Gen. Clark on Anderson Cooper SUNDAY NIGHT-8:00 pm EST

Don't forget to tune in!

and I AIN'T MOVIN' until after I see Wes! :smoke:

This should be a very good show. It's about the turn over of power in Iraq and we all know Wes Clark will have a lot of intelligent things to add to the program because he knows FOREIGN POLICY inside out. Thanks for the reminder!

I'll be watching! :kick:

I was sort of planning to go see F-9/11 this afternoon, but can't get tickets that would get me home in time. But there's always tomorrow afternoon for the movies.

Yeah, I could tape, and I will, but it's not the same. And I don't quite trust my VCR timer--or rather the dummy who occassionally operates it. ;)

on my dish (Dishnetwork)??
Did I miss something?
CNN, right?

that Anderson Cooper is doing from Iraq about the transfer of power.

Just asking.

:evilgrin:

:cry: all the way to the bank!

Reaching out to an extremely important Democratic constituency. That's after having spent Friday and Saturday speaking to Iowa Democrats. No rest for the best!

Aren't an "important Democratic constituency"

Hey wait. Don't we want to reach people who aren't already voting for Kerry? Duh...

:shrug:

Just saying...

Edwards supporters rarely say anything approaching a bad word about Clark. But the venom expressed by some Clarkies towards Edwards, is really self-defeating. It makes me sad that we have that kind of hate in our own party.

Clark would not sanction this. I'm sorry that so many of you feel this is appropriate discussion.

Nasty things have been said about both men by supporters of the other, sometimes slurs against one or the other seem predominant, but it goes back and forth. Clark and Edwards share many basic Democratic Party values of course, but they do present different strengths and weaknesses. It is natural to discuss them, and probably inevitable though not desirable that sometimes that discussion slips into a less than friendly tone. We're Democrats after all. Strong feelings come with the territory. But I think we will be largely united once the tension over the VP pick ends.

"CNN Presents" will repeat at 10:00 P.M. Central time. So, if you have plans, it will be on later! :bounce:

I could never get tired of seeing Wes Clark. :loveya:

so I won't miss it.

:bounce:

:wtf:

Hope Wes is still going to be on!

Thanks WesDem! :hug:

Here comes our Wesley!!

Hope he's not on for the last 10 min.

Nice of ya! :hug: I had no clue how to fix it. Soon as I put my thinking/dunce cap on...I'll try to fix it.


Here he is! :bounce:

10 minutes in, still doing reports on the insurgents.......

by good things happening in Iraq? :wtf:

:pals:

:hi:

:shrug: Just a wild guess.

"they are desperate"

oh brother. Still using that line.

until I see the General's gorgeous mug appear. :D

on edit: got my mute on.

Although I have to say that the CNN moderator tried to keep it from going down the campaign trail.

WHOA!!! Clark is going after Adelman's accusations about Clark's
"earlier" views...GO WES!!!!! That's the fighting spirit we need to see all the way to November!!!!!

Carol asked Adelman some tough questions before that...

Looked funny at the very end.........cut both of them off, but Adelman did the "all over the lot" bit again referring to Kerry and Clark.

That's the campaign right there, folks....Wes will handle it if they don't cut him off.

He looks like he's spoiling for a fight...he smiles his way through it, tough as nails....

He linked them over, and over, and over, like they were one and the same.

I didn't think it went that well... hope y'all will tell me I'm wrong.

Part of it was that camera angles weren't good. Showed Adelman's upper body more, gestures and so forth, so he looked more natural, whereas Clark was more literally a "talking head."

Looked like Adelman knew when time was running out and started taking shots when he knew there wouldn't be time for a response.

Asshole.

would let Adelman sway them. Clark didn't say invade Iran. That was such a weak argument from Adelman. Clark also got his shots in, Adelman said Iraq would be a cakewalk. Called Iraq a huge strategic blunder. Wes did as well as can be expected, and he looked good I thought.

Adelman came across as the fool that thinks there is hope even though the Bush plan is literally falling apart in front of our eyes.

Honestly, I noticed that during the primariy run up too. It is not flattering to continually fill a frame with someone's face, nice as that face might otherwise be. Kerry's people should keep an eye out for that. It is a stupid cheap diversion from substance, but it is the type of thing, like picking backdrops and ensuring the correct application of pancake makeup during TV debates (remember Nixon vs JFK?) that has to be monitored by campaign staff.

He usually goes to one of the local TV stations for a satellite shot. Or so I assume. When we were at that Little Rock reception back in early April, he had to leave early to head to the studio for a Fox news appearance that nite (Greta whatshername's show).

I'm suspecting those who do the set- and make-up at relatively small-market local tv stations maybe aren't exactly as highly trained or talented or experienced or whatever as he would get in one of the major news network studios?

Something needs to be done about that.

He wasn't going to just role over and play dead no matter what happened. I thought Adelman looked weak trying to make the case that the Iraq people have a good reason to feel hopeful now. Clark's case about the clear and present danger was far more compelling.

Beyond that it was a classic case of the ugly format of "TV journalism". Clark made a major point about regional destability and the need to correctly prioritize resources and political capital. That is a bigger truth than a sound bite can carry, so Clark couldn't score an easy "lay up" two points in the face of Adelman's stiff defense, but the point has to be introduced into the political dialog, repeatedly, so that it can sink in with the public. The election is still over 4 months away, and Clark is taking the lead once again here. The same thing happened with Clark's earlier points that Bush didn't do all that he could do to prevent 911, or that a President must be held accountable for the tone of his entire Administration.

He looked almost happy to get into that confrontation and he was full of confidence, too bad they didn't let him finish.

that Clark is the one. Attacking him as if he were a candidate...not as a political analyst! He really stood his ground! Notice how they turned his mike off when he really wanted to get his point across.

When Clark first started his campaign, he was too polite to seriously talk over anyone, so others were able to seize air time from him. Not anymore.

The Republicans are running scared on Iraq, if they lose too much ground with the public on it they know they are dead meat this fall.

Nothing makes me more angry than when anyone tries to bring down Wes Clark's good name. Who was that guy. Boy oh boy the GOP really is scared of the thought of him being VP huh?

Wes' makeup was pretty bad though!

He came across as the fighter and defender of truth he is! Wes kicked that Repuke's arse in his usual no nonsense, will put up with zero b.s. style! Goooooo WES!

What a ridiculous remark (not yours, saywhat). Adelman looked bad any way you look at it.

He's a handsome man, but what's more important is what comes out of his mouth. I pay very little attention to little visual details so maybe I'm missing something. For me it's what a person says and does that counts.

I almost always tape it. So the first time thru, I sort of just try to watch for what sort of overall impression he makes. I'm listening to the words too, but I go back to listen again, sometimes read the transcript too, if any, to make sure I get exactly what he was saying. I seem to remember better that way.

I agree that what he says is more important that how he looks, but I'm aware there may be people seeing him speak for the first time. I'm thinking, what will the make of him?

I don't know what good it does, but it interests me.

They might get better angles, but from my perspective, what's not to like. The media whores are always going to try and make Pukes look better (literally and figuratively), but with such a good looking dude they can't do much damage, imho.

Millions of dollars get spent just choosing color combos at fast food restaurants. And the political art has increasingly become a subset of marketing. It sucks, and I don't think we have to or should be governed by those rules, but we have to be at least aware of them.

Clark is a good looking man and that is an asset, although I wish that didn't count in the larger picture. But since it does count, so do trivial things like camera angles. It's just something for the professional handlers from Kerry's campaign to take into account. Such are the behind the scenes battles of contemporary politics.

I don't think it will do much good though. :mad:

These interviews are set up in the studio for broadcast. With a major appearance at least they can insist on screening visuals of the feed before going on air. With on the fly quickie commentary, maybe not. You just do what you can do, and get on with it, but it's worth making an effort to control that when possible. Not a real biggie, just another tidbit for discussion by us political junkies lol.

Maybe we should start up a PJA (political junkies anonymous) group. :crazy:

:hi: I think the visual is a huge factor for a lot of people. Not necessarily just that he's incredibly handsome, but the fact that he looks sincere and secure in what he says.

...of course, as soon as they showed him, my 20-year-old daughter said, "oh yeah, he's hot!" despite the fact that her boyfriend was standing right next to her.

Just compare ANY footage of Clark to footage of bush - UNBEFUCKINLIEVABLE! (...oops, did I just say that???)

On his worst day, Clark is better looking that just about anyone you're likely to see on CNN or any of the others.

I wasn't talking about looks as much as demeanor. And not even that really, just the way the camera was too close. It was farther back from that Adelman asshole, so it showed more of his torso and his hands. He just looked more relaxed and natural. Clark, esp with his big eyes, just didn't appear as comfortable. I don't doubt that he was--he knows that stuff in and out, and he sure as heck made his points, up until they cut him off.

But at the risk of sounding completely shallow... I liked the light blue tie. ;)

If he can be Gary Cooper or Gen. Patton to Bush's country-club cowboy or Cheney's snarling James-Bond villian, then so be it!!!

The difference is Clark aint fakin it- those heroic Hollywood archetypes that people relate to are based on guys just like him...

:kick::kick::kick:

...and I prefer to see Clark as Atticus Finch/Gregory Peck type :-)

...you know you love this image:

:D

Not only did she let Adelman go on and on and steer the topic to John Kerry and attacks on General Clark, she let him interrupt and acted like time was up when Clark responded. Then she went BACK to Adelman for the last word!!!!

ARGGGHH!!!

I've sent my feedback to CNN!

General Clark took him out on the chance he did have to respond, so the rest just made the other dude look like a partisan ASS!

:evilgrin:

from the Clark blog:


KEN ADELMAN

Institutional Affiliations
* Project for the New American Century: Signatory to April 3, 2002 letter to President Bush calling for Saddam Hussein's ouster and increased support for Israel.
* Noel Foundation: Executive Board
* The Princeton Review: Advisory Board
* Freedom House: Secretary of Board of Trustees
* Shakespeare Theater of Washington, D.C. Board
* American Committee for Peace in Chechnya: Member
* International Crisis Group: Board of Trustees
* Fox News: Guest commentator
* American Refugee Committee: Former oard member
* Institute for Contemporary Studies: Former vice president
* RAND: Member, Transition 2001 Panel
* Committee on the Present Danger: Former member, executive committee

Government Service
* Defense Policy Board: Current member
* White House Forum on the Role of Science and Technology in Promoting National Security and Global Stability: Chair, March 29-30, 1995
* Vice President Dan Quayle: Adviser for Quayle-Gore debate preparation team, 1992
* Arms Control and Disarmament Agency: Director, 1983-87
* U.S. Team on annual arms control discussions with China: Leader, 1983-86
* Department of State: Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1981-83
* Department of Defense: Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, 1976-77

Corporate Connections/Business Interests
* Commodore Applied Technologies: former Vice Chairman and Executive Vice President
* Keppler Associates, Inc.: Speaker
* Grabow & Associates, Inc.: Speaker
* Movers and Shakespeares: Cofounder with wife, Carol Adelman

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/adelman_k/adelman_k.php

from the Clark blog:


KEN ADELMAN

Institutional Affiliations
* Project for the New American Century: Signatory to April 3, 2002 letter to President Bush calling for Saddam Hussein's ouster and increased support for Israel.
* Noel Foundation: Executive Board
* The Princeton Review: Advisory Board
* Freedom House: Secretary of Board of Trustees
* Shakespeare Theater of Washington, D.C. Board
* American Committee for Peace in Chechnya: Member
* International Crisis Group: Board of Trustees
* Fox News: Guest commentator
* American Refugee Committee: Former oard member
* Institute for Contemporary Studies: Former vice president
* RAND: Member, Transition 2001 Panel
* Committee on the Present Danger: Former member, executive committee

Government Service
* Defense Policy Board: Current member
* White House Forum on the Role of Science and Technology in Promoting National Security and Global Stability: Chair, March 29-30, 1995
* Vice President Dan Quayle: Adviser for Quayle-Gore debate preparation team, 1992
* Arms Control and Disarmament Agency: Director, 1983-87
* U.S. Team on annual arms control discussions with China: Leader, 1983-86
* Department of State: Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 1981-83
* Department of Defense: Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, 1976-77

Corporate Connections/Business Interests
* Commodore Applied Technologies: former Vice Chairman and Executive Vice President
* Keppler Associates, Inc.: Speaker
* Grabow & Associates, Inc.: Speaker
* Movers and Shakespeares: Cofounder with wife, Carol Adelman

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/adelman_k/adelman_k.php

It's so sad that the best argument for the Iraq war coming from the Republicans at this point is "John Kerry is a flip flopper!"

I'm very annoyed that CNN decided that it was acceptable behavior to turn off Clark's microphone when he tried to respond to Adelman's attacks, no matter how weak the attacks were.

When Adelman accused Clark and Kerry of revisionist positions on the Iraq war, Clark said he would never have given Bush a blank check on Iraq and reminded Adelman that he said that Iraq would be a cakewalk.

Can't wait for Kerry to turn him loose on Cheney! Grrrrrrrr, SNAP!

...and it is true! Cakewalk? Yeah, 850 dead soldiers is a cakewalk. Thousands of innocent civilian deaths is a cakewalk.

so glad that Aldeman will soon be unemployed.

video just uploaded!

http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html

:toast:

I can use one right about now :D