No one is talking about WHY the media is against Clark.

I hear a lot of talk about how the media is slighting Wes Clark. I guess I agree. What I don't see anyone talking about is why? I understand why they're ignoring Dennis Kucinich -- face it, he has very little chance of getting the nomination and zero chance of beating Bush. And he knows this. And we know that he knows it.

With Wes Clark, it's different. I can't put my finger on it. Anyone?

In the interests of disclosure, I do not care for Clark.

against Clark.

If the media would give Clark the same type of exposure that they gave Edwards he would poll against the * by 60% for Clark to * 40%

but if we had a 4 star general as a Democratic president for 8 years, the Dem party would become so powerful that it would destroy the constant conflict we have in america - and thus lead to worse ratings.

Dammit! You are the man! Even if you happen to be a woman.

Wouldn't it just SUCK...... if we had 8 peacefull progressive and safe years under the stewardship of a strong, kickass, no-nonsense, intellectual and TRULY compassionante four star general with no "woman trouble"?

What seething hatred and conflict would they stoke the fires with?

snaps for the senator from Iowa!!!

the repubilican party becomes marginalized...

would fully squash the "Democrats are weak on defense" b-s.

I think Dean was the big story, then Kerry. Edwards, too. If Clark wins a few next week, he'll be the next big story.

I'm in the distinct minority here who believes that the media don't really give a shit who wins - they just like to sell commercials and ads.

I don't like the inattention, but our boy's gotta make a bigger splash to earn a seat at the table. Dean is doing pretty lousy--he's essentially imploded at this point--but at least he's made a splash. There's drama there. All Clark has is integrity, which makes for shitty television.

I actually think that with a couple of exceptions (Fox, for instance), the media is pretty objective.

When the pundits do interview or comment on Clark, there is something visceral beneath the surface... almost a personal dislike for the man. Bob Dole, Judy Woodruff, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs... hell most of the CNN commentators. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Clark used to work for CNN.

And then there is MSNBC. Tweety seems to be pretty fair. He goes where the wind blows, and the wind is blowing in Kerry's direction. But the rest of the pundits, Fineman, O'Donnell, etc. have NOTHING positive to say about Clark. Nothing. I won't even mention Scarbutthead. Moving on to Fox... they don't like any Dems, but they can't stand Clark in particular. Perhaps that is because he makes the commentators look like the peons they are everytime he is interviewed.

But it is CLEAR to me that the media, in general, does NOT want to report on Clark and is not willing to express anything positive about him or his campaign.

I agree very strongly with Tatiana's opinion here, and would add another CNN pundit to the list: Bob Novak is nearly psychotic when he speaks of Clark. Venomous. It's sad.

The right-wing echo chamber is definitely trying to spin Clark out of the competition, and the rest of the media -- as always -- gets on board out of ignorance and laziness. And it may not help that Clark (as did Howard Dean) has threatened the media elite -- in his proposal to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and to tax those earning over $1 million by another 5%.

However, that being said, Clark is new to politics and doesn't have any political machine supporting him. And I would say that his campaign mechanics *have* left something to be desired. Clark is best when he's freewheeling, with a chance to go one-on-one with voters, and NOT giving stump speeches.

If Clark were to get anything close to the media play of Kerry or Edwards, he'd be kicking arse. Yet, witness Wednesday's upcoming Paula Zahn NOW, where she'll be comparing Bush's military record... to that of Kerry... only. No mention of the 4-star general and NATO Supreme Commander that the Democratic Party has to offer. GAAAHH!! (You can email Paula Zahn, of course: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?11 )

on Wes's shoulder..plus, unlike *, Wes has no trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time....Or fighting wars with no US casualties, or negotiating peace treaties, or holding the respect of foreign leaders or....need I go on???

They know that General Wesley Clark would wipe the floor with Smirky McFlightsuit and the mediawhores will look like IDIOTS for propping him up for so long....

simple :shrug:

And for disclosure, I don't have anything against him, he's just not among my favorites.

I don't see that he's done anything to warrant much media coverage. He didn't participate in Iowa, he came in 3rd in NH. Coming in 3rd does not warrant a party. I don't believe he qualified for any delegates with that even. He's not cropping up towrds the top in most state polls either.

If you don't mind my asking, what's to cover?

The front runners get most of the coverage. That's just a fact of life. For a while it was Dean, now it's Kerry. I would hope Clark will get coverage tomorrow for his win in OK. (And tonight if they call it tonight)

of Clark's, show Edwards getting a football coach's endorsement, ignore 55 former and current ambassadors endorsing Clark. He gets into the race, they slam him for having no position on domestic issues, he put out position papers, the hit him with questions about every old attack and smear in the book, completely ignoring his domestic positions. Shall I go on?

He comes out with a very progressive tax plan, they ask him again and again when he thinks life begins, trying to get a quote that is controversial.

I'm stopping, 'cause I'm getting mad, not because that is all there is

does Lieberman consistently get more coverage than Clark?!?!?!?

He's brilliant, erudite, well-spoken, heroic, self-made, popular around the world, polite, respectful, and patriotic. Against Clark/Edawrds or Clark/Kerry, Smirk would suffer a worse defeat than GHWB in 1992.

As someone else pointed out, having Wes as president would make for 8 years of peace, prosperity, treaties, balanced budgets, and a stunningly popular president, here and around the world. If he were to keep away from the interns, WTF would the media have to report??

Clark got nothing but free attention for months while he was "thinking about it" and then after he finally did.

He was soaring based on this free adulation. Edwards couldn't locate a microphone or camera for miles as a result. Oh well, he pressed on.

Well it finally becomes time to start acting like a polititian and actually campaign and his shortcomings became apparant. Starts losing steam.

This continues and then Iowa becomes IOWA. The momentum is set in serious motion as is normal only moreso with the bombshell Iowa became.

His efforts at trying to regain some attention backfire badly.

The media gave him a free ride for months and he squandered it by being unprepared and making terrible descisions.

That he's completely off the radar is only a surprize taht it took so long. The least bit of scrutiny and those general's stars tarnish a lot.

I'm no Clark fan either. When you choose to lie about phone calls from the White House in order to seem importent and establish your identity, well, it establishes that identity but not in the way that you would want.

that's for damn sure.

and I see you opted not to try and refute it, any of it.

I still have not seen a credible explanation for that one. I think Clak was caught in a pretty clear lie.

He was quoted out of context by folks like Krguman who were eager to find some ammo to attack Bush (a sentiment with which I normally wholly empathize) turned his statement into something it wasn't. Clark tried to correct it right away--but of course the RW then characterized it as a lie.

BTW. our complaints at Clark's terrible media coverage our especially directed at tonight: there is nothing about Clark's positioning or delegate count that makes him worse positioned than Edwards to take on Kerry. I agree that Kerry is the overwhelming frontrunner, but you can make arguments about both Edwards and Clark--Clark has more money, has won maybe 20% fewer pledged delegates but he's done it in just as many states. The only thing that separates Edwards from Clark is some perception that Edwards has "momentum"--but this is just a logically absurd claim, as momentum is equivalent to what the press thinks of a candidate. I counted so many out right distortions last night I lost track: from the idea that Clark had visited Oklahoma "far more often" than any other candidate to the notion that Clark "doesn't sell to voters" (he placed better ordinally in more states than Edwards) to the idea that Clark could only add a "handful of delegates" to his OK win (he won only 10 less than Edwards tonight). It really is amazing.

First I am an Edwards supporter, and except for your last paragraph about which I have no idea, I see it through the same lens. Clark squandered some of his free face time. Also, skipping Iowa turned out to be a poor strategy - especially since his time in NH didn't yield much of a dividend.

But I think there is a separate and larger dynamic at work.

The one thing I do think is odd about the media treatment of Clark - Brokaw in the debate - he was sort of trying to make Clark look a little nutty - and I think that is because Clark lends credibility to the idea that Bush shouldn't have gone to War - so an effort to discredit him and discredit the idea. I'm sort of ambivalent on the war - (I think a case could be made either way) - but I think the press has systematically discredited anyone who has spoken out against the war - Kucinich, Dean, Clark - because if the American people acknowledge this preemptive invasion was questionable - then there will be a mass collective guilt - and god knows we as a people could end up in the position of the Nazis (in history) before it's over.
Seriously - where will it take the US if the UN decided to press a case against the US over unprovoked preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation?

I think Clark is openning the can of worms.

Sort of like seriously questioning the election of 2000.

Crossing the line. Can't do that.

"elsiesummers" has posited an interesting theory on the media's approach to Clark:

I think that is because Clark lends credibility to the idea that Bush shouldn't have gone to War - so an effort to discredit him and discredit the idea. ... I think the press has systematically discredited anyone who has spoken out against the war - Kucinich, Dean, Clark - because if the American people acknowledge this preemptive invasion was questionable - then there will be a mass collective guilt - and god knows we as a people could end up in the position of the Nazis (in history) before it's over.
Seriously - where will it take the US if the UN decided to press a case against the US over unprovoked preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation?

But I would add/amend that the media may be less concerned about America's standing in the world than their own complicity in BushKerryEdwards' illegal war. There's no question that all the facts coming out now were predictable back at the time we were being pushed towards war by Bush and his propaganda machine, but the media went along with Bush.

he said he would put a 5% surtax on their sorry butts. When you're talking about billion dollar corps, that ain't small change...

why the corporate media is slighting Clark. It is owned and run by people who are in bed with Bush and the Repuke party, and they know that Clark is absolutely the worst threat to Bush if he gets the nomination. They are hell bent on making sure he is not the nominee, only because they are so scared of the threat he presents to their beloved flight suit boy.

I am so proud of Wes tonight! He has done amazingly well for someone who is a political neophyte, and whose candidacy has been completely marginalized by the corporate media.

GO WES!!!!!

Just think about it, a REAL liberal that he CAN'T smear! It HAS to be keeping him up at nights, and the results of this primary probably have him afraid enough as it is. He is everything Bush is NOT, and when those two face off, all I can say for Emperor Bunnypants is, "Don't let the door hit you on your way out."

(He didn't say it directly of course, but)

They think Wes Clark is just a 'regular guy' and celebrity media types don't think 'regular guys' deserve to be on the national stage running for president. They don't think he has 'earned' their attention and don't take him seriously as a candidate because he hasn't been moving and shaking with them in political circles.

Just like Arnold winning in California - he had 'celebrity power' - the media looooved him and ate him up with a spoon. They re-released old Arnold muscle books in WalMart and they sold like hotcakes.

But the people spoke without their consent tonight. They didn't like it.

I couldn't put my finger on it, but I think you are spot on.

because he managed to grunt his way through a few B-movies and then had the misfortune of finding himself lost on the set of a few popular movies... And that's celebrity?

Just having a famous mug with vaguely familiar ideas makes you more presidential?

Ha! Here's the 2008 surprise ticket: Charlie Manson for President!

Mediawhores... Like the oldest trade, there's no affection, no sincerity - just a complacent smile at the financial transaction, then a vague simulation of social engagement, some distracted movements in the groin, a fast release and a swift kick out of the premises.

I ain't paying for that lousy cr*p.

Blackout CNN - under a torrential flood of letters!


:mad:

?

The media just pays more attention to candidates who seem to be furhtest in the lead. The media was "Dean, Dean ,Dean , after the polls in August showed him taking off 30 points ahead of the nearest competitor. Thats about all it is.

Everyone seems to think the media is against their candidate simply because they do not seem to be paying as much attention to the canadidate they prefer to the ones who happen to be in the lead.

Is called news. Its new. Thats what they sell papers and avertising slots on. What is happening, what is interesting, what gets people excited.

You could just as well make thesame claim about the media and Kucinich.

Clark is a great guy. He has done remarkable things, as a candidate, and as a military leader.

He just isnt the candidate making the biggest splash.

in the media's sense of the word. He can't squeeze out of questions or deliver a super-smooth stump speech like Edwards does. He can't keep the same kind of unflappable calm or "remain on message" when baited like Kerry can. What many people see as an utterly boring stiffness to Kerry, the media poohbahs view as "professionalism." And he doesn't have the quick comebacks of Dr. Dean, or the ability to "pivot" when hit with "gotcha" questions during debates and interviews the way pro politicians do.

So the media is utterly mystified as to why such a large number of people back a candidate that they view as so mediocre (even if he is very eager and learning fast). They don't understand that we love his ideas and what he stands for on Kosovo, or his foreign policy vision. Since the Draft Movement happened just after Dean, we don't win the title "interesting new campaign tactics/use of Internet." And, as with Dr. Dean, the media completely undervalues passion, either on the part of a candidate or his or her supporters. Passion is "unpresidential"--it's good enough for insurgents, but will inevitably reveal "gaffes" that result from shooting off your tongue. Basically, the only candidate in recent years who could combine this sort of real passion with pro politicking was McCain, and he still got shivved by the Repub insiders.

That's my answer as to why the media doesn't take Clark seriously--the argument that "he hasn't given the media any reason to because he hasn't won anything" only made sense until tonight. Now he won a state and bunch of delegates--almost as many as Edwards--but while Edwards was a "winner", Clark was a "loser." Appalling.

I would add, because he's not a professional pol, he's not part of the "club." The powerful media people mingle with powerful politicians. They all inhabit the same little inbred world, & they don't know Clark & don't understand him.

Rumsfeld had a huge party over the holidays & who was there? All the talking heads. Cheney has a big party every year & who's there? All the talking heads.

And this isn't just Repugs, it's Dems also. They are all part of the same group & Clark isn't.