Fox planned this hit on Clark

because the Republicans fear him. He's everything the Boy King isn't: honor, courage, duty, country. Brit Hume was told(by the RNC Chair Slimeball Gillespie I bet) to hit Clark with this so they can trash him as some kind of liberal in the mold of Micheal Moore. The Republicans are trying to paint the Desertion story as some kind of internet rumor so that it will die.

However, Clark can turn this ambush into a victory by taking the offensive and asking Bush to release his military records. By bringing this up, Brit Hume may have inadvertantly given Clark the opening he needs to show the world that Bush is a coward.

These guys are so so worried about a Clark rise up. Hence their new issue on pushing Edwards!

Why are you surprised?

The fact that any Democrat decided to do a debate sponsored (in part) by Faux makes me wonder about their intelligence. All of them should have stood this one up.

because he has the solid appeal of a wet dishcloth.

That's why I hate a lot of this inter-party BS. Yeah, Dean could be blamed for a lot, but Lieberman's RW speaking points are ruining the debate. We all have our differences. but where in the Hell is Joe coming from?

n/t

I started a thread on the ways that the Republican Party has been trying to influence our choice for Presidential candidate. Tonight's "debate" played right into that script. Comments welcome.

Here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=164835

It just makes them look stooopid.

Who made this decision? They should be fired.

other networks would have been happy to take it. and that it's a repuke hit is so transparent. no mystery there.

they should have all the facts about Bush's military service and they should present them to the American public. They'd certainly do it for a Democratic presidential nominee, wouldn't they ?

the media to look into it again. Then again, it would be the first time for the majority of them. :argh:

They would never admit it though because they work for the WH. The media is run by RW hacks. They would never tell the truth on the chimp's AWOL, but Clark could bring it out for them, if they so choose. :7

and I don't think this is a can of worms they want to open.

Where overpaid cynics and sleaze merchants destroy people who want to do good for our country.

We Dean supporters have been in this hell for six weeks.

Even here, on DU.

But I shall take no joy, and take no part, in the Gore-ing of your candidate as so many of Clark's supporters joined in on the relentless, unfair crucifixion of mine.

Clark does not deserve this....he served honorably, and Bush IS a deserter...just as we are not safer because of capturing Saddam, etc. etc. etc. etc.

just wondering

and still do. They are making it about the candidates and not the issues as the candidates present them. I'm getting really frustrated that there are many people out there thinking they are getting unabiased analysis.

Clark is getting a lot of RW attention for his progressive tax reform plan. That is why Mike Moore and McGovern are supporting him. Clark is going after the upper income brackets, and the RW does not like it bit. The RW in both parties have been successful in hiding the erosion of our progressive tax system for decades. But this year it is starting to get the attention of some of the Dem candidates, most notably Clark and Edwards. Looks like Clark has the most radical plan. The progressive tax plan is where the Liberal rubber meets the road, fellow DUers. Stop being distracted by minor issues.

Here is an attack piece on Clark from the Wash Times:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Clark tax-increase scheme
"Restoring progressivity" to the federal income-tax code was the first goal identified in retired Gen. Wesley Clark's Families First Tax Reform, which he unveiled last week. Mr. Clark promised to "shift the tax burden" to those "with the most to spare." As a recent IRS report revealed, however, the nation's income-tax system already is quite progressive.
The top 1 percent, while earning 20.8 percent of income in 2000, paid more than 37 percent of total federal income taxes. The top 10 percent paid 67 percent of income taxes on 46 percent of total income. That is the definition of progressivity. Indeed, half the nation's taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of income taxes in 2001. Given that a married couple with two children earning $40,000 in 2003 will owe the IRS less than $50 in income taxes, Mr. Clark should understand the simple concept of progressivity.
Of course, Mr. Clark has no intention of "restoring progressivity." What he clearly wishes to do is to make the nation's indisputably progressive tax system much steeper. An apt description for such a plan is class warfare. The retired general undoubtedly hopes that his politicized arithmetic will pay huge electoral dividends, even as he seeks to virtually triple the top tax rate on stock dividends from 15 percent to 44.6 percent.
The scheme is simple: Maximize the number of people who would qualify for tax relief, while minimizing the number of people required to pay for it, thus maintaining ostensible revenue neutrality.
...


As part of his 10-year, $1.1 trillion tax increase, Mr. Clark previously pledged to raise the top income-tax rate to 39.6 percent from the current top rate of 35 percent, which happens to be 7 percentage points higher than the top rate established by the 1986 bipartisan reform effort. Now he will be raising the top rate by another 5 percentage points, to 44.6 percent. Mr. Clark pledges that the latest rate increase will apply to only the top 0.1 percent of tax filers. In his lexicon, they have "the most to spare." In reality, they have the most to invest.


http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040110-103813-6580r.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CLark is now my strong favorite, followed by Edwards, and Kerry a weakening third.

or watch Fox News.

Not 'you' personally, *cough*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=4483

it was aired on a local an ABC affiliate. And Democrats don't take Bill Bennett seriously anyway.

I think Fox will overplay this Clark-attack to mostly deaf ears.

Don't kill Kerry and Edwards. Get Clark.

Hannity practically endoresed the guy.

what are you going to do about it?

I still cannot believe they brought up the AWOL topic themselves. And continue to do so even now.

Like the saying goes, even for an issue, no press is bad press.

I think Clark handled it exceptionaly.

While getting the issue out there without giving them their soundbite of the week, he indeed left it open for future debate.

Brilliant IMHO.

You don't think that the media deliberately picks out a candidate to destroy every once in awhile, do you?

On edit: and, yes, I agree with you. Clark was most definitely picked out and torpedoed by Faux tonight.

What FAUX wanted was either Clark agreeing with Moore, which would mean Clark was one of those wild-eyed crazy generals like out of Dr. Stangelove, or disavowing Moore which would mean he was a coward, and treacherous with no loyalty.

Clark danced past the horns like a matador, leaving them with the third argument, that Clark did neither.

He should have defended Bush, they are saying, even as they know just how rediculous that sounds.

More free publicity and later on, when Clark does research the question and decides that the evidence shows Bush was derelict in his duties, the ball goes into play.

Tommorrow, send out a press release reiterating what he's already said- that he (Clark) could not know for sure whether Bush was in fact a deserter. The person who ultimately has all the relevant information is Bush- he is the person in the best position to prove or disprove the charges of desertion. If the press has questions about whether Bush is a deserter, such questions should be directed at Bush.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Faux News was the undoing of this maladministration?