OMG, I Just had a ping pong game with a MSNBC Journalist

Actually, it was a virtual ping pong game!

This journalist Tom Curry wrote this article analyzing the primary.
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 You do not cite who is leading in other polls and your analysis almost gives the incorrect view that Howard Dean is polling first in all of the other regions as well.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.

Well written exchange. But you fudge the facts a little. Every other candidate was NOT mentioned in Currie's article, only those who attacked Dean.

that Clark could have been mentioned? If you are writing about the primaries, why would the one on the heels of the front runner not be mentioned at all. I have other articles and letters such as this one was pretty glaringly obvious.

I mean the article has Kerry, Lieberman, Kucinich, Gephardt, John Edwards. Even Bradley and Clinton get a mention. Note that Sharpton is not in it...and I thought he had done a good job attacking Dean....if that's what would get you a mention. Poor CMB...never gets mentioned....just like Clark.

I get your point -- really, I do. And you're right, his excuses for not including Clark doesn't hold water. (I could have made a better case by noting that that particular article was specifically about Dean fending off attacks from other candidates.) But, if you really want to make the case that there is some media bias against Clark, and I'm not saying there is or there isn't, I think you'd do better to find patterns rather than try to hold up one article by one reporter as an example.

Keep it up though. It's your kind of energy and enthusiasm that's going to win us the WH.

;-)

He deserved it. He should have mentioned it in his "Cover me ass" letter.

;-)

to write me back a long letter.

not "serious enough"---proper grammar is essential in conversating intelligently with a journalist. ;-)

Smith???!!!

Hey I really like Dean but I just want to slap the shit out of people when they use that non-word. It is so Jerry Springer.

Yes the exchange was not well written and in my opinion just plain pandering for a candidate when Frenchie had an opportunity to actually get a reporters attention for a serious discussion. It would have been better to address the issue of why MSNBC is such a brothel of whores for the BFEE for example. I really wish some of the people who REALLY like a certain candidate could take of the horse blinders long enough to realize this thing is way bigger than “their guy”.

A missed opportunity in my opinion to address something more serious. I agree we should try to visit Microsoft word before sending out a letter that we want to be viewed as serious or professional. Misspelling someone’s name in that circumstance is not good.

to take a good, logical, well-reasoned response for exactly what it is. Makes the person look simply nuts to a "well-seasoned journalist."

Sigh. Until Clark and his supporters came along, I never knew we had so many illogical thinkers on the left. (That is, assuming we do.)

Eloriel

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

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

And sure to be deleted

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

Maybe both of our posts will go.

Wont we be proud of ourselves then!

It has become quite blantant.

people Dean will need to help him win the general election IF he gets the nomination. You do your candidate a great diservice also you give the left a bad name.

I've noticed a paucity of media coverage for Clark as well. He is a front runner damn it!

.

;-)

watch those skid marks!

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

But that's not what he said! I wish he could become my pen pal!

nt

Good job!!! And I agree that Clark's name is rarely mentioned, especially on Inside Politics, which I watch quite frequently.

They do have their orders, you know.

Inside the Dean Campaign

You got him on that one Frenchie, I hope he'll eat his crow and reply back to you. Great job!

and do the Clark movement proud!:kick:

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

and Sharpton isn't...although I though he did the hardest slam on Dean.....so your theory is out!

But it doesnt change the fact that this wasnt an article about the primaries it was an article about taking Dean out. If it was a general article about the primary race and clark wasnt mentioned I would agree with you but since it was about attascking Dean and clark really hasnt. He really had no place in the article and the author had no reason to mention him.

for calling someone off their rocker???.

Not that he was off his rocker on this.

Again since you seem to be slow, this was not an article discusing the primaries it was an article on what is being done to try to stop Dean.

Theres no reaon for clark to be mentioned in this article.

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

where do I get that cool photo in your sig line?

and the attacks he has weathered. I'm not sure how mentioning Clark would have been relevant.

But then again, you don't even know what "facts" are so what can we expect?

Julie

that aired last night too. Tweety did seem to give Dean a lot of face time but I don't remember seeing Clark.

;-)

He is # 2 or 3 on my list but I swear sometimes some of his supporters are retarded. Clark is better than most of the candidates but please try to remember we are all in this together. No need to manufacture problems where they don't exist.

If we could get you guys to spend more time convincing us he is not a MIC shill which is one of the only things in the way of him getting my vote your efforts would be more productive.


Keep it real.

Praising the SOA
In favor of de-regulation
Sending s/w to India

are things you like in a candidate?

take you up on that. I totally understand that concern and I think its a tough one to overcome unless you connect with the candidate more. But anyways I will put something together.

Many, many notable Democrats have gone on to win the Democratic Nomination, despite losing the New Hampshire and Iowa primary/caucus. William Jefferson Clinton comes immediately to mind.

However, what's most illuminating about his response to you, Frenchie, is that it would appear the press is already set to annoint the Nominee following the early, unimportant and undemocratic primaries.

We'll see how things stand in March. Nice analyis, Curry. You should re-enroll in some political journalism classes.

I wish I had the exact quote but it goes something like this: The media run this country.

What I don't quite understand is why everyone on DU knew this to be true, absolutely true, until now.

Thanks Frenchie...don't let go.

I'm not saying that they won't get away with it, in fact, it looks more and more like they will; but I will fight them til the bitter end. Shoulder to shoulder.

However, what's most illuminating about his response to you, Frenchie, is that it would appear the press is already set to annoint the Nominee following the early, unimportant and undemocratic primaries.

First of all, I will say up front I generally like what I've read from Curry -- he's a pro. And I give him props for bothering to reply at all.

That being said, it seems like the table is being set this primary season to make things as easy as possible. Gephardt won Iowa in 1988 and almost immediately became a non-factor; this time around, people are saying Gephardt winning Iowa will make him a national contender. Dean, a soft Northeasterner with no natural appeal in the South, is set to win his neighboring state and the buzz from that has been constant for months now, even as his poll numbers haven't moved.

7 more weeks of this before the first vote is even cast? I honestly don't see how it can go on. Even Judy Woodruff is going to get tired of the Stepford drone: Dean juggernaut picking up steam momentum New Hampshire Dean can he be stopped steamroller juggernaut unstoppable Dean picking up steam juggernaut unstoppable juggernaut Dean New Hampshire juggernaut Iowa Dean picking up steam momentum Dean steamroller Dean can he be stopped New Hampshire Dean juggernaught Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean I mean yes I say Dean I mean yes I will I say DEAN!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sigh. Nobody will get it).

if he'll have a shot at winning the primary and especially the general.

Remember that Dean has broken all Democratic fundraising records and has been campaigning for for president for more than a year longer than Clark has (not including the two decades of practice Dean had in campaigning for office in Vermont).

on facts, when you wrote: "even as (Dean's) poll numbers haven't moved."

4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 20 ... any idea what those are?

Get your facts straight.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Some past winners of the New Hampshire Primary:

Gary Hart - 84

Michael Dukakis - 88

Paul Tsongas, G. H. W. Bush - 92

Pat Buchanan - 96

John McCain - 00



Does Curry not know this, or does he know it and ignore it?