Have any of you noticed who, of the VP choices, the repigs support?

or maybe, who they don't? Just curious . . .

what a mistake that would be.
I think they are very afraid of Clark and of course (do I even need to say it?) Hillary.

Which makes sense, since he is closer to them than to us at times.

I wish Democrats would quit trying to decide policy with our heads cocked over our shoulders.

Kerry is going to pick who he's going to pick and that's it. The Republicans will hate them and we'll support them.

when "our" guy doesn't get the nod. But, support we must.

.

"They are probably hoping for Clark....not to be the VP nominee"...which is why they are slamming him already!

But now, the Republicans who actually have some integrity left and don't want to vote Bush....yep, they are certainly hoping Clark will be named. It would give them someone to vote for.

was almost in full time 'damage control' mode. Foot in mouth does not a campaigner make.

are echoing the mainstream media meme that they want sheeples to repeat. The same media, who smeared and ignored Wes Clark would like for you to think that he was a bad campaigner. They gotta you good! It's not everyday that a DU member buys into the corporate media hype and manipulation. But then, there are those who will believe whatever is convenient in mirroring the view they want to have.....it's called "the convenient media filter".

I remember Clark being grilled in the debate before the NH vote on the Michael Moore comments about Bush being a deserter. He stood up for Michael Moore and said that he should be free to say whatever he wanted to say. He stood up for the 1st amendment with a topic that the mainstream made an unpopular stance!

As to whomever you support (since it's not Clark...obviously), what "hard" question was that person asked at any point in the campaign?

If it was Edwards, then we know he got all of the softball questions.....heck, that guy has yet to be vetted by the media!

But I am making an assumption here........

So let me know who you supported....then we can talk apples vs. apples

Dean (on edit)

you are buying the media version of the primaries? Wow.....that's incredible!

YOu must not have been a very strong supporter....cause strong supporters know how the media did a number on Howard Dean.

The voters didn't like him. This :tinfoilhat: 'the media did him in' stuff is garbage. Your guy was a poor campaigner, and the voters didn't like him. End of story.

That's the power of the media. The media also turned Dean into the Scream. I believe that helped in his drop.

The man had NH and OK virtually to himself, and took 3rd in the former while barely winning the latter by some 1200 votes. The saw enough to know they preferred someone else.

Dean and Clark WERE done in by the media, resulting in voters not voting.Not the other way around. Unless you think the redited overdubbed and overplayed by admission "scream" had no effect in New Hampshire. The result is the same, but the media sems to have shaded your recounting of the facts. It's just annoying as hell when your own party enables things because of the fear of change.

.

it's wasn't the media, it was a bad candidate and a poorly run campaign

I can get it over to you if you like.....

Please be advised that this information has been referred to The Poynter Institute
CASE Received by courier and US mail 2/5/04 - Preliminary mailed 2/6/04
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004

THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-----------------------
While John Kerry is near 100% awareness according to the ARG, Wesley
Clark has the following numbers among likely Democratic primary voters:
Tennessee - 73%
Virginia - 86%
Wisconsin - 86%

Confirmation of Lack of reporting on Wesley Clark, candidate.
Complaint: The media, as listed; not reporting on Wesley Clark in a similar manner as other candidates consistently
based on poll standing, fundraising results, issues stated, viewer requests and Internet activity.
Included in complaint: CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, ABC, NBC & CBS
Including listed on attachment of affiliates and publications (Newsweek, Times, online Pubs)
Including 16,423 attachments of evidenciary materials - viewer complaints (transcripts/tapes/letters/recorded calls)
Subject Period: 10/07/03-2/04/04
-------------------------------------
Please note: From a group of 9,012 concerned individuals, the tracking of Network and Cable television and press coverage of the 2004 Democratic primary process. We are gathering evidence to demonstrate the news media's effective attempt in controlling viewer/reader/voter perception of target candidate throughout the primary cycle.

We are requesting to be allowed to correspond with your organization in reference to this matter. We welcome and request any assistance that you can provide. We are also giving notice that newspaper publications are under similar watch.

We have selected Candidate Wesley Clark, who appears to be the underreported target candidate in the current race. We have taken the Media's own stated candidate viability factors into consideration in selecting said candidate. Factors of organization (ground and Internet), fundraising prowess, poll positioning and level of supporter media communications activities. We will provide proof of viability factors based on official fundraising reports, polling results from various polling firms since beginning of the candidate's entry into the race, Alexa Internet tracking data, and saved media letters from supporters and responses from individuals within the media organizations addressed.

We have been provided proof via daily data reporting, including information given to us. A review concludes that we commence such an investigation.

Goal: We are continuing to monitor the efforts of network news, in particular NBC (combined with it's cable news channels and magazines) to influence and control the Democratic nomination process by utilizing biased and subliminal propaganda as directly
evidenced on network and cable television and it's other media holdings. After months of observation, we now have more than enough evidence that this is deliberate collusion with forethought of malice and harm intended on the party with disregard for the truth/in case.

Methodology by news agencies: The method used is simple and elementary. Consistently leaving positive news out and intentionally headlining target candidate (Clark) when he falls in polls, criticizes another candidate or is criticized himself. As the candidate does not garnet coverage when his poll numbers are up, it doesn't hold water that he is covered when poll numbers falter, however this is occurring. Evidently target candidate is only interesting and covered when the news is negative. Combined with deliberate omission of candidate in political commentaries, although no justifiable reason can be articulated. There is no lack of money, organization, polling strength or any other attributes that would logically arrive to conclusion that candidate warrants no mention. Documentation going back as far as October 2, 2003, backs up this premise. NBC, along with it's cable news networks and magazines (online and hard copies) leads in the blatant trend. In addition, hard copy evidence has been gathered regarding viewer letters to networks and print, and responses to the complaints from reporters contacted. The interactions confirm lack of reasoning on NBC's behalf. CNN is also being investigated and has been observed for similar period to date. Same general approach in reporting is providing evidence of collusion. The upcoming week shall provide clear data on this portion of investigation.

Analysis: There is a disconnect somewhere between information provided to viewers/readers about candidates, and what is actually happening on the ground. NBC is attempting to reduce a candidate's polling numbers via the direction of their reporting, their political commentaries, etc.....The fact that candidate may have overflow capacities at venues is not reported. Candidate is treated as 2nd or 3rd tier candidate without any facts to establish such a claim (example made clear in positioning, initial question to each candidate and tone of follow-ups if any; e.g. South Carolina Debates shown on MSNBC, as well as earlier Fox television debates). Polling data is reported only when effective in reducing target candidate's standing in viewer/readers minds. When candidate places third, a tie with a candidate placing fourth is created. There are no ties in elections, there is only placement. Reporting placement, however, in the case of New Hampshire proved problematic for desired effect and reporting was adjusted accordingly. When candidate is listed in polling, ties show his name below the other equal candidate, even if alpha order would normally be utilized.

Past documentation gathering continues, to be provided when complete. Daily tracking reports to be generated.
----------------------
MEDIA WATCH - Candidate coverage by Media - Series /part 1-386

Sample: NBC's Today Show Sunday morning, handled today's coverage (2/1/04) of the contest for Tuesday's primaries.

NBC reported that Kerry was edging out Clark in OK, 25%/23%, even though it was not mentioned on the prior Saturday or Friday that Clark was way ahead (43%). Prior, only South Carolina and Missouri were being reported.....while Clark had a big lead in Oklahoma and Arizona. However, now that Kerry has 'edged out' Clark, NBC decides it's a good item to lead in with. Obvious illustration of only reporting on Kerry's successes and Clark's failures. This has been documented over and over again in details for later action. The 25%/23% was a Reuters/Zogby poll. Zogby has been shown to be an opportunistic polling company by ABC (who refuses to use them), The Washington Post, American Prospect, etc... and admitted to by Zogby himself on a recent radio talk show (tape transcript archived - articles and studies as well). The file on Zogby is growing by the day.

Then, Today's NBC Show reported again that Kerry still holds a commanding lead in MO of 43%, only curiously enough, NBC did not show the score on MO, they showed instead the score of the Newsweek poll that they have reported on now several times of Kerry beating Bush 48%/46%. This is subliminal suggestion that only a giant media company could pull off. Commentator didn't even say anything about the Newsweek poll, probably because they have reported this so much already.

So Kerry is mentioned 3 times and Clark 1 time and then on negative factor only (Kerry edged him out in OK was his mention, a win he had which they previously did not report on when he was way ahead in first, 43%, just a few days ago.)


MEDIA WATCH - Candidate coverage by Media - Series /part 2-89
Polling Technique issue: The use of the Zogby polls -
sent under separate cover - various publications and research groups discounting the organization with basis for conclusion/supporting data 14269-14802.

MEDIA WATCH - Candidate coverage by Media - Series /part 2-4289 CNN Viewer letter (see attachments 4-3892/original article)
"Kerry wins four states, leading fifth Lieberman drops out; Edwards takes S. Carolina"
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 Posted: 11:16 PM EST (0416 GMT)
Viewer letter 8,422-2c
Dear CNN,
The amount of space dedicated to Wes Clark's performance in today's races is almost non-existent. "In Oklahoma, Edwards and retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark were in a two-way battle for the top spot, according to exit polls. "

The ONLY mention of General Clark in the entire article, and yet when analysing results, three of the races (AZ, NM, and ND) candidate is running second behind Senator Kerry. In Oklahoma, he has won with 100% precincts reporting, and in Delaware, he did not perform any worse than anyone else.

So considering Clark's performance, there is ONE sentence concerning success. I rely on CNN as the paragon of news and analysis of world events. So when I see such a gap in storylines vs. data, it makes me question the credibility, or at least the motivations, of the writers.

Please continue to set the standard for broadcast and web-based journalism and consider a re-examination of the facts compared to your headlines. I think you will find there is a glaring omission, namely General Clark's exceptional performance today.

Sincerely,

David Kirkpatrick
Portland, OR

Dear CBS News,
How much thought does it take from your production team to portray Wes Clark as a loser? You are trying too hard if you ask me, and it's starting to look obvious to anyone watching. Just want to pull your coattails. Here is the not so "subliminal coverage".....

CBS Evening News last night, Friday, Feb 6th.
This is not a transcript but notes taken by hand so inexact:

"Next Tuesdays primary proves to be a do or die test for John Edwards and Wesley Clark. They are both native sons to the South. If one of these guys manages to pull off both states, the other one is gone.

Edwards says he is the one because he could carry the south (lots more words and picture of Edwards in cheering thongs).

The AR born Clark, *running low on money, cannot sustain his candidacy on just his slim win in OK (showing picture of a tired looking Clark speaking to practically an empty room.)

(Incidentally, the day before ABC showed pictures of Clark supporters silent and sitting in the grass with signs of support laying on the ground as backdrop for their report. Only one supporter was still standing and she was looking down, like she was discouraged. Gist of story there was also, campaign just barely hanging on.)

Coverage goes on to say that if Edwards and Clark split the South Tuesday then race is over and Kerry wins, and then race is between Edwards and Clark for VP spot. (of course looking at the pictures of Edwards cheering crowds, anyone would assume that the winner of VP spot will be Edwards, especially if this coverage continues. Although it IS better than nothing but barely.

Now here is a FACTUAL analysis of the race....not the subjective nonsense CBS is doing to push Edwards into voter's faces. Edwards is a lightweight compared to Wes Clark, but CBS will never let it be known.

LESSONS FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOTS:

1. Iowa: Kerry and Edwards (Clark not running)

2. New Hampshire: Kerry and Dean (native sons), but Clark, despite the most unbelievable biased debate in the history of presidential politics, despite the negative campaigning by Dean (he is a republican), Kerry (there are more lieutenants than generals, turning a rebuttal against a crude remark by Bob Dole into a rallying cry to pry veterans away from Clark), and even Joe Lieberman (supposed list of waffles), Clark hung on to third place and beat out Edwards. The big losers: Edwards. Despite his Iowa kick he failed to beat out Clark for third place. Never mind he was only a percentage and a few hundred votes behind, Al Gore was beaten
for the presidency by fewer votes. There is no tie in the final ballot. In their first face to face battle, Edwards lost to Clark.

3. North Carolina: Edwards and Kerry. As a favorite son Edwards was able to capitalize on his Iowa kick and his lavish press in this single state and shared it with the other Iowa winner Kerry.

4. Missouri: Kerry and Edwards. With a vacuum created by Gephardt's
removal, his machine moved in behind the Iowa winners. There was not
time for any other campaign to mount a challenge.

5. Oklahoma: Clark and Edwards. In his only other second place win,
Edwards lost to Clark. This despite the virtual media blackout on Clark, the fact that Edwards had spent over a year courting the state, in and out more than any other candidate, he lost again to Clark. So far, in two out of three races he lost to Clark and in the one that he best Clark he was a native son. The question must be asked: Why did Edwards and Clark do so poorly with all that MO behind them?

6. Arizona: Kerry and Clark. Arizona before the vote was considered a
bell weather state. It was Kerry and Clark with Dean a distant second.
Score: Clark over Edwards in three out of four confrontations (NH, OK, and AZ).

7. New Mexico. Kerry and Clark. Edwards nowhere in sight. Score: in four out of five confrontations it is Clark over Edwards by a large margin.

8. North Dakota. Kerry and Clark. Edwards nowhere in sight. Score: In
five out of six confrontations Clark wins over Edwards by a large
margin.

9. Delaware: Kerry and Lieberman. Actually, Kerry and Sharpton were the only two who got delegates. This was Lieberman's last stand and though he came in second he did not have enough votes to get a single delegate.

There is no doubt that the big winner was Kerry winning 7 out of 9
states and he is rightfully the frontrunner.

But Edwards' performance was less that stellar and he was beaten by
Clark in nearly every encounter where they were head to head. And
Edwards came in first in 1 of 9 states, but second in only 2 of nine state.

Clark came in 1st in 1 state and second to Kerry in 3. That give Clark 4 wins to Edwards' 3.

So you see, intelligent analysis can be made by more than the media pack who have already decided what story to sujectively push.


ADDITIONAL NOTE: 2,563 VIEWERS SIGNED THE FOLLOWING AS AREA TO RESEARCH:

Possible motive/incentive for media to have instituted
the Clark National News Blackout, including PBS?

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
Democratic Presidential Candidate Also Criticizes Entertainment Industry
January 05, 2004
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39479

check donations:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle... ">http://www.opensecr ets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004">http://www.opensecrets.org/presidentia l/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

and:

http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=4

. .. Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry, the Center's analysis of his financial disclosure form revealed. That falls in a range of roughly 7 percent to 11 percent of the couple's combined $165 million to $626 million in assets. Most of the fortune, and the stocks, belong to Heinz Kerry.. . .

. . .Since 1999, Kerry has taken positions that closely reflect the legislative agenda of CTIA. Between January 1999 and December 2002, he sponsored two bills for which CTIA lobbied and co-sponsored six more, the Center found. He also sponsored amendments and made floor statements that were favorable to CTIA's interests.
Whacking a piñata

Kerry intervened on the wireless industry's behalf over the auction of the spectrum, the range of electromagnetic radio frequencies used in the transmission of voice, data and video. Telecommunications firms see the availability of adequate amounts of the spectrum, or airwaves, as the key to its future. CTIA and its member companies have lobbied heavily over how and when portions of the spectrum--owned by the public and sold to companies for commercial use -- would be auctioned off

. . .Those bands are currently held by television broadcasters, which are expected to complete the bulk of their switch to digital signals by 2006, leaving the 700 MHz band free for other uses . . .

The following page shows the CBS listed Campaign Schedules for the runners.

* NOTE * - Clark's and Deans schedules do not include the address of where his rallies are while Kerry's and Edwards have detailed addresses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/politics/main578723.shtml

---------------------------------------------------

Yahoo ranks websites based on number of hits, and among the candidates, here's the breakdown:
(Kerry has shot up -- just a few days ago his rating was around 14,000, which would've put him in 5th place.) February 1, 2004

1 (most hits): Dean for America: 3,332

2) CLARK04.com: 7,399

3) Kerry.com: 9,398

4) Edwards: 13, 059

5) Lieberman: 36, 618


6) Sharpton: 63, 209


6) No rating for Kucinich

----------------------------------------------

http://campaigndesk.org / Hidden Angle - pressure on journalists by Kerry/DNC to change coverage to Kerry v. Bush...in essense shutting down primary process

"There are but a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Time has grown short. In an effort to galvanize the message Kerry wants to deliver in the time remaining, he convened a powerful roster of journalists and columnists in the New York City apartment of Al Franken last Thursday. The gathering could not properly be called a meeting or a luncheon. It was a trial. The journalists served as prosecuting attorneys, jury and judge. The crowd I joined in Franken's living room was comprised of:
Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of `Maus';
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

Media chiefs back Kerry campaign
Owen Gibson
Tuesday February 10, 2004
Kerry: media chiefs have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000
http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1144464,00.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/yrn2v

Didn't Edwards quadruple Clark in popular voted during the primary? Who cares if Clark finished ahead in North Dakota, where was he in Iowa, South Carolina, and Missouri. The story wasn't Clark's win in Oklahoma, but the fact that he blew a 20 point lead and more than a dozen delegates to Edwards in a week, heck if it wasn't for Clarks wife they would've been reporting on Clarks WITHDRAWAL that very evening!

why wasn't more reported about Clarks dramatic fall in SC and NH where he slipped down from the 20's into the teens and single digits?

in your parallel Universe..... cause your response shows that you didn't read the one above.

The Michael Moore Controversy was what did that......

and the cameras beaming in Edwards face everywhere he went....

And Kerry's momentum from Iowa....

And Edwards, with all he got by adoring media floodlights"...still came in behind Wes Clark!

Please know that I watched what happened...and you cannot rewrite history.

In the 2004 Primaries, Edwards received 22% of the vote, Clark had 3.8%, only .2 higher than KUCINICH!

How much publicity did you expect Clark to receive in NH after he chickened out in Iowa, blew a huge lead in the granite state and picked up ZERO delegates!?!? You think north dakota is a big deal with its what, 16 democrats? Anything that Clark did on that day was wiped out by embarrasingly poor performance in SC (7%) where he spent millions to finish behind Sharpton and Missouri (4%). And Oklahoma was a tie for a week before they recounted, and Clark did win but by then it was already clear that he had no money and his wife had to talk him out of dropping out.


fyi, Edwards just received 14.9% in the Kentucky primary, despite being out of the race for months.

Are you for real?

Dean was ahead for most of the season, then Kerry surpassed him.

What will come of Edwards' fundraising questions if he were candidate?

bitter clarkies forget Edwards was rising and Clark was dropping well before the switzer phone calls.

http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/OK040202demprimary.pdf


get it?

Switzer blowing up his a$$

I don't doubt switzer helped, but what's wrong with a coach coming out to support Edwards. If it was for Clark you guys would be loving it.......but it's for Edwards he's a jerk. You loved it when Madonna and Moore came out for Clark.

Like Switzer. Madonna and Moore aren't Repigs, get it?

where did you get that he was republican?

The deep recesses of their own minds.

Subjecting him to guilt by association (Dallas Cowboys)

It surprised me as well but, Jerry Jones, Barry Switzer, and Jimmy Johnson are all Dems.

the sad thing is that the media's coverage of a candidate shapes the mainstream public's perceptions of a candidate. As was shown by the way things unfolded with the Clark campaign and in the primaries, the outcome was decided by the media's coverage and spin on the candidates, such as the way they beat to death the Michael Moore issue. The average American, unlike DUers, can't distinguish between a candidate's true positions and what the media is delivering to them.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

this ship. Glad you meet that criteria. No offense to non-Clark folks but I honestly think that if you put prejudice and hearts aside...and study all candidates and what the will contribute...they can only come to one decision (IMHO) and that Clark is by far the best one for the job.

This is getting to be so ridiculous.

they're denigrating clark, and pushing edwards.

C'mon, name some names. :eyes:

now that you've forced me to put my serious thinking cap on, all i can ask is,
does an ex-republican count? no ulterior motives here, though, i assure you.
i think edwards would bring youth, vitality, and a freshness to the ticket.
it would be great, it could be a winner! :hi:

Sorry, but I need a helluva lot more than that in someone who could some day lead this country.

Whatever works! In the final analysis, we've just got to get rid of *! :)

they thought that would be the ticket, granted alot of this bullshit was started by dickhead morris

except for in the parallel universe you apparently reside in.....

where there is no war going on.....

in where it is 1992....and a Southerner that has never seen war and knows a limited amount about foreign policy ran for the highest office in the land....

And where Personal injury attorneys make the best Presidents and Vice Presidents....

And where being CUTE means you qualify for "whatever".....

Sounds like a great place. Too bad it's so far away....

To: Destro
Well, I think Wesley Clark debating Dick Cheney will be just fabulous. Don't you all agree?

10 posted on 02/14/2004 4:23:43 PM PST by tirednvirginia

Cheney would chew up Clarkbar for dinner and leave no scraps in a debate.

26 posted on 02/14/2004 5:05:28 PM PST by My Favorite Headache

Maybe, but Clark was an absolutely awful candidate making all kinds off the wall comments and incredibly stupid gaffs.
He would embarrass Kerry as the VP candidate.


30 posted on 02/14/2004 5:49:51 PM PST by Jorge

want more? want to see posts about how they fear edwards?

how the Repugs FEAR Edwards. Please provide links if you have any.

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If these two(Kerry&Edwards) do join up they would be quite formidable.

2 posted on 03/02/2004 6:28:39 AM PST by TXBSAFH

Edwards is a dangerous one; we need to make sure we crush his head under heel!


12 posted on 03/01/2004 11:13:48 AM PST by JohnnyZ

I would vote for Edwards. I'd be scared-to-death of him running against Bush, but I think it's too late for him to overcome Kerry's delegate lead, barring winning a majority of the Super Tuesday contests. So, given that, I'd like to see Edwards blunt Kerry's momentum by winning some of the remaining primaries. Georgia is a prime opportunity for this. Let Kerry win the nomination, but let's dirty him up and damage him a bit, just in time for the general.


5 posted on 02/27/2004 12:22:20 PM PST by BlackRazor

Imagine a Slick Willie without a zipper problem. That's Edwards. He worries me.

10 posted on 02/27/2004 12:42:52 PM PST by ambrose

I think the most value Edwards adds at the moment is the opportunity for the press to be more critical of Kerry. If Edwards can remain viable after Tuesday, the press will be forced to investigate why Kerry can't seal the deal. Make no mistake, though, I definitely would prefer Bush face Kerry in the general election

30 posted on 02/27/2004 12:20:20 PM PST by BoomerBob

it just backs up what we all know - Edwards would be the tougher opponent. Better in the south, better with women voters because of his looks, he has a better message on jobs offshoring then Kerry, etc.

4 posted on 02/26/2004 8:41:25 PM PST by oceanview


This is what scares me.
Jimmy Carter's term as Governor of Georgia was much like his Presidency....he came riding in on hope and then we hoped never to see him again.

At that time, Governors could not succeed themselves and this suited Jimmy just fine. He could make it look like he was running for President because he was forbidden to run again in Georgia for 4 years.

When he announced his intention to run for Prez, we fell down laughing at him since we knew he had become so unpopular here that he couldn't have won Mayor of Plains, much less get a second chance to screw up Georgia.

And PRESIDENT?....how absurd!

But a funny thing happened.

He started to win primaries....
... and get delegates
and looking like he just might could pull it off.

And the people of Georgia started to get into this "Favorite Son" mode where it was, "He may be a jerk....but he's our jerk!" and he went on to carry Georgia not once, but even TWICE when Reagan was sweeping the nation.

If Edward's on the ticket, I'm afraid he takes N.C.

And that means Kerry....and that scares me the most.


21 posted on 02/26/2004 8:54:44 PM PST by eddie willers

that certainly doesn't count for more than a few nitwits wallowing in their own ignorance.

That is a fact.

...being Republicans if they're going to vote in their best economic interests.

If 1/3rd of them like John Edwards because they see in him all the things that they thought were the reasons they liked the Republican Party -- like the idea that we all start on a level playing field, and that we should all be rewarded fairly for the wealth we create for society -- then why are we complaining?

Those people do vote in the general election, you know.

the Trial Lawyers Association.

...which is extremely hostile to a civil justice system which doesn't give the mighty a leg up.

Elections do not hinge upon VP selections.

Ever since Clark announced his candidacy, the Repigs have consistently ripped/dismissed him more than anyone. Clark is a genuine American hero who has succeeded where the Bushies have failed, who is Karl Rove's worst nightmare. This election WILL BE ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY, and if it's Kerry-Clark, "TWO PATRIOTS, ONE MISSION" will be unattackable on security issues. Read on, and thank you to "Frenchie for Clark" for your research and efforts.

Why General Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. way, and This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that. Look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead. Kerry can co-opt the national security theme on Bush.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's & MIAs. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is "squeaky-clean."

There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:

1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. He has earned the respect of European leaders (he has knighthoods or the equivalent from 18 european nations) and understands the Arab world. NO ONE has Clark's credentials to help repair our alliances around the world and gracefully resolve the Iraq problem. Plus, something that many people do not realize, as one of our major military commanders, Clark had "domestic affairs" responsibilities similar to those of mayors and governors. He was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advancement, etc.) of those under his command, numbering hundreds of thousands at times.

2.Clark brings a "common man" background, someone who grew up poor, earned an appointment to West Point where he finished 1st in his class,
became a decorated war hero--someone with the brains, talent, and drive to go into the business world and make lots of money--who instead chose to serve his country for another 30 years or so. If this man isn't a true American hero, I don't know who is.

3. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free
Trade, and most domestic issues.

4. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush/Cheney on all issues, especially those
where Bush would like to think he is strongest.

5. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background makes people feel secure. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control.)

6. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Cheney to millions of swing voters. 4 star hero vs. the
"chickenhawk."

7. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

8. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

9. Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim, "TWO PATRIOTS, ONE MISSION." This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

11. Is VP the best position for Clark? Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected by the President in National Security issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- All this stuff about Wes Clark not being a real Dem.--people should really look at the man's background and campaign history. Yes, he voted for Reagan and Bush 41, when most military people did so because the R's were perceived as stronger on defense. As a military leader, Clark was non-partisan. If you look at his record in the military, you see a supporter of equal opportunity, affirmative action, support for quality education and healthcare. Clark was a Democrat in deeds before he even realized that he is one. Please read the below commentaries from/about those who served with him. Wes Clark is a true American hero whom we Dems. are lucky to have in our fold.
The following are posts to CCN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By cris
Posted to cris's weblog (Firsthand Accounts) on Tue Nov 18th, 2003 at 03:51:17 PM PST
The Man for all Reasons
If you are lucky, once in your lifetime a truly exceptional person will cross your path. I met and know such a person: General Wesley Clark. For three years, I had the privilege of working for General Clark when he served as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe. I can attest to the fact that he is a general's general and a soldier's general.

I first met General Clark in June 1998 on a special assignment in Maastricht, Belgium, in support of General Hugh Shelton. I was immediately struck by two things. First, although General Clark wore the uniform of a four star General, he spoke as though he were a polished diplomat. He seemed comfortable in both worlds - as a General and as a spokesman for NATO.

The second thing I noticed was the way he treated his subordinates. He treated everyone equally, regardless of their rank, and he listened - really listened - to what people had to say. And the General's security detail clearly loved working for him. This is not common; most security guys don't get to know their principals on a personal basis.

A year later, I got a call from my assignment officer. He told me I could either work at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense, or I could work for General Clark. After my memorable first encounter with him, there was no question what I would do. I said that I wanted to work for General Clark.

In the weeks before I arrived at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), I thought that I would be the "token Hispanic." When I arrived, I quickly found out that I was mistaken. I had never seen so many minorities working in any high-powered setting. I learned that it was because General Clark values diversity and wants to give everyone a chance.

And from the moment I arrived, General Clark and his wife did everything they could to make me feel welcome. My first assignment was to take the General to his quarters and then to a dinner engagement with NATO officials. After the event, the first thing General Clark asked me was whether I had gotten anything to eat. To most four-star generals, security is an instrument. With General Clark, it was a different story. He always treated his staff like family.

During the war in Kosovo, I saw how deeply compassionate General Clark is. He worried about the pilots who were out on night missions, and he would not go to sleep until he knew the last pilot had bedded down. Instead, he would work in his study, going over the latest intelligence reports and providing updates to the alliance and officials back in Washington. When he finally went to bed, it was only for two hours, and more often than not, he would be awakened by calls. His instruction to me before going to bed was: "Cris, push every call through." No rest for the General.

In fact, I don't think anyone in the U.S. armed forces worked harder than the General. His superiors in Washington, DC knew this. They would often preface their calls by saying, "Don't wake General Clark." All of us who worked for him were amazed by his constant upbeat tempo and energy. We wanted to do everything possible to take care of him because he was doing so much for America and NATO.

And no matter how pressing a situation became, General Clark always stayed calm. I recall when an F-117 went down - the only plane to go down during the entire campaign. In contrast to other officers I knew who would explode in tense moments, General Clark remained calm and efficiently took the necessary steps.

I don't think anyone else could have done what the General did at NATO. For anyone who thinks that was a small accomplishment, just get nineteen friends together for dinner and try to pick a restaurant as a group. General Clark took nineteen countries and built consensus through dialogue. He gave Milosevic a chance, and then took action only as a last resort.

General Clark is an extraordinary leader. People trusted him because they knew that he was honest and a straight shooter. And there was no mincing words with him. He always wanted to hear the truth. You didn't put things off. He wanted to know what had gone wrong so that he could make corrections and get back on the right track.

But most of all, General Clark is loyal -- loyal to his country and to the United States Army, the organization that brought him up from West Point cadet to Supreme Allied Commander. I have worked around a lot of generals, and I can say that the Boss is one of the best I've ever worked with. He cared deeply about the soldiers he led, treated all of us who worked for him with the highest respect, and served his country with dedication, courage and honor.
From the right front seat

Cris Hernandez Jr, Chief Warrant Officer (Ret)
Former Personal Security Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Casa Grande, AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This one from interviews


As a junior Navy officer, Eric Massa had no choice the first time he went to work for Gen. Wesley Clark in 1996, as Clark's assistant in Panama. The Navy set up the interview, and Massa hoped to mangle it with blunt honesty.

"I didn't want the job, and I told him so," said Massa. "I was afraid of working for a pompous moron, of which there are several wearing stars. I had worked for senior officers who didn't care about people, and I didn't want to do that again."

It turned out Massa and Clark had something in common there, and Massa spent the next four years attached to Clark, first in Panama and then in Europe, during Clark's stint as supreme allied commander in Europe.

When Massa left Clark in 1999 it was under protest and only because Massa had been diagnosed with advanced cancer. Now, years later, Massa - recovered and retired from the Navy - is working for Clark's army again, this time as a campaign staffer trying to get Clark elected to the White House.

Massa wasn't looking for the job this time, either. Clark asked

him to come on board after learning a month ago that Massa had "involuntarily resigned" from his government job at the urging of Republican bosses. They were upset that Massa had visited Clark at a Democratic campaign event.

"They said I was a political liability and that if I liked Wes Clark so much I should go work for him," Massa said. A lifelong Republican, Massa just re-registered as a Democrat. Massa is the son of a Navy man, and as such grew up outside America and with a respect for the military. The family came to the United States when Massa was 16, and after graduating from high school in Louisiana, Massa attended the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

In all, Massa spent 25 years in the Navy, 16 of them on sea duty. In the mid-1990s, Massa's commanding officer told him it was time to decide how he wanted to fulfill his joint duty, a requirement for officers to spend part of their service with another branch of the military.

When Massa said he wanted to do something out of the ordinary, he was told an Army general by the name of Wes Clark was looking for a Navy aide. All he knew about Clark was that he had stars on his Army uniform, and that didn't carry much weight with Massa.

Their 50-minute interview, however, convinced Massa to withhold judgment.

"He had questions I didn't expect from a military man," Massa said. "He asked me if I was familiar with Greek literature, if I read Homer, what I thought about the Illiad.

"And the last 20 minutes were devoted to people questions," Massa said. "He asked me what I would do if a young soldier came to me and told me his wife had died. Or a homosexual soldier told me he was being harassed. His whole thing was treating people with dignity and respect."

Three hours later, Massa was on a plane with Clark to Panama, where Clark was commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command. Massa described his job as Clark's executive assistant and deputy chief of staff.

Once there, Massa asked Clark what the Homer question was about. Massa remembers the answer: "He said he was looking for someone who was well-rounded enough to talk about issues beyond military terms."

For about 13 months, Massa shadowed Clark, keeping notes of his meetings and drafting follow-up letters to the people Clark had met. Massa said Clark forbade his staff to begin any of his correspondence with "I" because Clark wanted the emphasis on the recipient, not himself.

A show of support
When Clark was promoted to supreme allied commander in Europe in 1997, he asked Massa to stay on and be his advance man. Massa agreed and moved his wife and kids, who had been waiting for him back in San Diego, to Brussels, Belgium. After Clark arrived, Massa was again a close assistant and became one of Clark's main liaisons to Washington, D.C.

Massa had every intention of staying in Europe as Clark's assistant until he got sick in late 1999. He hadn't recovered from running a half-marathon but chalked it up to the flu. He blew off a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, thinking he'd work it off.

On Nov. 9, 1999, Massa looked up from his desk to find Clark standing there. Clark told Massa that his wife had called worried about his health.

Clark had arranged another doctor's appointment for Massa, and when Massa protested, Clark gave him the only direct order Massa recalls receiving in four years. "I think we have lost the fundamental relationship between a four-star general and a Navy commander," Clark told him. "You will go to the doctor."

The doctor diagnosed Massa, who had never smoked, with advanced lung cancer and gave him four months to live. Clark cut through red tape to get Massa and his family back to the United States for treatment.

Just before Massa left, Clark convened the staff and tearfully awarded Massa the Legion of Merit medal for his work. Clark had received the same medal in the 1970s when he was a speech writer for the then-supreme allied commander.

It's one of the few times Massa saw Clark cry.

"Everyone thought that was goodbye, that I was dying," Massa said.

Back home in San Diego, doctors were more optimistic and diagnosed Massa with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, not lung cancer, and began aggressive treatment.

Unknown to Massa, Clark had a soldier tracking Massa's surgery. As soon as Massa came to in recovery, staff told him he had a call. It was Clark. At the time, he was overseeing the bombing of Kosovo.

A different kind of service
Massa retired about three years ago; he waited so that the last thing he did in uniform was attend Clark's retirement. Now he's living in a hotel in Manchester, trying to avoid a fast-food diet and bringing his family in from New York when he can.

He talks wistfully about the job he lost to get here. Massa was in Washington overseeing part of the Navy budget as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. His departure was reported by the press and has since become fodder for online political sites.

But he doesn't regret where it got him. On the trail, Massa is helping get Clark the veteran vote - and whatever else needs doing.

"If Wes Clark asked me to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd ask him if he wanted it done in the summer or the winter," Massa said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Cuomo said,

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

Ken

Unless they were pulling for the candidate most likely to flop?

In which case, Edwards and Clark are definitely out, since either one of these guys will boost the Democratic ticket.

There are alot that walk more in line with McCain that are not pleased at all with Bush. They don't like the budget deficits, but they are worried about Kerry. They people the Mass tax and spend Liberal label. They see him next to Ted Kennedy and they get scared.

However, they want someone, anyone else to vote for besides Bush who has made them the "borrow and spend" party. Though it pisses many Democrats, they see Edwards as a moderate and his war stand is appealing as well as his positive message. Edwards didn't attack the Repubs so much as say what Democrats can do and what we can change. This message rests much easier on these swing republican ears. He also has comes from the humble to riches background that many Republicans really believe in and have experienced themselves. Add to this that he's not not viewed as party of the Democratic 'insider' circle. He's seen as someone who might balance Kerry.

Don't discount these unsatisfied Republicans. I've talked with many of them and they are not happy with Bush at all, but just need a reason to vote for Kerry that they can believe in.

Edwards as VP might be just the reason they are looking for. It certainly helps in NC per recent Polling.