Those of you that think Clark purposely stole Edwards' thunder....

[phillybri]

Please get real for a moment.

Hurricane Isabel is ALREADY the lead story on every morning show and every show I've seen on CNBC today.

Clark needed to get the word out before the storm hit land. If he waited until Friday, he would have been completely drowned out. (No tasteless pun intended...)

Please stop with the "Clark is an asshole" angle. It's just not true...

[uptohere]

1. Clark is an asshole

an hour ot two would have not mattered and he still beats the hurricane.

It will be fun to see what gets done to him. I was originally going to feel sorry for how he'll be getting speared, not now.

[vokr]

9. RE: Asshole

:wtf:How dare Clark attract more attention than Edwards! It's all his fault(Clark). We've got to remember that elections are all about personality and spin, not issues!!!

[uptohere]

21. what a classy way to debut

a classless suckerpunch and a classless suckerpunch apologist.

welcome to the fray vokr

en garde Mr Clark, en garde

[Clark Can WIN]

30. Classless suckerpunch

You mean like "Clark is an asshole"? Edwards has been running for NINE MONTHS already. Sorry if you can't deal with the fact that he hasn't gotten anywhere, I really am. I think Edwards is an excellent man but he's going nowhere quickly.

You must believe Edwards is very fragile to be so upset about the newsleak on Clark. It wasn't even that much of a newsleak considering everyone knew he was making the formal announcement tomorrow anyway. Sheesh. I think somebody needs a time-out.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

27. My sentiments exactly, vokr

And - seriously, this time - WELCOME TO DU!

:toast:

Remember, people aren't automatically wrong just because you don't like what they have to say. Not directed at you, per se, but it might be a useful bit of advice for others involved in this thread.

:eyes:

[Jackhammer Jesus]

25. Guess what, uptohere

Clark DIDN'T make the announcement.

If Clark had waited "an hour or two," you'd be complaining even more because his announcement would have come either DURING or IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING Edwards' big speech. And his entire event, by the way, was shown on C-SPAN with no interruption or mention of Clark.

The announcement (which is hardly an announcement in itself - one of Clark's staff was only making it known that Clark would announce TOMORROW) would have grabbed headlines and overshadowed most other election news whether it came out at 5AM this morning or 5PM this evening.

The fact that word got out that Clark is announcing tomorrow, in itself, is not a bad thing. You just seem to be upset about the fact that it took away from Edwards' coverage. Am I right?

[rucky]

2. For Those Of Us Who Get Our News From...

...The Daily Show, it was Edwards, Edwards...and a little bit of Edwards.

[AP]

3. Clark took a political risk. If he's getting counter-spun,

maybe he's not that good of a campaigner.

Beginners mistake, perhaps.

Wonder if it's going to be the last.

(See how that works?)

Like I said elsewhere, there's no difference between what Clark did to Edwards today and what Dean did to Clark re VP rumors last week. Dean must see Clark as his biggest threat, and Clark must see Edwards as the one he needs to run against. He tried a little campaign trick, and there's is a counterspin angle to it.

[TAH6988]

4. Doesn't matter

Edwards is so far behind, I don't think he can possibly win the nomination. Just my opinion.

[uptohere]

6. time will tell mon ami

prepare to be amazed

[TAH6988]

10. More likely

Martians will land on Earth! :-)

[AP]

11. Yes, that's the spin du jour

Timed exactly at the moment when Edwards seems to be picking up steam.

It sounds more like wishful thinking than conventional wisdom.

Most sentient observers of presidential campaigns recognize Edwards is on the same trajectory as just about every Demcratic winner of the 20th century.

[returnable]

18. Talk about spin

"Most sentient observers of presidential campaigns recognize Edwards is on the same trajectory as just about every Demcratic winner of the 20th century."

Link, please.

Anyway, I'm sorry Edwards hasn't been able to generate any heat on his own.

In fact, this Clark announcement has probably been the best thing that's happened to his campaign :)

[Frederic Bastiat]

23. What's he been waiting for?

Timed exactly at the moment when Edwards seems to be picking up steam.

[Eloriel]

14. That isn't the point

It's a Rove-style tactic, and it certainly paints the General in a very bad light.

Doesn't matter if he had upstaged Carol Mosely-Braun (who I consider least of all likely to get the nomination, tho the honor might go to Al Shaprton -- both of whom I value having in the race). It was just a trashy thing to do.

And it doesn't matter if it was him or his campaign. HE gets the "credit" for this classless act.

Eloriel

[PurityOfEssence]

26. absolutely right; why's this hard to grasp?

Anyone who thinks it's okay to treat the unsuccessful differently than the successful has deep moral problems.

Why is this so hard to understand? Although others have intimated that this is just a ploy on your part to slag Clark, since you're a Dean supporter, anyone who's read your posts over time knows that you're ethical and passionate. Harsh though you may be with Dean support, this is something entirely different, and not for a second to I think your impulse to speak out is anything but that. Maybe there's a slight tinge of candidate interest at play, but NOTHING exists in a vacuum.

Do we live among barbarians? Should the argument that upstaging and stomping on the weakling is somehow okay because they didn't have any chance anyway? What is this, some kind of schoolyard political eugenics or something? How alarming. Yiick. Icky poo. Deeeeeeskusting.

What a revoltin' development.

[uptohere]

5. its no mistake

maybe this is what you can expect from an ex-military man, it does fit the profile.

Screw him and the whores he rode in on.

Go Edwards !

[chimpymustgo]

42. AP, as usual - bull's-eye.

I had actually liked Clark a LOT. Would have liked to see an Edwards/Clark ticket.

But this is stinky and totally classless. He could have done this yesterday or tomorrow. But on Edwards' day? I am really disappointed in Clark.

I welcome him into the race, but not this way. Still, I think Edwards is doing so well right now, it's going to be a good fight.

[tjdee]

7. CLARK didn't do anything.

I've seen no evidence that Clark made a statement today.

There's been a runup to will he run or won't he, and the media is playing it for all its worth.

Edwards can't catch a break, and for that I'm really pissed, but I see no reason to demonize Clark for it.

[AP]

13. OK, I'll accept this. It may be the media trying to screw Edwards

and not Clark. That would slighlty more consistent with the general conduct of campaign coverage and Clark's behaviour thus far.

[chimpymustgo]

43. Sorry, but Clark gave a sit-down interview to Judy Woodruff.

Which of course is the lead for Inside Politics. And Judy's in Little Rock - not Robbins.

[LTR]

8. #2 news story...

... The California recall!

Give it a rest already. Sheesh!

[CMT]

12. I'm sure it wasn't the General

probably his handlers who called the shots. I still disagree with it. He could have waited--even until Friday--which I thought was the plan.

but he accomplished his mission. Not a word about Edwards--the big headline on MSNBC is CLARK TO RUN

WWW.MSNBC.COM

[AP]

15. If you want your candidate to beat Bush, you shouldn't say things

like, "I'm sure he wasn't responsible...it was probably a handler."

You want your candidate to contrast favourably with Bush. You don't want to blur the distinctions.

Always let the buck stop with the candidate.

[Nashyra]

16. BS big story Ca Recall

I respect Edwards but he got more attention because of a "trifecta" in the political arena. Edwards, Clark and Recall. If he had been the only story the media would have scooped him with the hurricane.

[AP]

17. Huh?

I don't get the logic.

[davsand]

19. This IS, after all, a political race!

Before the flames start, I'm not Anti-Edwards or Anti-Clark. I'm smoeone who has done some campaign work in the past--nothing more.

If Clark's "leak" was timed to undermine Edwards' announcement, I can't say I'd be too shocked. This is a political campaign. This is about becoming the winner. Primary races are no different than any other cmpaign--you get into them and you do what you can to win.

It is ethical to refrain from attacks and mud slinging, but it is also expected that you will exercise as much strategy as you can... If a manufactured leak (or teaser) takes some of the media attention off your opponent, then it would be a solid strategy to use it.

It sucks if you are the guy who gets undermined, but it is a solid stratgey in terms of media management.

I'd be a lot less optimistic about the Dem chances for a win in the General if I didn't see this kind of stuff going on.

Laura

[PurityOfEssence]

20. A bullshit or deluded argument; please respond

He could announce in the middle of a meteorite impact and serve the purpose of living up to his word and giving fellow candidates fair warning. His word, incidentally was for the 19th, two days from now.

He still would have been allowed proper space for his formal announcement and he could have done that after the storm left. If this was deliberate on their part, it was absolutely inexcusable.

There's a difference between announcing and having the formal celebratory event. What he did, if he or his people did it, was to fuck a comrade out of a deserved moment of pomp and showmanship.

The only legitimate arguments whereby Clark or his camp aren't ham-handed scumbags are as follows: 1) It was a completely sloppy leak by an idiot, 2) It was a deliberate media leak either to screw Edwards or just to greedily scoop the rest of the press. That's it. Go ahead folks, sound off on this, if you please.

The argument that Rove'll do worse is silly: this is about respect; if unscrupulousness is to become a lauded trait, then we are lost. What would this say about Clark and his people? Oh, he's no worse than Rove...

[returnable]

22. You don't even know the facts

"His word, incidentally was for the 19th, two days from now."

No, it wasn't.

He's making a speech in Iowa on the 19th, yes.

His formal press conference was scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, in Little Rock. That's been circulating for the past couple of days.

Do some homework before you speak in absolutes.

If you have an issue about how this was leaked, fine.

But don't accuse the man of dishonoring his word when he did no such thing.

If you continue to do so, YOUR credibility is tainted in this issue, not his.

[PurityOfEssence]

29. I've seen him quote the date of the 19th on CNN TWICE

That was the drop-dead date he's announced, and that was the one people were expecting. Re-read my posts; I've been very clear about pointing out that no connection was made. Now I know that the leak was attributed to Mark Fabiani, so at least we know it was someone in his camp.

The announcement that there was going to be a press conference tomorrow came out a few days ago. Even so, the only claim for a decision-announcing day was the 19th. Either way, announcement of the Edwards date predates his.

I've kept him insulated from this in all previous messages.

Tidy up your facts yourself.

[returnable]

31. 9/19

The ONLY thing set for September 19 was a scheduled speech in Iowa. Conventional wisdom was he'd have to announce his intentions BY that date, and he acknowledged that.

Show me ANYWHERE where Clark said he'd be announcing his intentions ON September 19. Seriously. Let's see your evidence.

You said it was HIS WORD he'd announce on 9/19.

Back it up.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Okay, wiseguy, chew on this, and please apologize

I never said he'd do it ON the 19th, I said that was the date he'd mentioned as a deadline. You're asking me to back up something I've never said. The only date mentioned was this one, and until it was announced that he'd have a speech on the 18th, this was the drop-dead date mentioned.

This is from Inside Politics, 9-3-03, I got it off of the Clark website, incidentally

WOODRUFF: But you've said that you will decide by September the 19th whether you are going to go. And it sounds to me as if you're on the verge of deciding yes.

CLARK: Well, we are moving towards closure and I did have that speaking engagement in Iowa on September 19. So that is one of those benchmarks. But this has been a...

WOODRUFF: Closure meaning a yes? Closure meaning a yes?

CLARK: Closure meaning closure, closure meaning closure. I have not made a decision on this. And my wife and I are looking at all the facts so forth.


http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=135

[returnable]

36. Actually, you owe ME the apology.

"WOODRUFF: But you've said that you will decide by September the 19th whether you are going to go."

Again, I don't see where it says he'd announce ON SEPTEMBER 19.

In fact, your "evidence" backs my claim:

Clark has said he'd announce BY September 19. Not on. By.

Reading comprehension. Try it some time.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Read my message as edited

You are the one with reading disabilities here, you're demanding I back up a claim I never made. You put the words in my mouth that I said he said he'd announce ON the 19th; I said that this was the drop-dead date mentioned.

[returnable]

39. Your message

So now you're denying you wrote this?:

"His word, incidentally was for the 19th, two days from now."

Those are your words, unedited.

That was your claim. Clark's "word... was for the 19th."

As I have pointed out several times now, Clark NEVER said he'd be announcing on 9/19. I asked you to back your claim that he had made such a committment.

You have failed to do so.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Enough of this. I'll cop to my mistake; will you admit yours?

Fine, I could have been clearer. This does not say it's going to happen ON the 19th; that's your claim. This says that his word was for the 19th. Announcing a speech for the 18th after that does lead one to believe he'd announce it earlier, and he intimated that he might do so, but the drop-dead decision deadline was offered as the 19th.

Here's my original quote:

"He could announce in the middle of a meteorite impact and serve the purpose of living up to his word and giving fellow candidates fair warning. His word, incidentally was for the 19th, two days from now."

NOTHING in that statement claims he'd announce ON the 19th, and nothing in that statement said he wouldn't announce before; that statement says that the date he'd repeatedly quoted for a date BY WHICH he'd make his decision known was the 19th.

Yep, I posted in haste, then re-read your post, realized you'd put words in my mouth, amended mine, and then saw your response.

The FACT remains that I never said he'd make it public ON the 19th. Okay? My response was done too quickly, and did not address your incorrect interpretation of my statement. My mistake. Now cop to your mistake: how does anything in my initial statement claim he'd say it ON the 19th? It doesn't.

[returnable]

47. What I was responding to...

...was your insinuation that Clark had gone back on his "word." That's a serious allegation.

And that was all there in the initial posts.

There's nothing to apologize for, on either side, if that was not your intent. And you say it wasn't.

On that, I'll have to take your word :)

Cheers!

[PurityOfEssence]

48. Hugs and kisses

Damn, I gotta get back to work, but you deserve a response for that.

I'd like to think that this kind of interplay demonstrates what makes the left stronger: flexibility, acceptance, trust and all that polyannaish rot.

Been fun, and welcome to the board.

[Clark Can WIN]

34. Clark also said

That he would be announcing sometime before that speech saying "It just seemed to me if I was going to go to Iowa I probably ought to know what I was doing before I went there,"

It has also been widely circulated that the formal announcement would come on Wednesday.

Sorry if you didn't get the memo or nobody sought your permission.

:nopity:

You really do need to check your facts before you post.

And I reiterate, they were trying to upstage ISABEL. Edwards had been campaigning for NINE MONTHS. How big of news was his announcement after campaigning for almost a year? Thin, thin skin.

[Donna Zen]

44. I can take the rant

...but it does nothing to add credibility to DU's message board when you fail to get the facts.

The Iowa speech is hardly a stump speech and was planned months ago. Clark has a new book coming out and the speech will be laying out its primary themes. It will be a major foreign policy address which points out the current danger of having no policy since the cold war. That is why you are suffering the blows of PNAC. A vacuum of ideas was filled with Nazi crap.

On the twentieth Clark will be speaking at the unveiling of a hydrogen engine being rolled out by Wave Crest, where he is CoB.

Both the engine and the book took much longer to write or develope than 24 hours. It stands to reason that these events have nothing to do with Edwards. Nothing to do with the campaign. However, making false statements about another's intentions has everything to do with your bias.

Since last Friday I knew: Clark would announce this Wed. So other than screaming insults, why is this even considered a leak?

[retyred]

24. Clark Stole My Thunder

It's interesting that all the reports I've read, not one has mentioned that Clark himself made the announcement, the media, the Aransas Democrat Party, Sources close to.....but not Clark, which I stated on Sunday was to announce on Wednesday.

The media overshadowed Edwards with Clark, maybe just maybe they see Clark as news more than Edwards, call the station or write the editor, but please stop whinning.


Retyred IN FLA.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. Excellent Point (eom)

DTH

[PurityOfEssence]

40. a REAL tough-guy could at least spell "whining"; Clark-barkers are wimps

So it's the jungle, huh? Respect for formalities has no place in politics? Why do so many of your team use Republican tactics? Dancing victory in the end-zone, posting crying, patting each other on the back for inarticulate high-school pep-rally derision and the like?

Really; one SHOULD grow up before retiring.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

41. You're Tossing Spelling Flames, and YOU'RE Calling Someone Else Wimpy?

Boggle.

This horse has been beaten to death. Clark and Edwards are on very good terms, anyway, based on my recollection.

DTH

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Yep, I'm being silly, but for a noble cause...

Conservative rejoinders are a pet peeve. The essential message is "ha ha, you're a loser", it's a juvenile Nelson Muntz kind of groupthink to somehow embarrass dissenters. Teasing them back on ineffective derision is a hobby. Sharpen up, guys, learn to sneer properly...

You'd think they'd learn: we're already pathetic losers to be backing someone who's such a hopeless disaster; obviously, if we rear our heads in public to continue in our folly, we haven't a shred of sense or shame. Since that's so undeniable, why would anyone but a fool attempt to shame someone who's too oblivious to his inferiority to even be able to feel shame?

Just don't make no sense to me. Sorta like yelling at the deaf, isn't it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Can anyone really steal anyone else's thunder with a corporate press?

Is thunder an entitlement?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. I thought Edwards already announced?

I saw Edwards in two debates, you mean he wasn't an official candidate? Gimme a break. I like Edwards, he'd make a great VP for Clark - not as awesome as Kucinich, but credible in any case.

[lindashaw]

37. And Monday was the lead about voting machine in CA. He said...

weeks ago he had to do it this week. Edwards announced today, tomorrow Clark announces. Thursday, Isabel announces.