For Clark Supporters ONLY - I Missed the Debate - Will I be OK?

I love Clark, but I didn't trust that FAUX NEWS was carrying it, so I boycotted and went to the bar, figuring he'd be set up by lame Axciom and Hugh Shelton questions. Well? Did I miss anything?

Axciom, voting record, Michael Moore...

It was SO ugly, that now I'm gonna have to hit the bar.

Having failed they are carping on Clark not denouncing Michael Moore for saying * was AWOL.

They gave Kerry and Edwards soft questions. They really sucked up to Lieberman. They were very rough on Clark. But you know the General can take it.

:hi:

...because Clark now understands where Marion Barry was coming from when he, "Bitch done set me up!"

Later.

RJS

obviously a pre planned attack.

Most of his questions were designed to put him on the defensive, but all most all of the candidates received their fair share of BS questions.

Welcome to DU

:hi:

I agree with your analysis.

:mad:

Some people say it was a hatchett job, some people say it was set up to pigeon hole him.

Truthfully, I think that some seeds were planted that will start being seen more of soon.

Take into account that when I really want somehting to happen, like Clark get the nomination, I tend to start looking for the bad so I dont get disappointed. It may have been better than I'm making out hehe.

Question 1: are you really a Democrat?

Question 2: aren't you inconsistent on IWR since you praised ...

Question 3: aren't you a nasty, privacy stealing Acxiom lobbyist

Question 4: what's wrong with the Patriot Act

Question 5: shouldn't you have dropped M Moore for calling Bush a deserter

That was pretty much what questions he fielded. Set up? You decide.

How do you reconcile that with Catholic doctrine??? Like someone else said here, he's not running for Pope!

Shouldn't The General have hit that one out of the park? "Michael Moore calls it like it is", etc.?

I've been watching reports from a whole bunch of stations, and Fox News is the ONLY one bashing Clark for his performance.

Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett were ripping on him for not completely defending George Bush against Michael Moore's "deserter" comments. Clark didn't even say he agreed with Moore -- but Hannity called him the loser for the sole reason that he didn't make a strong enough effort to defend George Bush!

Man, all those Bush supporters that were going to vote for us just changed their mind, I guess. Everyone else should realize Clark did just fine. I can't believe how awful that hatchet job was, though.

.

Clark said he introduced Acxiom around Washington, stressed privacy. He believes we need to use all the tools we can and that it can be done without breaking privacy protections.

Also said he would bring the ACLU in to pre-approve CAPPS II, doesn't know if thats been done, he hasn't seen anything on CAPPS II.

which was handled deftly and expertly..

The General was given the toughest questions, and is STILL being treated like an outsider by the media whores. He was constantly having to defend himself and his record and was not afforded the opportunity to get into any of his policy positions like the other candidates. I take this as being indicative of the fear that the right has of a Clark nomination and judging by the rabid ferocity of the attacks launched by the Faux whores after the debate they obviously fear Wesley CLark the most...

TB

I wonder when they will choose non-fruitcakes to host these things. The NH anchorman seemed like a Bush/Cheney fan all the way.

Can nobody else see this?

for Clark in every debate...

They tried to trip him up, but Clark is smarter than they are.

You would have been very proud of your candidate.

Your words mean a lot, seriously. :toast:

A lot!

Unless of course you're being a smartass, but it doesn't sound like you were...

:hi:

Clark answered his questions fine; quite aptly, in fact.

The problem is that while General Clark was fending off trivial BS questions regarding Axciom, MM's "deserter" comment, criticism of being a Republican, supposed praise/support for Bush's Iraq war, the other leading candidates were mostly getting softball questions allowing them to directly discuss the issues at hand.

Overall, though, this debate wasn't moderated much better than Koppel's earlier "horserace" debate. Far too few issues-centric questions, and the questioning wasn't across the board. That is, each candidate was given individual questions, rather than each candidate having an opportunity to respond to a given question.

:hi:

:hi:

guys than these mentally defective TV actors. you don`t get as far as he has without knowing the enemy.
oh yes he`s a rhodes scholar

I LOVE that......... I'm going to steal it :-)

it wasn't his best performance however the real story is the shrub AWOL story which will now have legs and he will have to address it.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well...what happened?

he did great.

where Brit Hume read the part of the article that people love to quote out of context on DU. Like the Axciom question, it was more of an attack than a question.

Ripping off his Daddy for money. Whatever he says can be disavowed 1,000 times over.

But he didn't get an opportuninty to hit one out of the park either.
He wasn't given any really good policy questions - those all went to other candidates. All but one of the questions basically repeated recent smears/attacks. But it did give him a chance to respond to them, and he responded creditably. Tonight's debate probably won't have changed anybody's mind about him, either positively or negatively.

A note here though... if FAUX thought they were going to hurt him with this debate, they didn't. I think they've forgotten that he's spent a month there explaining his positions "retail" style, so nothing he said tonight is going to be a surprise, he just didn't get to say enough that might convince somebody who *hasn't* been paying attention a reason to vote for him, or even check him out further.

This kind of manipulation will be more effective in later contests though, in states where people pretty much have to rely on media to tell them who the candidates are and what they're all about.

By the way, has shrub ever participated in a presidential debate where the questions were not known ahead of time ?

against a Democrat. There's no WAY he would step in the ring with any of these contenders who have been honing their skills. He is soft. All he's been doing is flying across the country ON OUR DIME to repuke fundraisers.

but I was a bit diasappointed. I was hoping he would clearly outshine Kerry, but that didn't happen. I think Kerry is his closest competition and Kerry did a bit better than Wes, I think. I also think the questioners were harder on Clark than the others. Also the audience was filled with Repugs - kept clapping for Lieberman.

Oh GAWD am I glad I missed it. Does anyone else find it slightly curious that FAUX carries so many "Democratic" debates?