisfy my curiosity. I have posted what I found waiting to be documented, i.e., evidence of that something is going on.....

Thank God for the internet! or else the Right Wing extremes and their cabal might get away with picking our Presidential nominee for us, and we wouldn't even know it. With this.....at least we know.

how the press treats your man has all to do with the effectiveness of the campaign you run. We went from outcast pariah to front runner.

Now, you guys need to find yourselves, there's nothing wrong with the base, but your organization is just really fucked up, dude.

the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll. The numbers are for registered Democrats and Democratic leaner. MoE +/- 5. (10/10-12 results):
None/Other/No Opinion 18 (15)
Dean 16 (13)
Clark 15 (18)
Gephardt 12 (10)
Lieberman 12 (13)
Kerry 10 (11)
Sharpton 6 (6)
Edwards 6 (6)
Braun 4 (5)
Kucinich 1 (3)

What about losing three points nationally do you not get? This is directly due to the campaign organizations internal focus on power grabbing; they are letting all else slide.

I'm sorry you don't see it, but someone over there needs to wake the F#@k up!

a few points.

While Dean is at 40%... no wonder the CLark Corps are going into full on attack mode.

So that Dukakis....I mean so that Dean can win.

When you watch Bush putting his hand on the bible for 4 more years, I will make sure that I resurrect this thread just for you.

I'm sick of wasting my time on Clark Corps talking points and sour grapes.

We're winning, and you can't stand it.

You Clarkies hyped Clark so much and expected him to take off like a rocket... and now that he's sputtering and going nowhere, you have to blame someone or something else, because after all Clark is so super human and perfect, there's no reason he shouldn't be number one, right?


When Clark gets a half million supporters working to get him elected, and he still gets shitty coverage, then you might have a point. Until then have some sour grapes with your whine.

Putting me on ignore is convenient, but again I ask,

Why is your blindfold on so tight?
You remind me of the Monkey.....you know the one with his ears, mouth and eyes covered.

The vote doesn't start until January......so until then, I will be participating in the debates....too bad you are opting out.

Why is your blindfold on so tight?
You remind me of the Monkey.....you know the one with his ears, mouth and eyes covered.

It's three monkeys. I don't know what kind of monkey you're looking at.

Furthermore, this isn't a debate. This is a back and forth slam-fest. If you were interested in debate, we'd be talking about issues, not people.

And I'm still a little bewildered at the thought that you might actually HOPE Bush wins if Dean gets the nomination. That's taking it a bit far.

They try very hard to push the meme that Clark is the only one who can win... and if he doesn't win the primary, we're all DOOMED.... DOOOOOOMED I tell you, DOOOOOOMED!

And these people wonder why Clark is losing?

that they wil actually not vote, or vote third party, or even vote Bush if Dean got elected. That's how disturbing this hate is.

I'd vote for Clark if he were the nominee. I'd vote for Lieberman. I'd hate it but I'd do it. I don't wish any Dem who gets the nomination to lose. And I won't gloat if Bush wins. I'll cry for a week. I sure as hell won't go searching through the DU archives for the "I Told You So" thread. That's just scary.

there's no way I'll vote for a war criminal who thinks it is Ok to bomb journalists.

:)

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I question the dedication of any Dem who will take joy, even if its schadenfreude, that Bush won.

Think about it! You just said you were going to gloat if Bush wins. That's kind of terrifying.

so no surprise his supporters are not bothered by electing a republican.

but make sure to censor those that question his character for committing it

elaborated on the claim, it wouldn't go down the tubes.

do not mind electing a republican?

Clark is a Democrat. He is officially registered as one and as such is correctly labled "a Democrat" because of it. Also, your second assertion of Clark being a Republican is wrong since he's currently not registered as one, nor has he ever been. Those are the definitions of what constitutes being labeled a party member. Also, "his supporters" is a gross generalization, but im sure that there are two or more people that consider themselves a "supporter" of General Clark that would not mind "electing a Republican", just as im sure there are two or more people that consider themselves a "supporter" of one of the other 8 candidates that would not mind "electing a Republican."

When clark entered the race, on his FEC forms, he listed "UNK" as his party affliation. This after months of acting "coy" as to whether he would enter the Democratic presidential race.

he would have been at the time "UNK" and not a Republican. Also your point is somewhat misplaced since registration for party affiliation has only been available in Arkansas since 1996, and 90% of the people (let alone a military officer) havent registered a party loyalty.

"Republican" in my post?

No, my point is not somewhat misplaced. Filling out a FEC form to run for the presidency has absolutely nothing to do w/the state of Arkansas.

He did not change his party affliation on his FEC form until after he had been running for over two weeks.

HE WAS NOT A DEMOCRAT WHEN HE FILLED OUT HIS FEC FORM TO RUN!

Dean's pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-public defender, pro-prison, pro-prosecution, anti-environmental, pro-AIPAC, pro-development, for rolling back social security, anti-medicare, pro-workfare, sided with the Republicans against the Dems in Congress about Medicare, and also as Governor pushed for Clinton and Congress to pass NAFTA and welfare. Even went to Congress and spoke out in favor of all of these things.

AND you call Clark a Republcian.

Why do you have to do this? Your beef is obviously with TLM, stop making up shit about Dean!

It's ridiculous and SAD! Pro-prison? Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about. Why would you do this? Just to get a rise out of someone?

I'll ask again, show me! Show me links! Demonstrate all these claims about him. Amazing that you'll spew this crap in the same thread that you decry others for doing it WRT Dean.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/pollinaint.html

As a comparison to that Vermont has over the last ten years, which is Dean's time in office, in Vermont we increased our investment in our prisons, our state prisons by 150 percent; we've increased our investment in our state colleges by about 7 percent. So we have done a lot more to build a put people in prison than we have to invest in and put kids in our colleges. And I think that that is something that Vermonters have become very concerned about in recent years as we sort of educate them about that. The statistics that I gave you come from the chancellor of the Vermont state colleges so it's all accepted and out there that's what we've done, and I think if we could have reversed those investments we would be better off, but we haven't.

http://hm.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=6573&group=webcast
Dean's approach to criminal justice is regressive and draconian. Dean the governor was no friend of the public's right to legal defense. According to various attorneys in public defender's offices around the state, Dean under-funded public defense, pouring monies into state's attorneys, police, and corrections instead. According to the Rutland, Vermont daily, The Rutland Herald, this meant that state's attorneys were able to round up ever-increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond. This, too, helped to fill the prisons. Its not that crime increased, but that police had more laws that they could arrest people for (and more resources with which to do so). As an illustration of his opposition to a fair defense for all, Dean once stated at a meeting of criminal defense lawyers that he believed his job as governor was to make the defense attorneys' job as tough as possible. He also tried to block a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities.

Here is one of the reasons Clark gets the attention of progressives

http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm

But to listen to the Deanites, Dean is the scourge of corporate America, who will go forth and fight for the common man, blah blah blah, while Clark is a Republican plant, a DLC plant, and all the rest of that nonsense.

Meanwhile, the Republican hate machine and the 'corporate media' blow kisses to Howie. It's another example of a complete disconnect between Deanite propaganda and reality.

Great work putting this together, by the way; I wanted to do something similar, but would not have done nearly as well.

that his campaign hasn't quite jelled yet. Entering the race late left him at a distinct disadvantage. Dean's machine is a well oiled political force at this moment. Clark, after the initial bounce, has slowed somewhat and after the framework of his campaign solidifies will regain some of his early momentum. I like Clark, I'm a Dean supporter but would have no qualms about The General being our nominee. No flames here.

Fair analysis.

I DO think the press has ever intent on diminishing Clark. After last night's debate, the Daily Howler had this analysis on one reportertrying to manufacture the impression that Clark is "struggling" :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=602727

he'd be Bush's strongest opponent among the Democratic field?

Real progressives -- you know, the one's who don't buy the official story on 9/11 hook, line and sinker -- are plenty suspicious of neoClark.

And who are you, Mr. Logic, to tell anyone what a 'real progressive' does and does not 'buy,' and what they are 'suspicious of?'

He's in a MUCH better position to know what a "real progressive" is, thinks, does and does not buy, etc.

I don't happen to find Clark supporters that "progressive" at all, and certainly not you.

Eloriel

If Mr. Dog considers purchasing great swathes of tin-foil over the Islamicist attacks in 2001 to be the diagnostic of progressive belief, he is occupying a distant and lonely booth in the carnival of life.

Mr. Bunter has fought me often enough in the past to have surely established some character as a progressive....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

n/t

That is more an energeticly pressed than a mainstream position.

Out in the big world, where they do not take chocolate money, it has not sufficient footing to move more than perhaps a hundred thousands of votes.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Sir.

The quote from Mr. Rogers in your signature is a new one to me: it is too true....

You DO know that stereotyping is a sign of fuzzy and conservative thinking Eloriel? So you would not consider someone who is:

Pro-Choice
Pro-Union
Anti-NAFTA
Multilateralist/Pro-UN
Wiccan
Pro-Environment
Pro-Gun Control
Pro-Legalized Marijuana
Pro-Prosecution of Corporations
LIHOP

to NOT be a progressive? Those stances describe me, and if you want to say that I am NOT a progressive because I support Clark despite the fact that my views state otherwise, that is just plain dumb and arrogant of you to do.

Why are you so big about trashing our candidate at EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY YOU GET? We leave Howard Dean alone, and Gods know that he has enough skeletons in his closet to get buried by them, so WHY do YOU jump on Clark with tenuous or non-existent fears at every opportunity you get?

You know the only thing that matters is the candidates rhetoric on Iraq. THAT trumps everything else.

You are among those that should be chastised here. Your anti'Dean rhetoric is very much on par with the anti'Clark rhetoric here.

I think it's absolutely NUTS to tell a person who they are based on who they support. And that goes for JaneKat's religious fanatcism claims and Eloriel's "you're not progressive" claims. I'm sorry that anyone gets caught up in this.

Yes, issues. Yes, you can be progressive and support anyone you want. But Iraq is a big topic, and everyone is getting scrutinized. It's ALSO an issue.

I'm telling you right now that Clark has my vote if he gets the nod. I'm a Dean supporter, and I have NOT been unduly critical of Clark.

The nominee of the Democratic Party will receive my vote for President, no matter who that person is.

The competition among Democratic candidates for that nomination ought to consist in displaying the attacks they would level against the jackanapes currently in usurped office. Attacks against one another only benefit the enemy.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

However, I believe he is a phoney. He encourages his followers to think of him as a compassionate liberal sort of person - when in reality he is not.

as you seem to have the judgement of other's progressivity in your back pocket.

You must be real insightful! but the question is still, why is the progressive press defending Clark?

and criticizing Dean's Tax Plan?

why is the progressive press defending Clark?

Because he's worthy of their defense. He may very well be the guy we ALL have to defend come November 2004, and between you and me, I'm not digging tha thole for myself.

and criticizing Dean's Tax Plan?

Because they don't get it.

The Daily Howler, you mean? http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102703.shtml

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF READING, PART 1: Did you know that Wes Clark is bitter? Max Frankel very much wants you to know it. Frankel reviewed Clark’s new book, Waging Modern Wars, in yesterday’s New York Times. Quickly, he got in Clark’s head:

FRANKEL (pgh 2): “Winning Modern Wars” turns out to be aptly wrapped. For its 200 pages, many of them updated just a month ago, are obviously designed to abet the swift transformation of a once embittered warrior and armchair television analyst into a hard-driving, platitudinous candidate for president.
Is Clark’s “embitterment” a thing of the past? Guess again. He’s still bitter today:
FRANKEL (pgh 4): he general cannot camouflage the partisan thrust of his polemic. His deft review of the battlefield tactics that won Baghdad in less than a month is merely the preface to a bitter, global indictment of George W. Bush.
In case you missed the key point—Wes Clark is bitter—Frankel sing-songs the point again, right in his closing paragraph:
FRANKEL (pgh 16): As Clark recounted in a previous book, “Waging Modern War,” his enemies in Washington managed to trick the Clinton White House into firing him from the post of supreme allied commander in Europe. And so he was left to watch from a CNN studio as a new administration employed the battle doctrines he had long championed in what he bitterly concluded was a misguided cause in Iraq. It was enough to drive a man to print, and to think he could do better, as commander in chief.
Why has General Clark criticized Bush? Clearly, it’s because Clark is bitter. How eager is Frankel to let you know it? He recites the key spin-point three times.
Surprisingly, though, Frankel never says how he knows that Clark is bitter. He doesn’t produce any quotes that sound bitter, nor does he ever say what’s wrong with Clark’s basic judgments about Iraq. But then, if it’s reasoned judgment that you seek, Frankel probably isn’t your man. Is Wes Clark really bitter? For some reason, Frankel seems to think that this passage helps establish the claim:

FRANKEL (pgh 5): No credit even for the one thing that Clark admires about the American performance in Iraq. He recounts with relish the “synchronization of high-tech airpower with agile ground maneuvers”—how the rapid advance of armor forced Iraqi units to move and expose themselves to air and rocket attacks, which in turn facilitated more ground advances. But “the irony is that the vision of…a high-tech battlefield, viewed through an array of sensors, with battles fought and won by precision strikes and a slimmer ground component—which the Bush administration, and especially Donald Rumsfeld, have trumpeted, is largely a reality that they inherited when they took office in 2001.”
But if this high-tech reality was “largely inherited,” why should Clark give its “credit” to Bush? For similar lightweight performance by Frankel, see how he shows, in paragraph 4, that Clark’s basic argument is “partisan.” And see Clark trashed (paragraphs 8 and 9) for failing to take out a crystal ball and prophesy future events.
How lightweight is today’s elite press? Read Frankel’s review to find out. In fact, this “review” exists for one simple reason—to throw unflattering adjectives around. Clark is “bitter,” ambitious,” “partisan” and “coy,” as we learn in the first four paragraphs. The American people are poorly served when lightweights like this rule our print.

VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: Gore tested the waters in 2002; “bitter” was the script then, too. Such scripts are easy for lightweights to learn. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/18/02, 11/19/02 and 11/21/02.

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF READING, PART 2: How lightweight is today’s press elite? Adam Nagourney floats through the air—and lies in your face—in this morning’s Times:

NAGOURNEY: At several points, General Clark appeared to struggle as he explained his views on the war in response to a challenge from a questioner.
The questioner, Carl Cameron of Fox News, asked, “Are we to understand that what you’re saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?”

Mr. Clark responded: “No, I always—I’m a fair person. And when this administration’s done something right, well, if they were Russians doing something right, Chinese doing something right, French doing something right or even Republicans doing something right, I’m going to praise them.

“Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait and switch on the American public,” he said. “President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn’t have either one of them today.”

But why did Clark “appear to struggle?” Because Nagourney baldly misstated what he actually said. Here is the actual Federal Document Clearing House transcript of what was actually said:
CAMERON: General, there is a long litany of comments from you, both in your time as a former television analyst and then over the course of the last several months. Are we to understand that what you’re saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?
CLARK: No, I always—I’m a fair person, Carl. And when this administration's done something right, well, if they were Russians doing something right, Chinese doing something right, French doing something right or even Republicans doing something right—

(LAUGHTER)

I’m going to praise them.

Now, this country was attacked on 9/11, and it was right that this administration went into Afghanistan. And I supported that war; so did 90 percent of the American people. That Taliban government should have been taken out.

But the failure of this administration was not to put the troops in to finish the job against Osama bin Laden. And you know why they didn’t do it? They didn’t do it because, all along, their plan was to save those troops to go after Saddam Hussein.

So I support them for what they did right, and I condemn them for what they did wrong.

IFILL: Thank you, General.

(APPLAUSE)

You’d never know it from reading Nagourney’s report, but that’s what was actually said. In fact, Clark “struggled” so hard to convey his meaning that it was greeted with laughter and applause! But it isn’t hard to make out Nagourney’s meaning. He meant to spread a scripted message—Wesley Clark is a big, fucking mess. And how did Nagourney create this impression? By baldly misstating what Clark really said! Instead of presenting Clark’s actual statement, Nagourney spliced in something Clark said to another question, earlier in the debate. And he said the resulting pseudo-reply was an example of Clark’s hopeless bungling!
Amazing, isn’t it? But then, Americans put up with this type of fraud all through Campaign 2000. No high school kid could offer such work. Why in the world is Nagourney still working? And how long do we, as American citizens, plan to put up with this conduct?

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF READING, PART 3: How lightweight is today’s elite press? Over at the New Republic, callow schoolboy Adam Kushner even suggested that Clark is delusional—for making statements which are patently accurate! Others have commented on Kushner’s inanity, so we’ll remind you of the history here. “Delusional” was a prime RNC spin-point against Al Gore during Campaign 2000. (It started with Gore’s remarks about the “farm chores”—remarks which were patently accurate!) At TNR, a callow schoolboy revives the script, and engages in some lightweight typing. But then, how empty are TNR’s gaggle of schoolboys? Do you recall the consummate clowning about John Kerry? Kerry had a “character flaw” because he likes to play show tunes on the guitar! See THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/10/02.

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF READING, PART 4: It doesn’t matter what you say; if you criticize Bush, you’re a “hater.” It’s the latest, easy-to-cut-and-paste script, and—yes, in yesterday’s New York Times—James Traub re

I've posted about this before. When the RW can't deal with the fact that the left is better on the facts and the issues, they turn to pschology to destroy your character.

That's what these Daily Howler commentaries are noting.

The RW does that all the time.

I have included enough material for a couple of hours, at least.
My, my....speed reader, are we?

Or have you just read all of these before?

Praise Bush in 2001 at Lincoln Dinner....which was passed on to the Coporate media......then passed on to the mouth of candidates that will be left nameless. But the "Press" couldn't dig this up????
http://www.rnc.org/media/pdfs/dems043001.pdf
Hope you have Pdf....as enlightning as it was to see what most Democrats were doing right around in those early months of 2001....prior to 9/11.

Clark was given a free ride for several months before he actually declared. No one except for the admirable DraftClark people knew anything about him, but he was hyped in and out all the way up until he annnounced.

Once he did announce, he was open to all the same scrutiny that everyone else is.

The thing is, while I haven't read the most recent links that you provided (I will, I promise), Dean fans have seen media coverage before. There was a month when Time, Newsweek, and US News all has Deano on the cover. But NONE of the actual stories was particularly positive. They all had some nice things to say, but they all got a lot of important facts wrong.

It'll all come around.

he was subjected to smears, lies, and hack-jobs
more than the rest of the candidates combined.

Dean is only Progressive on a few select issues such as the war in Iraq and civil unions. He reluctantly supported civil unions after the courts pushed it through. NOW he takes complete credit for it and claims that he was the one who championed it.

He has not been as emphatically anti-war as his supporters believe. He says that he is closer to the AIPAC than to Americans for Peace Now (The liberal wing of America’s Jewish community).

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm
".....when it came to Israel and Palestine – the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental objections with President George W. Bush’s policies. Dean called for an end to Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, but he did not call for a cessation of Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians. Similarly, there was no call for an end of the Israeli occupation, for Israeli compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, or a withdrawal from Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied territories or even a freeze on the construction of new settlements.

The liberal wing of America’s Jewish community is represented in the views of Americans for Peace Now (APN), which supports negotiations with the Palestinians based upon the principle of land for peace, that is, Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees. The conservative wing is represented by the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which supports the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his government’s ongoing occupation and colonization of Palestinian land seized in the 1967 war, repression of the Palestinian population, and refusal to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership.

When asked by the Jewish newspaper Forward late last year as to whether he supported APN’s perspective, Governor Dean replied "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."

In November, Dean paid his first-ever visit to Israel on an excursion that was organized and paid for by AIPAC. He was apparently unperturbed at his sponsors’ close ties to a government that engages in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations and blatantly violates a series of UN Security Council resolutions and other international legal principles. During his visit, Dean did not meet with any Palestinian leaders or any Israeli moderates.

Dean also appears to reject the widespread consensus among Israeli peace activists and Middle East scholars that Palestinian terrorism is a direct outgrowth of the 35-year Israeli military occupation. Instead, Dean seems to argue that terrorism itself is the core issue.

-snip-

He is less Progressive in almost all other areas than Kerry, Gephardt and even Clark.

is giving Dean a free ride, then in the next post they are quoting media hit pieces on Dean to prop up their attacks.


The blind hypocrisy is amazing.

The serve a rather limited audience.

The point is look at who (mediawise) supports Dean and who supports Clark.

The coverage of Dean was pushed by US, his supporters setting up local meetups and contacting our local media, and making the national media pay attention. We worked out asses off to write letters, call, send faxes and e-mails... and we started local and moved national.

At first the coverage was not good, in that they were trying to label Dean, paint him as far left or a pacifist wacko, and there were lots of attacks.

Then Dean started breaking fundraising records... and the coverage got better. The numbers for meetups and donations grew, and coverage grew with it.


Dean has gotten the coverage he has gotten because we busted our asses to get it... our hard work is paying off. Clark is suffering for much of the same reason... because his campaign fell apart. The draft Clark folks who thought they were going to be part of a Clark populist campaign like Dean is running, got showed the door when the special interests who own Clark decided the volunteers had outlived their usefulness.

The media had nothing to do with Clark’s campaign base disintegrating under him… and that’s why he is hurting. I’m amazed that people are so shocked that the guy who lied about his party and just suddenly became a dem to run for president when never having held office before, is getting critical reviews.

These folks act like any questioning of Clark is some unjust attack… like we should all just blindly vote for the shiny stars.

Dean got a big boost from last March. The media played him up and defined him, and it has helped with fundraising and meta-message comunication fromt he beginning.

I challenge you to write a post like the one that started this thread -- one that actually supports its thesis with refernces to text -- to prove your argument.

It can't be done.

Dean was raising the most money, and meetups were reaching record numbers and Dean was drawing huge crowds.


The media all but ignored Dean... he was treated like another Kucinich. The DLC attacked him as a leftist over the war and said his supporters were not real democrats.

I guess you were asleep for those 6 months.

Dean got some coverage in late 02 and early 03 for being against the war. However at the time the meetups were really starting to take off.

I went to the first meetup in Feb 03 and there were 15 people, in march there were 45, in April we had filled the venue with 70 people, and now we are nearing 1200.

The media didn't do that. We did. We built a network of grassroots support and we contacted out local media... they covered the meetups from the local angle. We got ore and more people, through the net and through grassroots organization... and when that quarter fundraising came in we had raised more than any other candidate.

We keep growing and we keep pushing the media... we have memebrs of our local media, tv news and radio, attending the meetups and supporting Dean. THis is how we are winning the media war... this is how we are raising more money than ever before... this is how we will win the primary... this is how we will win the white house.

You can stick your head in the sand and blame this on some media conspiracy, but you will not change the fact that Dean is winning because of the hard work of 130,000 meetup members and 480,000 campaign volunteers. Clark is losing because he doesn’t have anywhere near that level of support... simple as that.


Oh did you hear... the IUPAT just went for Dean.

That's when the media started marketing him and playing him up, and it paid off in exactly the way they planned. They channeled all the anti-war people to the campaign (the same people who were on the streets protesting).

The whole thing has been very well-orgainized (or mutually exploitative).

Furthermore, did you read through links in the original post? This argument is set out too well to ignore.

And I think the one in New york was in Jan.

The main reason the meetups started was to avoid the media spin and to fight it. SO in a way the media did start the meetups... but not the way you wish to be true. We started as a way to get info out and to find ways to organize to counter the spin from the media that Dean was just some leftist wacko.

"That's when the media started marketing him and playing him up, and it paid off in exactly the way they planned. They channeled all the anti-war people to the campaign (the same people who were on the streets protesting)."

LOL They tried to paint him as a far left anti-war pacifist wacko to lump him in with Kucinich and discredit him, not to play him up. It backfired because we already knew Dean was not anti-war or a pacifist. But he was a strong voice against the war at a time when guys like Kery were selling us out.

Are you still pushing this stupider than shit notion that all these Dean supporters are far left anti-war types who were tricked by the media into supporting Dean, and they still are just so amazingly stupid they d not know Dean isn't anti-war?

??

And if Deanies have an inside line to Mara Liasson ("we pressed the media for good coverage"), then I'm a little more worried than I was before.

The BIG jump didn't come until the summer. It wasn't until August that he got the cover of TIme, Newsweek, and US NEws. It doesn't mean there was NO media before that, the question is really, WHICH jump?

Oh, and NPR was referring to Dean as being among the most far to the left as recently as last week. They also still compare him to McGovern. When they get it right, I'll consider them credible.

and Dean had raised more than anybody else, and did so without big special interest pandering.

However that's not to say there was no coverage before that, just that the big bump was after the totals came in.

And you need no special inside line when you have thousands of people sending e-mails and lettters and faxes to the media.

Now do you have a real argument or do you just want to snipe and whine because your guy is losing?

that Dean made much use of the grassroots to build his campaign?

I'm just not sure what you want here. I'll be happy to provide it for you. And I can tell you how I got involved. I got asked about Dean on a message board and went to his website. Then, in passing conversation I found out that a bunch of my friends were interested too. And then we found out there was a meetup. We went, overcrowded the bar and split into three. Then we overcroded those bars, restaurants, libraries, etc and split into seven.

But you know, I was two months into the Dean campaign before ANY significant, mainstream press started paying attention. There was a reason why a year ago no one had heard about him or knew who he was, and it wasn't because he was getting all of this press time.

I think your question is more chicken/egg than anything else. Although the egg came first.

That article appeared in the Nation as well. It was written by a Green Kucinich supporter.It's the same tactic as the DLC uses to come at Dean from the other direction. Make yourself sound objective and slam the guy gaining momentum over YOUR guy.

:)

Dean is only Progressive on a few select issues such as the war in Iraq and civil unions. He reluctantly supported civil unions after the courts pushed it through. NOW he takes complete credit for it and claims that he was the one who championed it.

Complete credit for the bill? Where has he done that? He deservedly takes complete credit for signing it, but does he claim to have written it? Or promoted it through it's passage in the legislature?

It would mean a lot if he did those things. Can you show me where he did?

As far as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict goes, I think it's funny that half of his critics claim he's too pre-Israel and the other half claim he's too Pro-Palestine. I figure, if both sides are mad at you, you must be on point!

Anyway, I think you're misrepresenting him here with an op-ed piece that didn't really have all of its facts right anyway. Yes, Dean's position is in agreement with many AIPAC positions, but there is nothing in his platform that is Anti-Palestine. A good friend of mine put it very well, and I have his permission to quote him:

You should also be aware the Governor Dean's stated Middle East
position is fully in keeping with his views on multilateralism and force restraint. He is being supportive of the position officially advanced by the U.N., which was worked out with Russia and EU and HAS BEEN BLESSED BY THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. Hello, it's the position currently being pursued by the Palestinians. I don't see what other position could be supported at this point that would be both consistent with the only peace process at work or consistent with multilateralism and the refusal of pre-emptive force. Are there other positions a person could take? Yes. Are there other positions more advantageous to the Palestinians? Yes. Are there other positions more likely to being about an alleviationof the suffering of Palestinians in the material reality we occupy? No.

Dean's position of criticizing Bush's footdragging on Palestine is the
most mature and considered of all possible positions of the moment.
Speculation in the press on what that means is not constructive to
helping Palestinians, however much it helps Dean's opponents.

On the other hand, Clark looks less honest all the time. In this debate, he retold the story about how he lost a student council race in school because he voted, as a courtesy, for the other candidate. The implication is that Clark is Mr. Clean. But on Iraq, Clark is Mr. Revisionist. "I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring." In the spring? Has Clark not read the transcripts of his appearances on CNN? Or does he think nobody else has?

Clark compounded this insult to our intelligence by joking that he gives credit where it's due—"even Republicans doing something right." Does Clark think if he bashes Republicans hard enough, we'll forget he voted for them and praised them two years ago?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090378/


If these transcripts are so devastating, why not provide a quotation? Answer: can't do it without taking it out of context, and would immediately be called on the carpet for it.

Second bit is almost as gross: According to this, Clark 'voted for and praised' Republicans two years ago, which is total bullshit, but to the casual reader, the kind who would find Slate informative, it's valid information.

Saleton is a Bush whore, but this is bad even by his standards. But that corporate media is simply terrified of Dean -- 'it isn't that they are afraid he can't win, it's that they're afraid he can' to quote the drones.

The Full uncut version?
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE!

because it says "men like....Condoleeza Rice." Too bad he didn't amend it to say "men like Ann Coulter".

Like comments defending HIS WAR CRIME of bombing journalists? Do you agree that bombing civilians and journalists is OK? How exactly can you support a man who not only did it, but OPENLY defended a war crime?

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.


And how about the rest of what he said at the republican fundraiser?


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."


If that's Clark's idea of great leadership, I don't want him as county dog catcher, let alone president.

Do you agree with Clark that Reagan and Bush were great leaders? Are you greatful to Bush like Clark says you should be?

Boy, you are really clutching at straws.

Kosovo has been discussed ad nauseum....and you are still parotting the Drudge talking points about Praises to Bush!

although you have been corrected and the text has been printed on this thread, your blindfold is on pretty tight!

the context or praise was more a diplomatic effort at emphasizing that the administration should stay the course in Europe....which they ended up not doing!

His comments on that attack are most apt.

You might wish to inform yourself on the background....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=586040&mesg_id=586040&page=

No matter how fancy the wrapping paper or how many pretty bows you use to camouflage his past, once the package is opened, clark's crimes are still evident.

Cluster bombs
Depleted Uranium
Hospitals
Schools
Churches
Journalists' lives
Innocent civilians' lives...

Just following orders? See: Nuremberg trials.

Clark specificaly targeted civilians infrastructure to cause "economic damage" that would pressure the people to revolt.

Clark also worked for antoher war criminal, Henry Kissinger, as a lobbyist up to the very day he declared.

The legal criteria there is that the direct military advantage gained outweigh the harm done to civilians. That legal test was certainly passed. You may be so naive about war as to be unaware of the importance of breaking fighting morale, but neither the people who drew up the Geneva treaties, nor the judges who are today charged with interperting them in application to the late Balkan wars, share your ignorance in the matter.

Persoons who make such shrill and exaggerate charges as this do nothing but assist reactionary politicians, in their claims that left and progressive figures should not be trusted near questions of national security and foreign policy by the people. These rightist reptiles much appreciate your asistance, Sir.

You may carry on about it as you please, but no crimes were committed.

The weapons you reference are not specifically banned.

The locations you claim were either struck on stray, near legitimate targets, or being actively used for military purposes.

State facilities are a legitimate target, and forces are required not to kill no civilians, an obvious impossibility, but to take steps to m inimize harm done to civilians, which was done.

The sort of shrill charge you are indulging in does nothing but discredit the very concept of laes of war, and reinforce the widespread view of the people that leftist views on questions of war and peace are nonsense, other-worldly at best, treasonous at worst. You do nothing but assist reactionaries when you insist on this foolish charge.

If I assist anyone in urging peace, for preventing the deaths of innocent men, women and children for saving and not destroying their schools, hospitals and churches, then I assist them proudly!

Whether or not clark's war crimes ever make it to a real trial, he will always be morally and ethically a war criminal in my book.

Violence only begets more violence. Not one fucking thing good comes from it. I know. I am living it.

has found him innocent of everything you charge? YOU have decided he's a war criminal and therefore he is! He may be a war criminal in your "book" but I suspect everyone connected to the military is "ethically" a war criminal in your "book".

Thankfully, no one else much is reading your book, and very few are irrational enough to agree with your assessment.

Like it or not, military action involves violence and is necessary on occasion. If you refuse to recognize that, you live in a fantasy world. Either that, or you're an apologist for Slobodan Milosevic which I cannot conceive.

Link please?

Targeting civilains and journalists is a war crime.


It is wrong when Bush does it and it was wrong when Clark did it.

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

The ignorance displayed by your twitching knee is risible.

It is a common delusion among thoughtless persons on the left that shortly after World War Two, the powers of the world convened in Geneva and wrote documents outlawing the normal practice of warfare, without quite noticing they had done so. They did no such thing.

Look at the facts, Dean's positions are neither extremely liberal nor extremely conservative. He favors balancing the budget, he gets an A rating from the NRA, yet he is opposed to the war in Iraq and he favors a more comprehensive health care plan. Seriously, you know that someone is electable when he's attacked from BOTH the left and the right.

But what's really amazing about Dean is he appeals to the people. His whole campaign is a grass roots effort. Look at how he started out: he had nothing, no name recognition, little money. And yet, now he is the front runner.

In a single quarter he has raised almost as much money as all of the other democratic candidates combined. Just like McCain, people across many different spectrums of views like and support Dean. They may not agree with him on EVERY issue, but on the whole they believe he is a straight shooter (unlike Bush who tries to pretend he is) and that he's genuinely interested in looking out for their interests.

As far as I'm concerned Dean has already locked up the nomination. The sort of grass roots support and the amount of money he has raised speaks a LOT. He has the momentum and nothing is going to stop him.

I still like Clark, though, and I disagree with those who claim he is a Republican in disguise (people who deal in labeling people shouldn't be taken seriously anyway). As far as the polls, he came in with a big bang, but now people are starting to see the reality of who he is. He is probably my third favorite candidate after Dean and Al Sharpton (and in terms of electability second to Dean, but make no mistake I would vote for Sharpton over him). That said, at each of the debates he has looked very poor. He does great in one on one interviews, but in debates he comes across poorly. I think he's a smart man, and I will happily support him on the Dean/Clark ticket, but I don't think he's ready for the big chair at this time.

I found that Dean looked really bad at the debates......answering policy experience question with that great big DUKAKIS moment, when he said he had as much experience as Bush did ....Like that's reassuring to "the people". Said he surrounds himself with advisors...Makes "the people" feel so much safer than???

I don't buy Dean's electibility. It's a mirage for those who have worked so hard for him.

I'm in it to beat Bush; not to take a gamble that "the People" will like him.

"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

You have a pretty funny way of showing it. You come off as eager to see Bush win if Dean gets the nomination.

why don't you. My words do at no time say anything about choosing Bush over Dean.....and if it did happen, it wouldn't because of my vote.

your entire post is simply the complete Deanite propaganda piece from start to finish, right down to making sure you try to diminish Clark with the VP comment? You have been programmed well.

but it's not a cult:).

but it's not politics as usual.

Too bad. Staunch defenders of the American political golden rule (whoever has the gold rules) are really having a hard time with it.

All things being equal does this really change the fact that he who has the gold (Dean) makes the rules? Does the fact that he has 100,000 contributors instead of 10,000 make a difference when the Democratic electorate is over 50 million? If Dean does get elected do you think you'll have any control over policy?

thought process there.

Look at you folks having your own little discussion, standing in a corner whispering just loud enough for the objects of your poisoned barbs to hear!

We're fanatics! We're brainwashed! We're almost a cult! Oooooooh!

Translation:

Enthusiasm is susicious! Passion is taboo!

See, this is precisely why I think Dean needs to adopt an official band. The Polyphonic Spree. You may have heard one of their songs recently in a VW commerical. Seeing their show was one of the greatest live music experiences of my life. And baing a fan of theirs gets me the same cock-eyed looks from people. Where's the Kool-Aid! But it's only the pathologically cynical that look at you like that. It's only the people who are so closed off inside that they can't even recognize raw passion and a belief in the Good Fight.

So here, I'm going to share it with you:



http://www.thepolyphonicspree.com

Edit: Check out the video for Light and Day!

The right wing wants to pick our candidate....

The right wing wants to pick the candidate they believe will be cannon fodder for Bush....

I can hear the cackling voices now.... The right wing is stupid.....


Yeah, they are so stupid they control both houses of Congress and a majority of elective offices in the United States....


They are about to screw us again in 04 and I'll bet they won't even kiss us in the morning...


Wake up people....

It's a very risky proposition. I can't take another loss like 2000 (put my heart and soul into the Gore campaign). Worked on the last 3 Presidential campaigns and plan on working again as long as it's Clark, Dean, Edwards or Gephardt in the General. I just can't put myself out there again for someone I don't think has a very good chance of winning (Dean).

Dean only appeals to the areas of the country that we already have in the bag. What we need is someone who will appeal to the swing states and to the South.

Clark might be risky in some ways - but he's not half as risky as Dean.

I'm very afraid for our party if Dean gets the nomination. We can't have Bush for another 4 years....

I love the FAKE concern posts. They make me want to laugh and cry at the same time!

Where do you live, JaneKat? In the South? Do you visit the south regularly? I happen to live in the south. Guess who has the biggest presence? DEAN. He's in second in NC right now, just behind Edwards. And you know, those things that people here deride him for, his position on the death penalty, his position on gun control, his position on civil unions, all point to one underlying theme, upheld in the south since the civil war. It rolls off the tongue smoothly with a southern accent: STATES RIGHTS.

The state fair, democratic party booth, DEAN supporters provided so many volunteers that they couldn't even manage the schedule. We've raised tens of thousands of dollars. Our numbers grow every month.

In 1992, Clinton lost to Bush by les than 1% in NC. This state is ripe for the taking, and frankly, when I talk to people of all political idealologies, I can make their eyebrows go up when I talk about Dean.

So unless you really know I'm wrong and can convince me of it, I'd love to know your logic.

n/t

is absurd.

you provide anything of substance to back up your mean spirited claims.

proven on this board.

It's a claim that has been made repeatedly and never backed up. It's never been proven.

And if it has been proven, you would have a link to the thread in which that was done, or a link to a website that proves it. You would have thi stuff handy. It would be as accessible to you as my proof that Nader sought to destroy the D party is to me. But you never put up. You only make the claim. Again and agiain and again.

I've never seen this "proof" that you speak of.

n/t

So I'm supposed to believe that you just got done posting your evidence, but for some reason my Dean filtered browser won't show it?

I'll say it again. If you post it I will read it. I've said it many times, and not once has it been posted. I'll wait and wait, I suppose.

He's evolved: http://www.wafflepoweredhoward.com.

me to discredit the whole site in one post, or would it be better for me to break it down for you?

Spare me the propoganda, I get enough from TLM.

I wasn't going to go to Deandefense. I do love, however, the way you stereotype and jump to conclusions.

I also love the "If it supports what I think, it HAS to be right, and if it doesn't, it's propaganda!" approach to politics. It's a little less than what I expect from intelligent, well meaning Democrats, but exactly what I expect from people here, particularly the Dean Bashers.

I am NO fan of Deandefense.org. I've found few answers there that I couldn't find anywhere else, and their aggressive approach turns me off. But hey, don't let that stop you from type casting me because I disagree. God knows your approach is a lot more fun and a lot less work.

You can't expect intelligent discourse when arguments are based on spin and counter-spin. Dean's a moderate democrat, as is Clark, and Kerry; I just refuse to give into demogoguery.

Whoever put that wafflepoweredhoward site together is guitly of demagoaguery, or at least some form of it.

So either you do or you don't give in to it. But don't sit there and post links to crap like that and then claim to be above it.

I posted counter-spin to your original spin. Neither is true, people do change position quite naturally.

The site is put up by a Kerry supporter: http://toughenough.org/

What was my original spin? Please post it. Because I have no idea what you are talking about.

*nm*

that Dean has changed or waffled on any position? If so then I appologize:)

Did Clark waffle? Did Kerry waffle? Did Dean waffle?

Do I fault anyone for approaching a complex issue with caution? Do I blame anyone for trying to be RIGHT? Do I think I know more than any of those guys about something like this? No to all.

I don't hold Clark and Dean to the same standard as I do the senators. I was against the IRW. And I hold a small grudge against anyone who voted for it, and I have clear reasons which I'll hold onto since this isn't about that.

I was excited when Clark declared because he lent credibility to everyone who stands up and says that this war was a bad move. And when it comes right down to it, I don't think anyone was realistically going to stop Bush from perpetrating this.

This is such a complex issue. It's no easier when clark people claim the same thing about Dean that Dean people claim about Kerry that Kerry people claim about Clark.

I'd prefer a candidate that examines the issues before committing; Clark, Kerry, and Dean all fit this criteria. If I wanted to know more about Dean's ideas I'd go to his website, same with Clark and Kerry.

From the horses mouth:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm

To which the answer is no flip/flop.....no matter how much the corporate cockroaches would wish it so......

In reading the Clark's congressional testimony to the House, his article titled "Let's wait to attack", the original article written on his position on the resolution and his originial advise to Swett, and the statements that he made on the 1st day of his announcement, I do not see the flip/flop. However, I would be happy if you could point it out to me. Clark was and is not "anti-war" in the pure terms. If others labeled him as such, that was their doing. Clark, based on my research, always stressed that this war was not required and was elective. I await your response in which you can articulate to me where the flip/flop is. Clarks pronouncement that this war was wrong were in the context of all of the statements that he has articulated. That Saddam Hussein could have been handled short of war was always a recurring theme. As a diplomatic thinker, Clark is not Howard Dean, and as such, did not make statements that were black and white. I believe that it was the media that chose to rank him as anti-war a la Dean (and Dean's own stance certainly is questionable to some extent) to then take the opportunity to question his integrity.
I am enclosing some of the information that I have read that leads me to the opinion that I currently hold; my bias as you label it.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html Clark's appearance before the House Armed Service Committee - 9/26/02
http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp - Clark stance on Resolution as of 10/09/02 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4257771-103677,00.html - article by Clark on the "war on terror" 9/16/01
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/ - article by Clark on the Iraq War - Let's wait to Attack 10/10/02


CAMPAIGNING IN NEW HAMPHIRE

not that facts matter to the Clark corps.


October 2002: For The War
• Before The Congressional Vote On The War Resolution, Clark Said He Supported It. “Clark said…he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move to war. …The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate”.

Ø Clark Advised Congressional Candidate Katrina Swett To Vote For The Resolution. Clark, endorsing Katrina Swett in the '02 NH 02 race, "said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate."

Ø Clark Said That Although He Opposed The Doctrine Of Preemptive War, “Certain Cases,” Including Iraq, Necessitated “Going To War Before Our Enemies Strike”. “Clark, a former Rhodes Scholar, tried to point out in historical terms how America may lose its dominant hegemony with the Bush administration’s latest pre-emptive strike doctrine. ’Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy,’ Clark said.”

April 2002: For The War
Ø Clark Praised Bush for his “Resolve in the face of so much doubt”. In an op-ed in the Times of London in April 2003 after the fall of Baghdad, Clark wrote: “As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt”

9/18/03: Probably For The War
• Clark Said He “Probably” Would Have Voted For War. “Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he ‘probably’ would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war”

Ø Clark reportedly characterized his position as resembling Lieberman and Kerry: “Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. ‘That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited,’ Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.”

9/18/03: Ummm…Unclear
• Clark Admitted he “said it both ways…” . “‘I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it.’”

9/19/03: Against the War
• Clark Said He “Never Would Have Voted For War”. “‘I never would have voted for war,’ he said…in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. ‘What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That’s what we needed to avoid a war.”

• “’Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war,’ Clark told the AP. ‘I've gotten (sic) a very consistent record on this.’ ‘I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein.’”

10/6/03: For the war…with exceptions
• Clark Reportedly Said He would Have Vote for a resolution that would have required the President to Come Back to Congress. At a town hall meeting in Little Rock Arkansas, in response to a question from University of Arkansas Professor Art English: “English asked Clark to clarify once again his views on the war resolution that Congress debated a year ago this fall. Clark…said the only resolution he would have supported were proposals giving the president the support of Congress to go to the United Nations and see a war resolution. But the same resolution would have required the president to come back to the Congress to seek final permission on going to war. ‘I would have voted for leverage to get the problem internationalized,’ he said…”

are you better than the right wing media......using their tactics to make your point......

You left a lot of the words out of you cut and paste.....and this is an example below of only one of the articles you so eloquently edit.

Guess your are relying that no one else will read the actual articles, like the mediawhores do.


Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns
about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM, Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Retired U.S. Army Gen.
Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a
congressional resolution that would give President
Bush authority to use military force against Iraq,
although he has reservations about the country's
move toward war.
-----------------
He said if she were in Congress this week, he would
advise her to vote for the resolution, but only
after vigorous debate.
-----------------
The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a
threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and
saidthe debate about a response has been conducted
backward.
"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and
consider possible solutions. Instead, the president
has presented us with a solution before the problem
has been fully articulated," he said.
------------------
"As far as the information we have now shows, there
are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to
America," he said. "You can't wait 10 years to act,
but there is time on our side."

He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist
threat against the United States, and the connection
between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.
-----------------
After endorsing Swett in Nashua, he visited
Manchester West High School and reassured history
students that the threat of terrorism should be kept
in perspective.

http://www4.fosters.com/election_2002/oct/09/us_2cong_1009a.asp

n/t

nothing that you claim to have added changed the fact Clark flip floped on the war.


Here's what you claimed I cut out:

Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Retired Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns
about Iraq policy
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM, Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Retired U.S. Army Gen.
Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a
congressional resolution that would give President
Bush authority to use military force against Iraq,
although he has reservations about the country's
move toward war.

Here's what I quoted...

October 2002: For The War
• Before The Congressional Vote On The War Resolution, Clark Said He Supported It. “Clark said…he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move to war. …The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate”.



Here's what you said I cut out...

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would
advise her to vote for the resolution, but only
after vigorous debate.


Here's what I quoted...

Ø Clark Advised Congressional Candidate Katrina Swett To Vote For The Resolution. Clark, endorsing Katrina Swett in the '02 NH 02 race, "said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate."


Here's what you said I cut...

The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a
threat, but questioned whether it was immediate and
saidthe debate about a response has been conducted
backward.
"Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and
consider possible solutions. Instead, the president
has presented us with a solution before the problem
has been fully articulated," he said.


Here is what I quoted....

October 2002: For The War
• Before The Congressional Vote On The War Resolution, Clark Said He Supported It. “Clark said…he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country’s move to war. …The general said he had no doubt Iraq posed a threat, but questioned whether it was immediate”.


Curious... how does the coments about the debate being backwards change what Clark said supporting the war? And didn't this quote get that point across as well regarding the time frame and process?


Ø Clark reportedly characterized his position as resembling Lieberman and Kerry: “Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. ‘That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited,’ Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.”



You said i cut...

"As far as the information we have now shows, there
are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to
America," he said. "You can't wait 10 years to act,
but there is time on our side."

He said al-Qaida remains the largest terrorist
threat against the United States, and the connection
between al-Qaida and Iraq is unclear.


Here's what I posted....


. ‘That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited,’


What you claim I cut....

After endorsing Swett in Nashua, he visited
Manchester West High School and reassured history
students that the threat of terrorism should be kept
in perspective.


What I posted....


Ø Clark Said That Although He Opposed The Doctrine Of Preemptive War, “Certain Cases,” Including Iraq, Necessitated “Going To War Before Our Enemies Strike”. “Clark, a former Rhodes Scholar, tried to point out in historical terms how America may lose its dominant hegemony with the Bush administration’s latest pre-emptive strike doctrine. ’Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike, and I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish it as policy,’ Clark said.”


Funny not only did I quote things you claimed I did not, for the parts that weren't quoted in one piece, other quote hit the same points Clark raised. Yet I notice you ignored...




April 2002: For The War
Ø Clark Praised Bush for his “Resolve in the face of so much doubt”. In an op-ed in the Times of London in April 2003 after the fall of Baghdad, Clark wrote: “As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt”

9/18/03: Probably For The War
• Clark Said He “Probably” Would Have Voted For War. “Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he ‘probably’ would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war”


9/18/03: Ummm…Unclear
• Clark Admitted he “said it both ways…” . “‘I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it.’”

9/19/03: Against the War
• Clark Said He “Never Would Have Voted For War”. “‘I never would have voted for war,’ he said…in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. ‘What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That’s what we needed to avoid a war.”

• “’Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war,’ Clark told the AP. ‘I've gotten (sic) a very consistent record on this.’ ‘I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein.’”

10/6/03: For the war…with exceptions
• Clark Reportedly Said He would Have Vote for a resolution that would have required the President to Come Back to Congress. At a town hall meeting in Little Rock Arkansas, in response to a question from University of Arkansas Professor Art English: “English asked Clark to clarify once again his views on the war resolution that Congress debated a year ago this fall. Clark…said the only resolution he would have supported were proposals giving the president the support of Congress to go to the United Nations and see a war resolution. But the same resolution would have required the president to come back to the Congress to seek final permission on going to war. ‘I would have voted for leverage to get the problem internationalized,’ he said…”

Who knows why TV goes for one over the other.

Tried to warn you guys when he announced, sorry it's happening. This is the most bizarre primary in my memory. Nothing matters except media spin.

When that happens, it's easy for the candidate with the most concentrated message to get all the attention -- it saves the media the work of having to figure things out for themselves.

This really is a freakshow of a primary, though. It's an extension of the bizarre state of American politics since Bush stole the election. Kucinich is something of a kook, but he deserves more than 1% of the Democratic vote -- that's insane. On his positions alone, there should be some kind of constituency for him, but there's nothing. At the other extreme, we're watching a guy be annointed by the corporate media as the Democratic nominee, while his supporters tout him as the anti-corporate candidate. Everything's upside down, and I can't figure out what the lever is that turned it that way. Part of of me thinks we're watching democracy begin to die in this country, while the other part thinks it's just a phase, brought on by two crazy events -- the non-election in 2000, and 9/11. All of me wishes I could move to another country, though. I like this place less and less.

him.

I think there's a direct correlation between the absurdity of the Clark attacks (and the Dean puffery and the ingnoring of Edwards) and the weakness of Bush.

and we all realize that even an incompetent and perfidious incumbent has real advantages....

That being said the right wing media wants to do everything to make sure the odds are in Chimpy's favor and that means saddling us with a weak candidate....

I don't know who our strongest candidate would be but I do know who our weaker candidates would be and these are the ones the right wing media is pining for.....

I was the only kid in my rural Florida junior high school who supported McGovern in 72 and 04 is beginning to look more and more like 72...

People have short memories....By playing on peoples fears and insecurities the Pukes won 49 states and 62%!!!!!!! of the popular votes despite a mediocre economy and an unpopular war....

Sounds familiar....

I'm tempted to bet on the outcome but I couldn't sleep at night benefitting from other folks misery....

<sigh>

Brian

Some days I think the country is beyond salvation. Other times I think there must have been people who thought the same thing during McCarthyism. And I know there were people on both sides of the 60's, those against the 'establishment'; and just as many totally discouraged with Vietnam protests, assassinations, the uppity 'negroes', hippies, drugs, and everything else. So I guess we just hang on and keep talking. I just keep remembering 'you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time' and hope we regain our collective intelligence pretty soon!

It's hard to understand why Dean is such a choice of the liberals. He's far from the most liberal in the race and certainly he's not a progressive. I find his statements on criminal justice to be very disturbing, if they're an accurate reflection of things he's said and meant. I'm talking about things I've read here, not what's on his site, including statements about the technicalities that defense lawyers use to get their clients acquitted. I mean really disturbing, not "spin" disturbing. Of course, it's hard to be sure if that's really what he said, or what he meant with all the spin we do here, too.

that isn't backed up.

People like him because he is dedicated to doing the things that ned to be done, like getting healthcare to everyone. His plans are the most pragmatic.He's not the most liberal by a long shot, and thank Dog for that.

I think Clark's campaign has stumbled, like the kind of stumble where you nearly fall on your face.

He needs to quit listening to the "pros" and be himself. He needs to take charge of his campaign as he would battle-plans. I feel the weakness of his campaign has led to much of this less-than-favorable press.

Lastly, he does have to overcome two things to win the Democratic nomination. The fact is he did do the praise Team Bush thing. Considering how hated that gang of thugs is one must realize how important it is to overcome and do so directly. Calling it "bashing" or dismissing it any other way when the it is brought up may be enough in the minds of Clark supporters on our little forum here but we are not all Dem primary voters--we are a fraction of a fraction of a percent. It has to be taken care of swiftly and skillfully--and damn forcefully.

The other thing he needs to overcome is the IWR. I did see him on CNN in the war build up and the kick-off and I got the impression he was supportive of it. Now he says he was against it, ok, I'll take his word for it and so will his supporters. We are the tiniest of percentages tho' in the grand scheme of things. His campaign has proven to be pretty impotent at getting these bothersome items off the table, freeing the General to get on with serious campaigning.

It is easy to see your guy as the victim. I see Dean take hits but his campaign is so quick to react effectively he does not get bogged down fending off those hits and he can pretty much get his message out 24/7.

The key to Clark's success or failure will largely be due to his campaign and how they get these things off the table coupled with Clark's ability to powerfully get his message out once they get this straight-jacket off him.

Julie

The right wing does not want to face Clark in the
general election. They fear him.

They would rather take their chances with Dean.

It is painfully obvious.

The media is trying to pick our candidate,
mark my words.

Let's see if Clark can pull his campaign back together
to recover his initial surge. I bet he can but we will
have to see.

I met Clark and Dean the other night and they both
were great.

It's been painfully obvious for quite some time.

Clark's campaign clearly has problems. Unless they fix those there is no hope.

I think Clark has the potential to be a great candidate. I believe his campaign is preventing this.

It saddens me to see such whining about the press. Clark got a set-up and intro into the race unlike any other. His campaign has dropped the ball. I believe Clark's lack of experience makes him believe it when they tell him they know better than he does and he must do as they say, not as he wants. Too bad they are wrong. No campaign experience, true, but he's done leadership and that's what is needed now.

The other night in Detroit I was disappointed in his performance. He seemed to me like a man who had gotten way too much advice and overloaded. Like his own heartfelt views were lost in the melee' of what his handlers had force fed him.

Only by honestly addressing the weak points will they be remedied. Whining "whore press loves Dean" will only make things worse.

Julie

As a supporter, I can only agree with that!

But the press seems to have slowly geared up to the position of making him a "Flash in the Pan".

It's obvious. Dean is Dukakis on crack.

well, you know.

Dean is Dukakis on crack? It sounds real cute. But there's never an explanation there. You must get all the laughs amongst your unquestioning friends with that line.

:nuke:

in the ass if Dean wins.

Here is your quote:

"It saddens me to see such whining about the press."

Let's see whether you "whine" or not if Deans wins and
becomes besieged by negative spinning day after day after
day. Let's see you "whine" or not when your own party
starts using right wing talking points against its very
own candidate.

Read Conason, Franken, Hightower, et al.

It happened to Clinton, it happened to Gore, now it is
happening to Clark. If Dean wins, it will happen to him

I like Dean (except for his negative campaigning on the
other dems) but he is getting a free pass right now. You'll
see.

but I won't blame it for any obvious weaknesses in the campaign. Clinton under constant attack and he managed to overcome. Clark has gotten much less crap and his campaign flounders. Again, I blame Clark's campaign, not necessarily Clark.

I am guessing though, as a Dean supporter my observations of worthy of no merit. Understood.

Julie

and I AM a committed supporter, but to hear the sanctimonious GOP say that Dean is unelectable pisses me off so much that, if Clark should fade, I WILL work my heart out for Howard just to get the bastard out of the WH. It will be a tsunami...ABB 2004!!

...candidates.

Why are so many DU'ers (who saw media whorishness EVERYWHERE before it was helping Dean) pretending that it doesn't exist now?

i'm still angry and disgusted by all that. i'm watching gray davis do all he can to help with the fire problems going on. he is good on knowing what is important and what should be done. i can just see the moron arnold talking about how he will "terminate the fires" and the whore media getting excited over it. and they would overplay this kind of crap and the people would think arnold would be better or tougher on getting rid of the fires than gray davis. even though davis was the one who actually gave real ideas on how to deal with things. that's pretty much how the entire campaign went.

The whores have turned a trick, i.e, many Democrats.

Damn, I swear this is sooooooooo frustrating. Personally, I like Kerry. But I'd have to be freaking BLIND not to see that there is a conspiracy going on to smear General Clark so that Bush won't have to face him in a national election.

Bottom line -- if Bush faces a candidate like Clark in a national election, he WILL BE TOAST! The sheeple were fooled by the image and perception of Bush as a strong, no-nonsense, take-charge kind of guy, who had ethics and would restore a "tone of civility" to Washington. Bush presented himself as that kind of candidate, but Clark is the REAL DEAL. Given a choice between what the sheeple realize to be a fake and the real thing, they'll go with the real thing.

THAT'S what scares the right-wingers. That Clark will do away with their military pork and that crooks like Halliburton won't be able to bleed the federal treasury dry.

So I'd rather not run a republican war criminal against a republican war criminal.

Tell you what... if you can explain to me how it is OK to murder journalists and civilains, as Clark feels it is, and explain why you think supporting a war criminal is in line with progressive values, I'll consider voting for Clark.


Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.

Furthermore, the notion that any Democrat is going to beat Bush is a dangerous platform from which to approach 2004.

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about how the press is controlling the perceptions people have of the candidates. You're post is a perfect example of how easy it is to do that. (You also behave as if you haven't even read the top post in this thread.) If the press is having such an easy time destroying Clark, imagine how easy it will be for them to do that to any of the candidates.

A victory is not assured in 2004. It's stupid to pick the worst candidate because you think it's going to be easy to win.

It is easy to destroy a guy who lied about his party, never held office, can't give a straight answer, flip floped on the war, and openly defends the act of murdering journalists.


You're only claiming the evil media is controling the views of people to avoid admitting that people just don't want your guy. If the media was heaping praise on CLark... you wouldn't have any problems with them, but because they dare to ask questions of Clark and are not working to prop him up as you want them too, then you have to freak out and attack.

You're good at this.

Clark isn't my candidate, by the way. But I'm not blind to the dangers of the bullshit you're perpetrating.

You think Dean won't be next? Or are you hoping that Dean will be last, and you know that he's going to get this treatment?

I doubt he'll run into the same problems as Clark.

The media just isn't hyping CLark the way his campaign folks hoped, because there were too many questions about General War Crimes.


Maybe if Clark could get a quarter of a million people to write letters, he'd get more coverage? Dean has the media because Dean and his supporters spent 10 months working our asses off to make the media pay attention, to force them to pay attention.

Now our hard work is paying off and you people can't fucking stand it.

Could you please make a substantiated argument.

and the fact you would prefer to ignore them in favor of pushing this fantasy that ignores the more than half a million people pushing for Dean, is an indication that your position is not one of reason or logic, but of sour grapes. As such no argument, no matter how strong, will change your position, so what is the point in trying to explain that the media coverage of Dean was total crap at first, until Dean supporters worked to change it.

We are the ones who are causing the media focus on Dean... let Clark get a half million supporters to mobalize on the net, then write letters, send e-mails, meet every month for 10 months to pool resources and work on ways to get better coverage, and you'll see his coverage get better... just as we saw Dean's coverage get better when we did that.


However there is only so much coverage Clark can get before his war crimes start getting more attention, so it is really lose/lose for the perfumed prince.

fiscal conservative! I am amazed at the power of the media to manipulate people into accepting Dean. I promise you, this is going to end up in tears.

fools who are being tricked by the media. We can't possibly know Dean's positions because someone would have to be really stupid and retarded not to see things your way and agree with you, right? We're all just stupid and being tricked into supporting a guy we don't really know is for balanced budgets and we really just don;t know that he's not a anti-gun... we're all being fooled because we really think Dean is a super far left pacifist and we don;t know any better.

We need someone like you to help us and tell us what to think so we can all be smart like you instead of dumb Dean supporters, right?

Just how stupid do you think we all are... the half million of us who are pushing Dean forward. Shame that all the dem establishment can't seem to beat this one faker and his legion of fools.


"I promise you, this is going to end up in tears."

Yeah CLark's and Bush's and Kerry's and all the insider power elite who will lose their hold on things when Dean wins.

When Dean wins the nomination are you going to vote for him?

What is Dean, a hidden conservative that only deluded liberals would support or a raving Dukakis-on-crack leftie who's gonna lose the conservative states?

(By the usual logic, the former is supposed to be more "electable.")

Dean-bashers pull both of these lines, constantly, as convenience dictates. You guys gotta decide!

not confusing. But, to support Dean, you have to pretend it's confusing.

Dean is a fiscal conservative with libertarian tendencies (ranging from social issues like gun control, to, of primary importance, issues like tax policy, big business friendliness, and regulation).

He's barely a democrat on the fiscal front -- which his 'liberal' supporters either completely ignore, or they lie to themselves the way Bush supporters lie to themselves about Bush; they say, oh, but I've seen into his soul and he's a good man).

Dean is too easily cast by RW'ers as being too liberal, thanks to the libertarian inclinations (especially the civil union stuff, and his war opposition).

If you want Bush to win, Dean is the dream candidate. He's not going to excite the core demographic to vote (because his fiscal conservativism and his biography won't excite them, he won't get the vote of union and black voters who vote on the economy and not civil unions and war opposition). Furthermore, for every angry white liberal voting because they think he's great on gay rights issues and hates Bush as much as they do, he's going to encourage 1.1 Republicans to vote against him, and the middle is going to lean towards someone better on national security, after they listen to a debate for 3 months over whether we should elect an anti-national security democrat or a pro-national security Republican (oh, and you can bet the media is going to start pretending that there are huge improvements in Iraq).

It's great! Keep the focus on Dean because you are helping get him elected! And that's exactly what I want. I guess I agree with the repugs on something.

They are making it all too clear. If he's pissing off both extremes, he must be just in the right spot.

People will ook at all of these folks sniping from all sides and realize that he must be cutting through the BS, because all of the bullshitters are PISSED at him.

Yes- all this stuff is admirable - even inspiring... BUT to base your support of a candidate on THAT is illogical.

Which, in case you missed it, was the point of the thread... to attack the means by which Dean got the media coverage he gets.

As I said you get Clark 500,000 people who write letters, give money, and meet every month to work to get him elected... and you'll see his coverage grow as Dean's has.

we suppotr him because of that? Are you really having trouble grasping all of this?

You're so off the wall.
War crimes?
Geez, get real.
If it were up to people like you, this country would have no military.

Another reason Dean isn't the person to support.
He will die in the South and our 170-some-odd electorial college votes will go to Bush.

Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.


And do not dishonor the military by acting as if Clark's actions are SOP. THey are not... they are war crimes, which he openly admitted to and defended in the quote above.

I support a stong military... just not one that targets and killes civilians and journalists when they do not like the story they tell.

Are you OK with bombing civilians and journalists?


"Another reason Dean isn't the person to support.
He will die in the South and our 170-some-odd electorial college votes will go to Bush."

Wrong... Dean's NRA rating will give him a big bost in the south and mid-west as will his states rights positions on gun control.

Next?

I like Dean. I like Clark. They both have a lot of pluses (and a few minuses). I'd be thrilled if either of these guys got the nomination.

But I am SICK TO DEATH of smear jobs on Clark by Deanies (and others). This is not helping your candidate AT ALL, son. Please stop.

It's great that everybody is speaking their minds. Go for it. But while Deanies and Clarkies are throwing barbs at each other, we should not let our rhetoric manifest as a true dislike for either candidate becuase, if we do, we're going to be having some serious cognative dissonance when faced with a Dean/Clark ticket.

Much more than the issue of the supporters. I still didn't get much of an answer from Dean supporters as to why the progressive press is defending Clark, while many Dean supporters are signing the Right Wing refrain.Beyond some discounting salon, mediawhoresonline.com, Josh Marshall, etc........ One poster said that the "real" progressive media were not for Clark.....but the poster forgot to say who that media was.

The Media chose our President in 2000, our congressmen & senators in 2002, our California Governor in 2003.....I'll be dammed if they pick our Democratic nominee in 2004!

Take off your blindfold people! and put on your thinking Caps!
Make sure your loyalties don't get in the way of priorities!

remind you that I started this thread because of the previously posted DU thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=69680&mesg_id=69680

When all of those progressive publications officially endorse a candidate.

I've said this before: even if your candidate isn't Clark (and even if you think the media is going to let your candidate be the last one standing in the primaries, ie Dean), it is critically important that you not allow the media to pick/smear ANY of the candidates. You're a fool if you think they're not going to smear the Dem who eventually gets nomainate, and by failing to make a stand now, you're legitimizing and enabling them to continue to do it.

It just shocks me that most DU'ers were all over the media BS up to 2002, started to waiver in Nov 2002, couldn't see through the fog with recall vote, and are now in a state of total denial (and are enabling the media) when it comes to Clark v Dean.

People who do this are sowing the seeds for a Democratic loss in 2004.

Lesson not learned.....
and history repeats itself!
as was documented in this article written in January of 2003


DEMS Do's and Don'ts........what to look out for:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/010603a.html

to reach the 10 or 11 million who consume the BS news, and it doesn't help if the blogs and meetups, and GD forums are selling a message that's also BS in it's on peculiar way.

In any event, much in this article is very true.

out of curiosity?

The meetups and blog are not alone what changed the media coverage... the meetups and blog served as organizing tools. It was US, Dean supporters who changed things. We used meetups to reach out to the first level of people on the ground, to organize and pool resources and information.

We organized, and that is how we did it. People across the nation, thousands and thousands of people sent a wall of letters to media, to the people of NH and Iowa, to unions, to local politicians, to everybody. We had local media cover the meetups, and the national media often follows their affiliates.

We knew the media are whores who follow money... so we made Dean the money story with donations. We worked our asses off, opened our wallets, and we did it. And frankly I rsent the hell out of your pissy little sour grapes attempt to try and discredit the effect we had, by creating this media conspiracy. The media is following Dean now only because we made Dean the best story of the bunch.

We are winning because we worked our asses off. Yes the meetups fought the spin from the media, which was all there was about Dean at first... Dean the anti-war lefty polling at 2% was the media coverage before. But our work did not stop at the door of the meetup... that's where it started.

If Clark had a thousand people in every major city all telling their local media affiliates to cover Clark... all writing letters, sending e-mails, and faxes, sending money, doing community outreach and busting their asses like we did... Clark would be getting better coverage.

We're getting what we worked for... Clark, Mr. Last minute, shouldn't be surprised that he's getting the same shitty kind of coverage Dean got 10 months ago. You need no conspiracy to explain it.

Gore and Gray Davis are NOT holding back on Dean because a million Deanies have their media's feet to the flames. They're destroying Clark and playing up Dean in a way that generates support and donations from the masses becasue it fits the pattern they've estabilished--they're trying to get Republicans elected.

I hate doing this, but I think you deserve to know: you make my head hurt so much TLM, that I'm going to have to start ignoring your posts. That means I probably won't read your posts unless someone else responds to them whom I not ignoring (because that makes it possible to view your post without having to log out -- you just click the 'reply to' post number to view the ignored person's post).

Gore and Gray Davis are NOT holding back on Dean because a million Deanies have their media's feet to the flames. They're destroying Clark and playing up Dean in a way that generates support and donations from the masses becasue it fits the pattern they've estabilished--they're trying to get Republicans elected.

You have yet to illustrate how promoting Dean is promoting Bush. You're working from a biased premise that NO ONE has supported. Why?

"Gore and Gray Davis are NOT holding back on Dean because a million Deanies have their media's feet to the flames."

Yeah, that's exactly why they are no longer trying to take Dean out. WHich they tried very hard to do at first, and the response they got was massive. The media are whores... whores go where the money is. A million Dean supporters demanding coverage, ready and willling to buy up that issue of newsweek or time, to watch that episode of 60 minutes, or listen to that NPR show makes a world of difference.

You want to keep attaking me, calling Dean supporters names and claiming we're all retards who just are not as smart as you are, go right ahead. It won't change a single fucking thing.

Now put me on ignore and stop bothering me with you inane sour grapes whining.


" They're destroying Clark"

Clark destroyed himself... and I say good, get that phony fuck the hell out. The only good thing Clark did was knee cap Kerry on the military issue.


" and playing up Dean in a way that generates support and donations from the masses becasue"


Yeah because we're all just mindless tards who do what we're told and the media says support Dean, so we do. Clearly you've got it figured out... we're all stupid for not supporting your guy and thinking how you do. Thanks for the helpful info on just what idiots and morons we all are for not hating Dean like you do. Now that I know how stupid I am, I can work hard on being smart like you.

He has stars, and they shine... there are four of them!

So nevermind his support for republicans... nevermind his saying Reagan and Bush were great leaders... nevermind his working as a lobbyist for henry kissinger... never mind his bombing journalsists and civilians... never mind his lying about his party.. never mind his support for the Iraqi war or his flip flop on the issue.

HE HAS STARS!!!!

A Future Guide

If the past is any guide, Democrats should expect that:

-- The attacks will be personal, not issue-based. Personality quirks or flaws will be used to "define" the Democrats so these traits can be easily transformed into laugh lines for the pundit programs and the late-night comedy shows.

-- The attacks will be thematic, rather than specific. For instance, the Democratic challenger will be described as "Clintonian" -- or in Edwards's case an "ambulance chasing trial lawyer" -- rather than someone who supported or opposed a specific policy initiative.

-- The attack machine will be relentless. Every utterance by the eventual Democratic nominee will be examined to see if it fits one of the thematic patterns that have been chosen as effective attack lines.

-- Statements or issues that fit a "theme" will be repeated again and again in every media venue, from Web sites to radio to TV pundit shows to newspaper columns. Every right-wing pundit – and many mainstream commentators – will use nearly identical language until the "theme" becomes "conventional wisdom."

-- The mainstream press will incorporate the attack lines into regular news stories by using the objective-sounding criticism that the Democrat has failed to counter the attack and committed the political sin of letting his enemy define him.

-- Most importantly, it will not matter who the Democratic nominee is. No one is immune. The attack machine will find a thematic pattern for each potential nominee and will pound the Democratic candidate into the ground with it.

Oblivious Democrats

Yet, amazingly, despite experiencing this Republican strategy at least since 1988 and despite suffering devastating losses in the 2002 midterm elections, national Democratic leaders remain unwilling or unable to address the fundamental messaging and media disadvantages they face.

While there have been some public statements in recent months by party leaders about the importance of developing a counterbalance to the right-wing attack machine, including from Bill Clinton and Al Gore, so far nothing of substance has been created.

Instead, Democratic leaders are signaling their intent to continue working within the existing national media framework. A key indication that the Democrats remain oblivious to the impending political disaster is the advice that Democratic pollsters have continued to deliver both before and after the midterm elections.

you just attacked the process and avoided the whole question... just like clark in the debate.

You only followed the primer that I posted in an anti-manner.

Is you point the 4 Stars?

What point were you making? That you are a fanatical Dean supporter?

I got that point a long time ago....I accept your point....and don't need to belabor it.

However, if you read more, and wrote less, you might respond to THE POINT I MADE....read again:

-- The attacks will be personal, not issue-based. Personality quirks or flaws will be used to "define" the Democrats so these traits can be easily transformed into laugh lines for the pundit programs and the late-night comedy shows.

-- The attacks will be thematic, rather than specific. For instance, the Democratic challenger will be described as "Clintonian" -- or in Edwards's case an "ambulance chasing trial lawyer" -- rather than someone who supported or opposed a specific policy initiative.

-- The attack machine will be relentless. Every utterance by the eventual Democratic nominee will be examined to see if it fits one of the thematic patterns that have been chosen as effective attack lines.

on the act of questioning Clark.

Let me lay the points out for you...

Clark has repeatedly voiced support for republicans...

Clark said Reagan and Bush were great leaders...

Clark worked as a lobbyist for henry kissinger...

Clark bombed journalsists and civilians...

Clark lied about his party membership...

Clark supported the IWR, then flip floped on the issue.


There is no reason whatsoever for any liberal, moderate, or progressive to support Clark.

And the only response from Clark's Corps on why we should support this war criminal is that HE HAS STARS!!!!

their dittohead lines...no matter what is said on this thread. You are the long poster who is not addressing the issue but repeating the right wing talking points to Dems.

You cannot see the forest for the trees, obviously.

When people dismiss criticism claiming it is just right wing talking points, they don't have refutations.

Can you at least point me to a link that debunks what TLM is saying? The truth on all of those issues? I mean, I'm not asking you to do any actual work, because i know how much work sucks, so no effort at all. Can you just point me to a website that does your work for you?

Bush DOES...

Hannity has endorsed Dean.
Kristol has endorsed Dean.
Limbaugh has endorsed Dean.
Morris has endorsed Dean.

I'm sorry - I don't want that full court press picking my nominee.

If we're talking guilt by association... care to explain Clark's beign a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger?

Oh and do you have links to support those claims of "endorsements"?


I think it is far more likely that some folks on the right are trying to push the meme that Dean is easy to beat, a far left wacko.

Because exactly the oppisite is true... but if you want to beleive them, go for it.


"I'm sorry - I don't want that full court press picking my nominee."

Yet that is exactly what you're letting them do, isn;t it... like the story of the briar rabbit, you're going to do exactly the oppisiste of what they say.

That's exactly the same level of control they have over you, if you refuse to pick someone because they say they like him.

You have a great name, and I don't even know why!

Anyway. Did it ever occur to you that those guys endorse Dean because they know if they do, gullible liberals will flock in all directions. Do you really think that Rush wants Dean to be president? He calls Dean "Nikita" for chrissakes! They promote Dean because they think he's unelectable. They look at Dean fans the way people here look at them. Religious zealots. But we're not. We're ordinary people. Were senior citizens, latinos, african americans, teachers, students, asians, kids, dogs, and everything else. And we fight and argue over all sorts of issues. We're a diverse bunch.

They think Dean is a joke, and I;d like to know why you think so too.

It's clear that the Republican spin machine will
use the "untrustworthy" theme against the nomimee.
It will be difficult to fight, as all or our candidates are
very vulnerable.

General Clark is currently in their sites, and he
will have to find someway of countering this and quick.

Remember Gore, he was made to be Pinnochio, while Bush was
telling lies and half-truths that were apparent to anyone
listening.

Nominee Untrustworthy Attack

Clark: Fired from Nato//Character Issues (Shelton=Integrity)
Not a straighttalker

Edwards: Trial Lawyer//Will be accused of being a panderer

Dean: Character Issues=Hothead (unstable) //Phony (will harp
on past versus present)

Kerry: Out of touch liberal// Career Politician=Flip Flops

Gephardt: Out of touch liberal// Career Politician=Flip Flops
Special Interests (Unions)

Why, because they can contrast him with "trustworthy" Bush? Because Bush is already well known to be "honest." It will be difficult to paint Bush as otherwise in the uninformed voters minds.

Several even paint him as some sort of Communist that wants to raise every tax in sight. I'm supposed to believe that the rightwing is fawning over Dean because this?

Let us be fair.

Cause I don't find any Communist Quotes since then from Right Wing Mags.

Maher: "Howard dean said:...In Vermont, you know, politics is much
farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right
now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an
admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow
they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.
Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)
Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the
credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could
get you to say that.
Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.
Maher: Good for you!
Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back

Again more of this shit that we're all just to stupid to know Dean is a social liberal/moderate and a economic conservative/moderate.

WE KNOW! THAT'S WHY WE SUPPORT HIM!


And so far the only think liberal about Clark, is his script.

He SAYS he is a liberal... but he also SAYS that Bush and Reagan were great leaders to whom we should all be greatful.

CLark SAYS whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

Yell at him if he claims to be liberal and yell at him if he claims not to be!

BEcause that's what this is all about! Where we can put our little Dean Thumbtack on the political spectrum corkboard. Screw his platform! Screw his policies! I'm putting my blindfold on, and if I can't pin his tail on the right part of the donkey, he's outta there!
Bravo.

Namely TLM, who did not ONCE address the original post, but instead flamed Clark, and accused his supporters of desperation.

I see desperation not in discussing various aspects of the media representation of candidates, but moreso in bash-fests that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If the rest of this thread is any indication of the response I'll receive, I expect a list of Clark's various transgressions against humanity followed by yet another "My candidate is better than your candidate" tirade.

Now that I've expressed my disgust at what this thread has become, I'll make a more on-topic comment:

Why is it that the same crowd that blasted Clark for the positive corporate media attention he got when he entered the race are now fawning all over the same corporate media now that they've chosen Dean for the nomination? "But he deserves it," they say. He didn't deserve it a month ago? Two, three months ago? If Clark was still getting talked up on the news, it would be used as a guilt-by-association argument for the rabid "Clark's a Republican" folks. But it simply isn't the same when Dean gets that kind of coverage. What gives?

no matter what. It seems to be their sole mission
on DU.

Clark....seek....destroy...burn....pillage.....plunder.

that they'll continue to spew their hate while quite effectively ignoring any reasoned counter-arguments. And, of course, any attempt at reasoning with them, especially using the words of Clark himself, is fruitless because every word from Clark's mouth is a lie. Furthermore, his every action is nothing more than a sly Republican charade.

They're entitled to disagree with him, even dislike him. But this is pure, unfounded hatred. None of this took place here before he entered the race - and I would attribute it partially to the fact that Clark immediately jumped to the upper tier of popularity among the candidates upon entering. Any comparison of Dean and Clark immediately turns into an all-out flamewar. It's ridiculous!

But what's even more ridiculous, is that some people hate and distrust Clark to the point that they would rather see 4 more years of the Bush cabal, should Clark receive the Democratic nomination. And they state this fact with a clear conscience. Hey - at least Clark doesn't want Bush to win, under any circumstances. So who sounds like a Republican now?