Coverage of Dean Triples During November; Clark's Coverage Drops

This was found on the Clark blog.

http://tinyurl.com/xeuq

By clg
Posted on Tue Dec 2nd, 2003 at 02:13:21 PM EST
Thanks to Leslieteh for digging up this information. It's simply mindboggling. I don't think the campaign should officially complain about this, but I do believe it says something.

I asked for someone to do a Lexis-Nexis search for the months of October and for November on "Wesley Clark" and "Howard Dean." Here are Leslieteh's results:

Lexis-Nexis Academic

Search in: General News/Major Papers/Headline, Lead Paragraph(s), Terms/11/01/2003 to 11/30/2003:

Howard Dean: 606; Wesley Clark: 144

10/01/2003 to 10/31/2003:

Howard Dean: 259; Wesley Clark: 222

Unbelievable! It's amazing to me that Wes has done as well as he has, especially in national polling, given this incredible slant in coverage. I don't have the expertise to know what should be done in this case, but I do hope that the campaign staff can see what we're dealing with.

CLG

If he were under attack all the time by the other candidates he'd get the coverage too.

There is a price to pay for leading the pack and, obviously, some rewards.

Interesting there was no breakdown of the tone of those articles on Dean. I'd bet the deed to the house at least half were negative. ;-)

Julie

I would like to see that also. Franken did something like that in his book for Gore and Bush. Dean did have the flag thing last month.

I've posted the NPR link to Skip Inskeep's Weekend Edition piece on the flag story.

He played the wrong quote, pretended the Dems had criticized something reasonable, and then let Zell Miller rant like a lunatic about Dean for five minutes, pretending that Zell, Edwards and Sharpton all represented the same criticism. It made Dean look good, and made anyone who criticized him sound like a lunatic.

had the other candidates not made a mountain out of that molehill. Even Edwards jumped in on the gang tackle that time.

God forbid the press realize how politically opportunistic THAT whole fiasco was for the SHarpton's and the Edwards's.

about what the story was, would they have?

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1499051

Can you expand on the NPR lie?

...months ago Dean talked about the confederate flag. However, orignially, what he'd say was something like, "Republicans divide us on race. I talk about race. I go up to people with the confederate flag on their pickup trucks and ask them why they vote Republican." There's nothing to complain about in that statement. So nobody complained about it.

However, in Iowa, he gave an interview with a newspaper in which he said, I want to be the candidate "for" the candidate who has the confederate flag on their pickup trick.

That's VERY different. That's what Sharpton/Edwards criticized.

So, Inskeep does this piece on the story in which he plays a tape of Dean's stump speech, which has the reasonalbe statement. Then he says that Edwards and Sharpton criticized it. Then he introduces Zell Miller, points out he's a democrat, and then, for a long time, Zell Miller rants like a lunatic about Dean.

The listener is left with the impression that Edwards, Sharpton and any other democrat complaining about Dean shares Miller's opinions (which is a lie), and, furthermore, listeners woudl think that that lunacy was triggered by Dean's reasonable statement about the confederate flag (another lie).

So, my point is that if what Edwards and Sharpton said was so bad, then Inskeep would have just been truthful -- he would have quoted the interview with the Iowa paper, identifying what it was that Sharpton and Edwards were complaining about, and then he would have talked to Edwards and Sharpton to identify exactly what their argument was (which certainly wasn't the same argument that Miller made).

Get it?

Well, I don't agree with the assertion that what Dean said was that big a deal. In Iowa or on the stump. But that's just my interpretation. I never saw Edwards or Sharpton give the explanation you gave on their behalf.

In which post do you think I gave an explanation? (Am I missing something?)

What I'm saying is that if you only listened to NPR, you wouldn't even know enough of the truth to draw your own conclusion -- neither would you know Sharpton or Edwards's arguments in detail, but you wouldn't even know what they were complaining about.

I'm also saying that, if you're right -- if Edwards and Sharpton were so wrong -- why didn't Inskeep just tell the truth? I'm asking you to draw an inference here. If he had to lie to incriminate Edwards and Sharpton, doesn't that make you suspect that they might not have been wrong?

It's also VERY interesting to me that you have an opinion about Dean's statement in Iowa but you don't know the argument on the other side, and, furthermore, that you criticized Edwards and Sharpton, yet you don't seem to know what they said.

Don't you think you should at least hear what Sharpton and Edwards think about Dean's statement before you decide that Dean's right?

of an indication as to what SHarpton and Edwards thought? I mean, that's where they spoke about it. You're telling me what Edwards's and Sharpton's arguments were without quoting them, therefore an explanation on their behalf. You're telling me what they argued. Can I get a transcript or anything?

If they were pissed about syntax and not the introduction of the flag as a symbol, then I need more info.

the phrasing he used in your opinion?

My opinion based on the remarks I saw is that their problem was him trying to appeal to c flag bearers in the first place.

Nice contrast!

next year. Dean is a good man but Bushco is going to play his war opposition to the hilt if he is our nomminee and will slander him by questioning his patriotism.

It is because of all the attacks from Clark and all the rest.
Clark is a rethug
he voted for bush sr
he's a war monger
he praised gwb condi, dick and the gang
blah blah blah
Puhleez!!!

Or, at least, it's following a script meant to undermine his electability.

all wide eyed and wondering why different camps attacked each other. Called for peace even,. Now you are doing pre-emptive strikes too?

Wow. That was either an impressive act or you were mighty easily corrupted.

Julie

last night, They are still asking Clark supporters to explain his voting for bush sr., why he praised gwb, he gave money to the republican party blah blah blah...he wasn't a democrat unil after he announced, he's a republican.

I'm sick of it. So if I put it out first I can save a whole lotta people a whole lotta time.

and take some responsibility for your actions and your hypocrisy.

Julie

But it does reflect that everyone has made Dean the subject of this primary season. Months ago Gep made a website just for Dean. Then Kucinich. Kerry can't get Dean off his mind.

Not about Clark. Clark had a real shot at serious press, but the others screwed it all up by focusing on Dean. Go back to Clark's first debate. It was all about Dean. Despite Clarks snubbing of Edwards, the attention was on Dean. Is that Dean's fault? I don't know. Unprecedented support from the grassroots is noteworthy. But not as noteworthy as a handful of opposing candidates focusing every waking moment on Dean.

There are still five or six Dean threads on this board for every one Kerry Clark or Kucinich page, and many of them aren't started by Dean's supporters. Think about it.

You obviously haven't been around here very long. I have been highly supportive and complimentary of Wesley Clark even though I'm a Dean supporter first. Many others in the same camp have been likewise very friendly toward Clark.

Your forgiven for your baseless rant.

Look at the Dean/Clark ratio here. Even though most of the threads are made to bash Dean, he still gets more talk here from people who hate him than any candidates get any attention.

This surprises you? What exactly did people expect when they decided to make this primary season about Dean and not their own candidates?

Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up when you look at the kind of media coverage that Dean actually gets, which, from what I've seen, is almost unanimously positive and empty of substance. I saw a CNN politics segment about 2 weeks ago where all they did was keep repeating various arrangements of the words 'Dean,' 'juggernaut,' 'momentum,' 'steam,' 'dominate' and so on, with absolutely no meat: no poll data, no endorsements, no nothing. The only other politician they discussed was Kerry, and that was to point out how weak he was, and, by comparison, how strong Dean was. No attacks were brought into it. The media started throwing Dean in Kerry's face right about the time Kerry started attacking Dean, and it's a chicken and egg thing. Remember the 'Dean Dean Dean' overheard comment? What do you think that was about? That was Kerry complaining because the media wouldn't let him get his message out: all they wanted to do was talk about Dean.

Dean is a pumped up puppet of the GOP and major media tag team, nothing more.

Yeah. You wanna know why his coverage is so much greater? Because even the people that hate him with a passion can't stop talking about him. This means you!

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

Find a soulmate yet?

It's not just that Dean's a draft-dodger who crapped on Liberals and the poor while governor of Vermont, he's just not that smart. For a second opionion, here's how Hermes-Press put it:

Is Howard Dean the Crypto-Republican Candidate?

By Norman D. Livergood

Why is the Republican-owned media giving Howard Dean multi-million dollar media attention? That's the question no one's asking.

Dean made the covers of both Time and Newsweek, was interviewed by Larry King, was the subject of a US News Special, and receives continuing major coverage on all the "news" channels: MSNBC, CNN, and Fox.

Even Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, appeared on CNBC's Capital Report, was interviewed on Fox News' Fox Facts, and was interviewed on CNN's Inside Politics--all in July, 2003. Why is Dean the only Democratic candidate to be given this kind of coverage?

The Republicans and their media hirelings would have us believe that they're giving Dean the spotlight because he's an Internet phenomenon, that he's the leading Democratic contender, and because he represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" (a line Dean stole from the late Senator Paul Wellstone). None of the media's claims are true.

CONTINUED...

http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm

Great article Thanks for posting.

that serves as "proof" of another conspiracy.

You don't think JFK was killed by a conspiracy? I do.

You don't think Howard Dean is being propped up as the GOP candidate of choice? I do.

I've said so to both questions the whole time I've been on DU. To show I'm consistent, I also think the US Government, on some level, was complicit in the events of 9-11. That was a conspiracy, don't you think?

you are consistent in pointing to unanswered or unanswerable questions as "proof" of conspiracies. You know, like:

"If their wasn't a conspiracy to kill JFK, why was the bullet found on a gurney? Huh? Huh? Answer me that."

"If aliens haven't visited Earth, how come Area 51 is off limits? Huh? Huh? Answer me that."

"If Dean isn't the preferred candidate of the GOP, how come he's getting so much news coverage? Huh? Huh? Answer me that."

"If everything isn't controlled by the Illuminati, how come things happen for no apparent reason? Huh? Huh? Answer me that."

You managed to make four false syllogisms and infer I wrote them. Because I did not actually write those things, you are being disingenuous by putting them in quotes to make it out like I did. From one who appreciates Truth, thanks a lot.

As far as Ho-Ho Dean goes: The guy has gotten the lion’s share of press coverage. Yes, the mainstream press is GOP owned, operated and controlled. Yes, Karl Rove wants to face Ho-Ho in Fall 2004. Why? He’d be the easiest Democrat to beat, and that includes Lyndon Larouche.

While I never mentioned aliens, Area 51, the Illuminati, I am very proud for pointing out as much as I can about evidence for conspiracy in the JFK assassination. That’s the least I can do as a Democrat and a loyal American.

Regarding that oddity, the Magic Bullet’s appearance on the hospital gurney. Odd coincidence, isn’t it, how Jack Ruby was at Parkland Hospital at the same time?

Why you are against investigating the JFK conspiracy? Why do you think Howard Dean gets the majority of coverage? Why aren't you interested in finding these things out, HFishbine?

As to why you support of Howard Dean, I won’t venture an opinion. I could posit a guess, but I won’t respond in kind.

I apologize for writing in a manner that made it appear as if my quotations were yours. They were not, of course. They were merely meant as examples.

Sure, I'm interested in finding out the truth. You'll notice, I did not repudiate your skeptiscism of 9/11 because there isn't enough known information to form an opinion yet.

The only point I was trying to make is that it's tiresome, to me anyway, to have questions or coincidences presented as proof of a conspiracy. Jack Ruby at Parkland hospital and a bullet found on the Gurney is proof of nothing. It's zilch. Well no, it is, as you write, an odd coincidence. But that's it.

As for Howard Dean, his popularity in the press couldn't possibly be due to the fact that he has more organized volunteers than any other candidate, that he has raised more money from a wider geographic area than any other candidate and that he leads in the first two states to vote, could it? It just couldn't be. It's when consipiracy theorists disregard the most obvious explaination, ignore the evidence at hand and instead offer unproven speculation as evidence that they lose credibility in my eyes.

"there isn't enough known information to form an opinion yet."

Go visit cooperativeresearch.org

You will probably have an opinion after that.

I do agree that Dean gets more play these days because he is everyones target.

I have an opinion. But accusations of LIHOP or MIHOP are so incredibly huge that they have to be rock solid, air tight. Each peice of "evidence" may seem incriminating on its own, but until it's tested -- given a chance to be fully vetted, we don't yet know the truth.

For example, one could note the numerous warnings this administration had about "something" coming before 9.11. But without knowing the volume of other information that may have been competing for attention, without knowing how much of it made it to the White House, without knowing how Bush responded to it, that line of questioning is nothing more than a trail of evidence. It's not a case. Not yet.

If Bush really did LIHOP or MIHOP, it's not enough for us to be convinced. We, or somebody, I should say (it won't be us) has to prove it undeniably. Otherwise, we are going to end up with the same trouble that those who don't believe Oswald acted alone have -- a lot of unanswered questions, a lot of contradictions, but no compelling proof.

To that end, you'll probably be interested in this if you haven't seen it already: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0311/S00224.htm

Yes the GOP sure luuuuvs Dean.

LOL

...about publicity. Ever hear the expression: "There's no bad publicity except no publicity?" That means that Dean will get headlines, and thus voter-impressions, when this turd Gillespie does his mud-slinging. What's funny is I thought you Deanie-weenies were all up on this stuff.

and has been right along, now, could it?

I'm so amused by this kind of discussion. Dean has been busting his buns longer and way harder than any other candidate. He and Trippi have been running an AMAZING campaign. They're re-creating grassroots politicking again -- with the enthusiastic help of their ardent supporters. They've broken fundraising records, and that's just the start of what they've done in that area: they're doing it primarily from small donations by everyday people -- another revolutionary accomplishment.

No, nothing newsworthy there. Dean just doesn't deserve the press, never mind what he and his campaign and his supporters have accomplished. He should have no more media attention than the lackluster performers like Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman have. Yeah, let's level the playing field. That's the ticket.

Eloriel

on the exterminator, too. Because that's what Whoreard is -- a corporate exterminator!!!! He's for re-regulation, and he's for cleaning up the media, and he's out to destroy the corporatist influence on Washington. So while the corporatist media are, no doubt, terrified of Whoreard Dean and his righteous anger and popping forearms, and it would, obviously, benefit them to focus on some more pliant candidate, they can't help but focus on Whoreard, like a deer transfixed by headlights.

This proves, beyond all doubt, who the corprate media are really afraid of! If they weren't terrified of The Whoreard, they wouldn't focus so much attention on him!

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

Or is that an intellect, period.

I bet that you have singlehandedly firmed up more support for Dean than the rest of his supporters combined. :toast:

can't take much credit. Remember: You have the power! You have the power! You have the power!

are now the same ones complaining that they don't like the lack of Wes coverage.

I remember reading posts about how the "handsome," previously Republican, General who was a "Pundit" himself would be a media star because the media "loves their own" when it comes to coverage.

It causes me to doubt those posters reality assessment when they now claim Clark is "the only one who can beat Bush."

The cult of personality has always baffled me--but even more so when the object of other people's cultishness seems to lack personality.

so why isn't CNN covering a lot of Clark due to the "logic" of Clark supporters which said that since he was a media darling, that it'd garner nonstop coverage?

Oh, let me guess, it's because of the right-wing media, and the fact that Clark turned down IA and missed the AFSCME endorsement which takes him out of the media focus on IA there. At least he's still competing in NH.

...help Bush win.

I thought that Republicans and the media would love Clark because, I believed, that, if Clark ran, it would focus the debate on national security and the war, which is EXACTLY what Republicans want to talk about in 2004.

Well, it looks like Clark actually has a war chat that hurts Bush, and he's doing better than anyone else vs Bush. I think that's the new data that is keeping the press from focussing on Clark, Also, in my opinion, Dean's the one who does the worst vs Bush, so the media doesn't want to get of that train just yet.

going up to Vermont to demand that Dean's records be unsealed? Why would he do this? Oh, because they think that Dean could possibly beat them.

Dean is what Dean's supporters want to see.

They're not doing this to try to get Dean to lose the nomination. They're trying to help Dean pretend his nomination is a foregone conclusion.

That's my guess.

they want us to THINK they want Dean to win so that we'll vote against him, nominating someone else, who they REALLY think they can beat.

Devilishly sly those republicans. Makes one wonder why what the republicans want is even a concern of ours.

...as much as they talk about Edwards and Kucinich, and instead of getting the most time in the debates, he'd be getting the least. Also, Mara Liasson and Susan Paige wouldn't be telling us that he's winning all the debates.

over how much time a candidate got in a debate. You're really on top of this stuff. When do you go public?

which called the election for Bush, and which whored it up for him are presenting these debates.

Are we watching the same debates?

Your evidence that the right wing controls how much time certain D candidates got in debates in 2003 is the media calling the 2000 election for Bush.

This is what passed for logic?

Apparently we're not watching the same debates. Apparently they're not even from the same elections.

Only the debate with the bell was fair on time. There have huge variations in the amount of the time given, and it's always the same candidate on top and the same one on the bottom, and the "news" divisions repeat the same pattern, and this is with debates where the claim to be giving equal time.

Hep, you are really amazing.

I AM amazing.

Anyway. I don't believe the media had a rightward slant. I'm more in ine with Franken and Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler. I believe their bias was different, worse.

In any event, I don't think nothing has changed since 2000. I think a lot has changed, and I think the political climate is very different now.

that some us aren't going to know what hit us?

Did anyone miss the California Arnold coverage? Or the way they are now morphing Arnold into a "real" Kennedy?

OT: Reading GQ last night, I came across an article about Opus Dei. Now that's one organization I take seriously. Anyway, Eunice Shriver is a member. Whoa says I.

for some odd reason. I was stranded at my dealership today waiting for my car repair and had to sit there for 2 damn LOOOOONG Fucking hours watching FAUX NEWS. They said one thing about Clark. He met with Madonna. The asshole that Clark went off on in that FAUX interview (can't remember his name) said..."Hmmmmm. I wonder if General Clark was explaining policy or defense?" or SOMETHING stooooopid like that....and the FAUX bitch "Bridge" says...."OH, somehow I doubt it." By the time I left that place my blood pressure was sky high! THAT is why FAUX NEWS is banned in my house. The entire segment was about Dean and why he's doing so well and then they threw in that snide little aside about General Clark....just for good measure. :grr: G-D help us! We need it to fight these assholes from the media!

:shrug:

Why do candidates do fund raising? Yes it is wonderful that Dean gets so many small contributions (that was not meant sarcastically) but Dean doesn't refuse large contributions. He certainly didn't when he ran for Gov. If Clark does poorly at fund raising that will be held against him. So if he cultivates a (relatively) non controversial donar base, that should get held against him too? Or perhaps more exactly, that should becoome the theme of Rox media coverage? On a day when he should be making news over his proposals to deal with the AIDs pandemic for instance? C'mon, we're Democrats. We get to bitch at Fox over stuff like that.

This has been said berore. Even if (I said IF) Republican Special Interests want Dean him as the Dem candidate, they might still regret it later. And there are other explanations for why Dean might be getting a lot of press, some even favorable. I would rather see us debate, or better yet discuss, the relative advantages and disadvantages of our candidates, rather than use what the perceived opposition is doing with and/or to us as a guide for how we should be making our own choices.

Having said that I do not expect the big boys in the media to be helpful to Democrats. Even if you speculate that some might have wanted to build up Dean now, they will soon turn agaisnt him if they haven't already. They will try to bloody any Democrat whose voice might be strongly heard, nominee or not, during the General Election.

Right now they could very well be trying to kill two birds with one stone. They play up the "Democrats are angry" theme and associate Dean with it, then in the General Election they could push the image of Democrats as bitter, cynical, mean spirited and hot headed in general. Clark they have a different strategy for, Make him seem flaky to neutralize his advantages as a career military man compared to Bush. Make him seem inconsequential by slotting him into the smallest box they can find so that no one will pay attention to what he really has to say, which is particularly damning to Bush in Security and Foreign Affairs. Ignoring Clark whenever possible works well with that game plan.

Tom,

May I just say that I really enjoy reading your posts. They are thoughtful, fair and very honorable. You promote your candidate in a positive way, and don't slam other candidates (many times you stick up for them) You bring our discussion up to a higher standard.

Thanks.

in a VERY sarcastic tone of voice...by the FAUX NEWS WH shill. Then "Bridge's" reply was equally sarcastic. I think Clark more than likely met with Madonna to get some fund-raising going? Money? Heaven knows she's got the connections to the big bucks. I'm sure he DID explain his stance on the issues to someone he's hitting up for $$$$$. Unfortunately, the way the FAUX NEWS shills talked about it was in a very demeaning way, aimed at Madonna not being smart enough to be involved in politics. I was waiting for them both to roll their eyes like this-------->:eyes: It was a disgusting display of FAUX journalism. Typical.

we can agree.

to Clarkies is like a drug addict's withdrawal symptoms.

Dean earned his media coverage. He came from obscurity to frontrunner status, which best fits the American Dream success story; whereas, Clark started near the top due to media frenzy and is now following the laws of political gravity because he doesn't have the political skills and organization to live up to the hype.

The American Dream success story....Ah come on, I can understand someone liking Dean, but let's not let hero-worship cloud the facts. Dean was born into a wealthy family, not exactly Horatio Alger. Be real! As to your bashing of Clark, is you had seen Clark on Meet The Press you know he did better than Dean did awhile back when Dean didn't even know the answers to all of Russert's questions! In the last debate Clark excelled. Dean's had all year and millions of dollars spent and he is still under 20%, basically tied with Clark (Clark leads in 2 polls, but virtually all polls having the 2 within statistical tie). I think it is obvious the press sees Dean as the front-runner, and this is why he gets more press coverage. The conservative press REALLY want Dean to win, and so do the liberal press for different reasons. As to me, when I see Karl Rove rooting for a Democratic candidate, I take notice!!!! Clark or Kerry have the best chance of beating Bush in November.

from television, since he announced his support for Clark.

since Wilson joined Kerry.

They feed us a daily diet of Dean and expect Democrats to fall in line.

*LOL*

Honest to Gods, you are hilarious!

By keeping the focus on him and the horserace aspect, they can ignore the weightier issues.

Hopefully in the next month it will triple again!

Wonder how he stacks up to Bush. When he triples bushes coverage I will really be happy!

Dean will never beat Bush.
I wish you'd wake up to the reality that Dean won't turn one red state blue and possible will even turn some blue states red.
Please, for the sake of the country, WAKE UP!!

And then there was the whole confederate flag deal.

And of course, his opponents can't stop talking about him.

This doesn't surprise me.

It is all going according to plan! Yes, most of Clark's have been negative causing much celebrating at the White House. Last count Woodruff had not said Wesley Clark's name for 8 days.

Shhhhhh....................


Novak only says Clark's name to remove excess saliva between his Opus Dei head bangs. Yesterday, Novak questioned Clark's honor for exposing his military stature to Madonna.

It makes me weep to watch this happen, and to watch my party being lead like lambs to the slaughter.

That is amazing. The show is only called "Inside Politics" afterall.

Dean.....and all of the candidates were listed, quoted, etc....but no Clark. Here is the article. See for yourself. If you find CLark's name, let me know. Good Luck!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/999873.asp?0cv=CB10 Msnbc Article - Can Dean run out the Clock


SO I WROTE HIM A LETTER:
Dear Mr. Curry,
I read your analysis with eagerness titled "Can Dean run out the Clock?" . Your analysis made good sense, although there were only two possible scenarios that you described. One was Howard Dean winning the nomination and the other was Howard Dean winning the nomination. The flaw in your analysis is that you only use polling data from two states, Iowa and New Hampshire. You do not cite who is leading in other polls and your analysis almost gives the incorrect view that Howard Dean is polling first in all of the other regions as well.

I realize that you are a seasoned professional, and therefore, I was puzzled that you did not mention the "Donkey (would be an elephant, but that does not work in this instance) with the 4 stars" that is in the room. You know, the one with General in front of his name. The one that polls best against President Bush. The one that comes in first or second in many of the other 48 states and nationally. Shall I dare say his name? General Wesley Clark.

Could it have been a "mistake" on your part perhaps? Although I have noticed that this phenomenon has been picked like a bad habit among many in the corporate and right wing media. It has been repeated over and over since October that Clark was fading and was not a real contender. But I am starting to wonder if this is deliberate public manipulation on the media's part. Now why would the media give us Howard Dean as our front-runner? I almost hate to answer, but could it be that the one candidate that could possibly beat George Bush is being subliminally dismissed? I respect the media's power to sway public opinion, but I
would suggest that you rethink your analysis and include the General. Who knows, once you factor him in, it may just be another race altogether.

Furthermore, please don't wait until we have a nominee prior to handicapping the general election. It would seem that the odds of Howard Dean beating President Bush may be not be greatest. I think that your readers have the right to be informed about such matters. Because after all, it's the general election that really counts. I realize that you take no sides as a non-partisan and professional journalist. Now all that you have to do is demonstrate that in your future analysis. That would be the patriotic thing to do.
Respectfully,

I was impressed, as it was pretty long!

Thanks for your note.

In past contests the results from Iowa and New Hampshire have had a very significant and often decisive effect on the primaries and caucuses that follow.
While I can not predict how the 2004 race will go, I would say it is likely that if Dean wins both Iowa & New Hampshire he will be hard to stop.

The "media" have not given you Howard Dean as the front runner. Howard Dean & his supporters have made him the front runner.
As of the beginning of October Dean had raised $25 million and had $12 million in cash on hand. Clark had raised $3 million and had $3 million cash on hand. These are facts which no "media" person or other person could change. Dean can afford to hire staff in states such as New Mexico where Clark can not. Money is important -- not decisive but important.
Dean is also ahead in states other than Iowa & New Hampshire.
Michigan -- a large & significant state -- votes on Feb 7. Here's the latest poll I've seen from Michigan:
Dean 21%, Clark 15%, Gephardt 13%, Kerry 13%, Lieberman 12%, Others & undecided 26%.
I would say there is still time for Dean or Clark or Gephardt or someone else to win over the undecided.

You say about what you see as the neglect of Clark: "I am starting to wonder if this is deliberate public manipulation on the media's part." While conspiracy theories may be an entertaining hobby, they don't get you closer to understanding what is going on.
I'd say Clark is getting a fair amount of attention from the news media, yes, even from what you call "corporate and right wing" new media.

and then I decide to write him a response to his response.....

so I write back this, cause you see, he was not making any sense...although on it's face he appeared to be:

Dear Mr. Currie,
Thank you very much for your reply. However, missing from your response was any logical reason why General Clark's name was excluded from your article, while every other candidate was mentioned. To illustrate my point, in the only poll you cited in your response (the MIchigan Poll), Clark is polling second "in a large and significant state". So although you stated that he may be receiving a "fair" amount of attention, you, yourself are highlighting a contradiction to that claim, which is what prompted my letter in the first place. Furthermore, you cite Fundraising stats that ended as of the third quarter, 2 weeks after General Clark got into the race. While it has already been widely reported that Clark will raise about 12 million by the end of the 4th quarter, more than many of the candidates that you mentioned. So if money was important, General Clark's name should have appeared in your "analysis". While conspiracy is not a word to be used according to the PC police, we can always give it another name, and then just call it that.

If he will answer back. I think not though.

This should be called "Media Politics", after the 'invented-the-internet' media we have all come to know and love.

In a few weeks, media empires (and their emperors, princes and knaves) will begin ingesting hundreds of millions of dollars, transferred into their maw from supporters of candidates who must battle to get a message out against the rising tide of control and manipulation. Its like tribute from vassals, or getting information from the company store and paying forever.

Where have the media's honor, duty and integrity gone?

Ou sont les neiges d'antan?

That would be 8.

I'm at a conference tomorrow...so, if anyone watches, please update the number.

Lou Dobbs

I'm waiting to hear more cries of "The Media is ignoring my Clark!" from the Clarkite crowd here.

I don't know if you enjoy engaging in intra campaign baiting as much on Dean threads, because I spend very little time reading Dean threads. And when I do wander across one with an open theme that intersets me, I am more likely to say something positive if I mention Dean at all. I kind of understand it when you make a substantative comment about Clark or even his suppporters, and you do sometimes, but you are forever tossing off these little acid tinged pieces of fluff, when you aren't throwing more pointed darts.

I'm not saying there aren't Clark supporters who might not do the same. I've spoken out against that, but you seem to really enjoy it. You seem bright enough, can't you rise above this? I am really tired of this Democratic Civil War. We have more important battles to fight. We're not talking about traditional rival High School Football teams, it matters that we be able to unite in the Fall. I am going out of town for a few days. When I return I will try harder to speak out against stupid childish taunting of Deanies by Clark supporters when I see it. What about you? Can we try to stick to the issues?

and you'll see why I dislike a majority of Clark supporters on here. At least I don't make posts that say "Clark Sucks, and Dean is going to win...."