Who or what is to blame for Wes Clark's poor showing?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

Who or what is the main reason for Clark not making it as far as he could've and should've in this race? Four choices, pick the best.

[bobbieinok]

1. and maybe - late start, skipping IA

chmicals in the water - who really knows

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShaneGR]

48. It's simple really, his first answer to a question was:

"Yes, I would have voted for the IWR Resolution."

And the next day it was, "No I wouldn't have voted for the resolution."

It set the tone for the entire campaign. Skipping Iowa didn't help either, but as an Edwards supporter I'm damn glad he did.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

70. Clark said: "I probably would have supported it"

and later got straightened out on how to correctly respond ala Dean.

[Donna Zen]

91. Wrong.

The link to his congressional testimony has been linked here many times. You really should take the time to read it. Also, read Perle's comments that follow: General Clark doesn't support any war in Iraq.

[BootinUp]

92. The newspaper reporters couldn't even agree

It was a lengthy discussion of which they gave us only the part they were able to trip him up on. It was your basic out-of-context bullshit. And you making it sound like a cut and dried flip flop really is below the belt.

As others have pointed out Clark is on the record in both houses as to his position on the IWR.

[Bucky]

87. Lame, whiny excuses: #1 media, #2 late start, #3 (worst of all) the voters

Sorry, but the reason the General didn't do better has everything to do with Wesley Clark and his campaign managers and nothing to do with any of these lame-assed excuses. I love that general, I'd follow him anywhere. But to pin this on network news conspiracies is just, well, Bush-esque.

"Waaah-waaah, it's everybody's fault but my own," one might as well say. The media were rough on him, but they've been rougher on others. We knew this would be tough terrain. If the campaign can't cross it, it's our weakness, not their treachery.

Clark's late start was still five months ahead of the first vote. This may have cost him a bit in terms of organization, but it wasn't the lack of organization that brought him down. In fact, he had in his brief five month campaign one of the strongest field crews in the party (second only to Dean's, IMO). He came in strong and had a considerable support rate within a few days--in some polls getting to first place in September and October. A better campaigner would have capitalized on that. Clark let the moment slip.

Don't get me wrong; Clark remains, in my opinion, categorically the best qualified American to hold the office of president. He's the perfect candidate for the job. He simply isn't the best campaigner in the field. He's a great speaker on some issues, but frankly mediocre as a stump speaker. I like that lack of polish, but it's not truly a winning characteristic in a politician. Clark, in the end lost because he's not a trained "closer." I accept the voters' decision. That's what we do in America--try our best, take our lumps when we lose, and move on when it's over.

Blaming everyone else for our outcomes is a loser's game. I refuse to play and I would think that Wes Clark doesn't shuffle down this losers' road. The posters here at DU should be smarter than that.

[democratreformed]

2. Blame is a bad word

Responsible for: I would have to choose all of the above.

And, I would like to point out that I don't consider it a "poor" showing. It just wasn't good enough.

On edit: I'll add explanations:
1. Wes Clark was new to politics and made some mistakes b/c he didn't know how to play the game. In short, he was naive in many ways.

2. His campaign made some mistakes as well and some of his people weren't the greatest around. In fact, some of his people were downright terrible, IMO.

3. The media cycled through smear - ignore - smear - ignore. I whined about that even in the early days of the campaign. In the end, it was worse. Even after he dropped out, the smears and ridicule continued.

4. The voters did not vote for him, so they are responsible. I wouldn't say I blame them. Most voters listen to what they hear in the media.

My grandma told me even before Oklahoma that we didn't have a chance b/c of the media. I argued with her. Turns out, she was right. But, that is not the only thing that went wrong.

[BootinUp]

8. Hear, hear

I think I will abstain from this wonderful polling excercise.

[MercutioATC]

3. I believe 2 things...the media and Clark himself.

Mostly the media's refusal to cover anything he did. He had good grassroots support and good fundraising. The media just wouldn't give him time.

Disclosing myself as a Dean supporter, I'll say that Clark never seemed to have any precise policies, just policy statements. I thought he identified the problems, but he didn't have solutions.

[KittyWampus]

21. He Had The Most Detailed Solution Oriented Policies Whilst Dean Did Not

That is objective reality.

Clark had freaking numbers showing how things would work.

[democratreformed]

26. I had to work hard to resist replying to that post up there

I get so tired of the ignorance. Just like the one's that still insist that he was never important. They just don't know and will never know. It does not good to argue with them. They don't listen.

Wes Clark did have the most complete and most detailed policies with clearly outlined solutions and explanations. I finally figured out that's what first attracted me to him. There he was - on CNN - explaining in common terms what was happening. Then he would go one to explain what might happen next. He would explore all the possibilities. It was calming because I was reassured that HE didn't think the **it was fixing to hit the fan.

I don't know if I'll ever get used to the people who want to downplay him and what he accomplished. To me, he was simply amazing. The fact that he was willing to explain things and give details was great to me.

[MercutioATC]

55. It's not ignorance, it's a difference of opinion. Clark's policies

didn't work for me. That's all. Hell, I don't agree with Kucinich's plan to withdraw from Iraq (at least not his scenario). It doesn't mean I don't understand it...it just means that I don't agree. It doesn't mean that I don't want our troops home...it just means that I don't agree with how he plans to do it.

I stated that I believed that the media had shortchanged Clark. I think Clark's blame lies in not pushing his agenda whenever he DID get air time. It's not an attack, it's an opinion.

[democratreformed]

61. No difference of opinion

This is what you stated: I'll say that Clark never seemed to have any precise policies, just policy statements. I thought he identified the problems, but he didn't have solutions.

As the person above stated, he DID have precise policies AND solutions. If you disagreed with his solutions, that's what you should have stated - not that he didn't have any.

[MercutioATC]

75. In the debates, he never seemed to offer specific solutions.

To me, he seemed to talk around the problems a lot and (especially in the early debates) said that he'd be presenting a policy later.

Again, feel free to have a different opinion. Hearing Clark speak didn't make me feel that he had a grasp of the issues and their solutions.

[mikehiggins]

79. Mostly Clark answered questions about whether he was a Democrat

or what Shelton said or did he get fired from NATO or, or, or.

And it really is stretching the definition to consider those cattle calls "debates" in the first place. Nine candidates on a stage for two hours tops? Garbage.

Clark did well. I think the basic problem he had with his campaign was with the people recommended to him to run it. He would have done better to go with the folks who slammed the DraftClark campaign together. Put THEM in charge and have the Bennetts and Lehanes et al answer to them.

He couldn't have done much worse than the pros did. Ross Perot had a relative handful of EDS types running his campaign and he got on the ballot as an idependent in all of the states with a minimal investment. And wound up with 19% of the vote, putting Clinton into the White House (hey, thanks Ross). The potential of a "peoples campaign" is still waiting to be tapped, though the Dean people under Trippi did come close.

The main stumbling block are the people who make their livings at it. The campaign professionals are becoming an industry, and just like the doctors and lawyers, do their best to keep their internal actions behind the scenes. Lord knows what would happen if the candidates ever really go an idea of what their money is being spent on. Having a bunch of bubbly volunteers around just makes things difficult for the pros. Volunteers are very hard to control. They keep thinking they have something to contribute. The nerve!

You know, thinking about the pros, maybe we shouldn't hang all the lawyers FIRST after all.

[MercutioATC]

80. I agree that the "debates" were handled by the media.

They steered certain questions to certain candidates. I would have much rather seen a series of "issue forums" where all of the candidates would discuss the same issue for one night. That would have allowed for equal coverage of the candidates on equal issues.

[MercutioATC]

53. Hey, it's opinion. I never got a sense that he knew what he was talking

about. I also thought his past as a neutral would hurt him.

[Auntie Bush]

28. He had all the issues on his website but

the media only asked him negative questions and military questions...then said he was a one policy candidate. I only rememberhim being asked one policy question in all the debates. "Yes", If he had more political experience he could have done much better. All of the above reasons count to some degree...but a little fair play from the media could have helped him overcome them but they jumped on him like a wounded animal. But what can you expect when they are ANIMALS themselves.

[King of New Orleans]

4. Not going to Iowa

It was a big tactical mistake from the get-go

[Maddy McCall]

6. Wes said himself (and I do credit him for his humble introspection)

that starting late and being unable to lay the framework to be really viable in Iowa hurt him the greatest.

I agree. He did well considering his late start, and he won't leave the national scene, so I am glad and consider that a positive in his career.

He has honestly evaluated his problems--hope others see fit to do the same.

[seaglass]

27. intentionally deleted

should have read further down where the same point was made.

[Adelante]

7. Campaign

I say this because the media, who did do a hatchet job or ignore him pretty much, were not handled properly. The voters who came to know Wes Clark took to him, but they were not enough in number without the added benefit of free media.

[gasperc]

9. late start, should have declared as a DEM earlier in the year

if he would have reacted sooner to the draft movement, declared as a DEM in the spring or summer, talked about for awhile and then still declare to run in sept. things would have been a whole lot different. But, fuck, if Florida wasn't stolen if Gore would have won TN alot of shit would have been a whole lot different..........

[KittyWampus]

22. HE Registered As Democrat in the year 2002.

[Adelante]

82. May 2002, right nt

[retyred]

10. America and the media weren't ready for a clean run campaign

by an outsider.



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[RafterMan]

24. Good point

They didn't know what to make of him. They didn't know how to take an answer to a question instead of a ball from a bin.

It was kind of charming to watch him trying to explain to the press the techinical differences between preemptive and preventive warfare. About two minutes in, they all start giving him the "Me want quote!" look.

Maybe he could run for head of state in Europe, somewhere.

[kodi]

11. of course, its bill clinton's fault.

or his clenis.

[RafterMan]

12. Campaign

Clark made his share of mistakes, but I thought he learned fast and did a pretty good job. He never looked as natural campaigning as he did before, but none of the others did, either.

But the campaign staff never got it together. It took, what, two months to put the Shelton smear behind them? And the winning "I took on the Pentagon over genocide" line was obvious to everyone from the day it started. This (and this is just an example) is what staff is supposed to know how to do.

The media is just the media. Again, playing the media is what a political staff should be *for*. They seem to have fallen behind on every story and stayed there. A Democratic talking head complained to a Clark supporter that her failure to defend him on the air came from the fact that she wasn't getting any talking points from the campaign. We know that pundits are stupid and lazy, so why weren't we doing their thinking for them rather than letting others fill the space?

But maybe the confusion was inevitable under the circumstances. Maybe they would have had the time to get firing and find the right mix if he'd started earlier.

[democratreformed]

13. I will always believe that many on his staff

were not solidly behind the cause. That is, I have been told "Not everyone was in it for Wes". They were not incompetent. They were, in fact, very competent in getting what THEY wanted.

[Adelante]

72. what staff is supposed to know how to do

I remember a Clark supporter emailing a talking head and objecting to something that had been said. The Clark supporter backed it up with details and links. The pundit wrote back and said there was much she hadn't been aware of and if the campaign press staff was half as prepared as this Clark supporter, the campaign wouldn't have half the troubles it had. There are media with an agenda, too much so, but the campaign has heat to take on this, too. Yet, while some of the staff was negligent and less than caring, others, like Jamie Rubin, were tops out there speaking for Clark. We just didn't have enough of those.

[RafterMan]

77. Thanks for pointing that out

You're absolutely right -- I was using "the staff" too broadly. There were good ones, too, and not everything the collective staff did was wrong.

Thanks for reminding me not to lump everyone together.

[bravejet69]

14. IMO America is the loser.................

Clark would have made a great president, but the media would not give him a chance. CNN was pathetic.

[poskonig]

15. Howard Dean

Dean was supposed to knock off Gephardt and Kerry in Iowa, making Clark the anti-Dean in New Hampshire. That gamble by the Clark camp did not materialize when Kerry *and* Edwards, the worst possible scenario for Clark, came out of Iowa. Edwards was still there eating the southern vote, while Kerry brought the war creds along with a known policy record.

[Kathleen04]

17. Bingo n/t

[bigwillq]

18. I agree with the Dean factor but

I also think not going to IA was huge. Clark could've been "Kerry" and finish first in IA and would've had huge momentum heading in to NH. Like Dean, we may never know why those two gifted and honorable men did not catch on.

[union_maid]

25. Double Bingo

I know some people who got won over to Kerry during Iowa. They weren't firmly in anyone's corner befor that. For these people it was their first big exposure to the candidates in the media. They haven't tuned in to all the debates or followed every candidate's move closely. They looked over the field, liked Kerry and Clark was nowhere to be seen. There were mistakes in the campaign and the media did its usually feeding frenzy after every misstep, but it was not being in Iowa that cost him the chance to make up ground. But you know, it probably wasn't such an illogical decision at the time. Iowa was supposed to be all Gephardt/Dean.

[Adelante]

73. And then there's that

:thumbsup:

[Auntie Bush]

16. The MEDIA!

No one can run a campaign if the media won't:
Mention your name except to make a negative or derogatory comment.
Give you any credit when credit is due.
Never ask you any policy questions.
Only ask attack questions.

I think Clark should sue all the media and pundits and make the public aware of what the media has done to our electoral process.
The Right wing media Corporate whores control our country. If the media is against you...you are history! Look how they gored Al Gore and now they ignored Clark only to deliberately build up someone that the Repubs feel they can beat. That's why they are now building up Edwards. How can he possibly go head to head with a "War President" who will constantly remind us that we are in a never ending "War on Terrorism?

[King of New Orleans]

34. I'm no legal expert but

exactly what would he sue the media for?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

46. For media-whorism, naturally!

Prostitution is illegal, isn't it?

[atre]

56. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

Wesley Clark would become well acquainted with that phrase if he bothered to file a suit against the media for not running him enough fluff pieces on him.

Clark and his lawyers would also be hit with something called Rule 11 Sanctions. Furthermore, his lawyers would be reported to their respective state bars for filing and prosecuting a frivolous claim.

[MrSlayer]

19. Getting in too late for Iowa. He'd be the frontrunner now.

Would have stolen all the thunder. Live and Learn. I voted for the media but they just piled dirt on him so he couldn't get up.

[KittyWampus]

20. Poor Showing? He Did Damned Well Considering The Media Assasination

he was subjected to.

He beat Edwards coming in second, won a state.

[Claire Beth]

23. my opinion is this:

I was part of the DRAFT CLARK movement so I was there from BEFORE the start. I even have my picture with him! :) For a long time, the only other option was Dean vs Bush. Dean was the only alternative that had enough serious supporters and I give Dean credit for rousing the democratic party when it seemed to be without a voice. Once Clark and others appeared as viable candidates there were MORE choices for people to consider. The Clark campaign did not play up his military achievements as much as they should have. They didn't connect his medals/achievements with the "man". John Kerry's campaign took off when a man Kerry served with in Vietnam and was responsible for having saved his life told the story behind one of Kerry's medals. "THIS MAN SAVED MY LIFE" (and the guy is/was republican, too.) Suddenly people could relate to Kerry as a "real" person, somone you'd like to be around. Not to mention that Clark was late getting in the race AND he was inexperienced in campaigning. Maybe Clark will run for a senate seat in the future or perhaps be part of the Kerry administration when we oust Bushwad from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[Jai4WKC08]

38. Media was the worst BUT...

The Clark campaign staff really blew it over the veteran's issue.

I followed the NH Veterans for Clark group. They HAD all kinds of veteran support lined up. He had the backing of guys who'd worked with him for years, support from people of ALL ranks, from junior enlisted to other generals, and there were lots of them there for him.

There was even one navy commander in whose personal life Clark had intervened to get him the right medical treatment, when he was diagnosed with cancer, quite probably saving his life. Moreover, this guy was a life-long Republican who was fired from a job on a Republican congressional staff in DC, purely because of his support for Clark. What a story that should have made, but I only saw it buried in one NH newspaper.

Or they could have had his old battalion commander in Nam telling his eye-witness account of the action Clark got his Silver Star for. Or Holbrooke or somebody retelling the story of rapelling down the cliffside to save the team members in the French APC.

Personally, I wonder if Clark resisted letting people tell these stories. Especially at first. Maybe that was part of the problem of not being a professional politician, not wanting to do what he saw as exploitation and self-aggrandizement.

They did finally get the wife of one the men who died in that APC to tell of Clark bringing her wedding ring back at a VA rally. But it was way too late by then.

Otoh, most times when I saw the rallies and other events on C-SPAN, there were veterans present. Many of whom spoke. But none of that ever made it onto TV news (unlike Kerry's guy, whom I saw over and over) Instead all the public got was repeat after repeat of Shelton's smear and the overall idea than no one in the military really liked him. Total BS, but that was the image the media ran with. Was that the fault of the media or the campaign? Damned if I know.

I think one problem may have been that the strategy was based on running against Dean, and the contrast there was obvious. So perhaps the campaign just didn't plan on having to use it.

And another factor was that for some reason, in a lot of people's minds, they didn't make the connection that general=veteran. They saw the stars, heard the title "Supreme Allied Commander" and just never considered that once he was a lieutenant too. Once he was a young captain in a lousy war. And I don't think it ever even occurred to the campaign, certainly not Clark himself, that it wouldn't be obvious.

[Adelante]

81. Thanks so much

That's really a good analysis. Something else that occurs to me in this is the role organization plays. A seasoned politician like John Kerry, once he's acquired the all out support of something like the Kennedy machine, really does have an advantage. These people have done this for years and years and they know every possible way to work any campaign situation. They are the experts, unsurpassed in GOTV skill, and they have the numbers. This is not to say that Kerry wasn't voted in on his merits. Or that his veteran show wasn't incredibly effective. Or that he hadn't pulled himself together not a moment too soon for Iowa. But when you consider that Edwards and Dean campaigned for a year or two there and Gephardt for decades, I think getting the right boots in there on the ground, the firefighters, the veterans, and the veteran political troops, cinched the deal for Kerry. It was a miracle of sorts that will go down in the books. In fact, the Iowa caucuses altogether this time around look to have been the most critical moment for every single candidacy in this race. I can't wait to read all about it.

[Adelante]

83. Good point

"Or Holbrooke or somebody retelling the story of rapelling down the cliffside to save the team members in the French APC.

Personally, I wonder if Clark resisted letting people tell these stories. Especially at first. Maybe that was part of the problem of not being a professional politician, not wanting to do what he saw as exploitation and self-aggrandizement."

Clark never even mentioned his part in the incident in his very own book about Kosovo. Holbrooke did, but Clark never said a word. Maybe he's too dignified for his own good.

[LandOLincoln]

86. "Maybe he's too dignified for his own good."

My thoughts exactly, WesDem. Also too proud.

I saw the same thing in Wes that I saw in Al Gore in 2000: I think they're both much much more comfortable plugging for other people than for themselves.

Gore came to Albuquerque in the runup to the midterms in 1998 to boost the local Dems, and he was GREAT--loose, funny, fiery, and downright irresistible. I'd gone to the rally with a gay friend of mine, and as we were filing out afterward he grabbed my arm and said,

"Oh Gawd I hope he runs in 2000! I'd vote for him in a hot minute!"

After the 2000 disaster I remember reading some comments from Gore's friends, all of whom said essentially the same thing: that while Gore loved talking up other people, he was miserable when he had to do it for himself.

So I look forward to seeing the real Wes Clark once he gets back out on the campaign trail, this time for John Kerry.

Poor, poor pitiful Dubya... :evilgrin:

[incapsulated]

29. You Canadians!

When will America wake up to the Canuck plot to fix our elections for their own evil purposes?!

Beware the sleeping giant north of the border!

[Shanty Oilish]

30. Late start

Became a member of the Dem party at age 57, apparently only because he wanted to be POTUS.
Considered the presidency an entry-level position.
Publicly lavished praise on Bush team.
Etc.
:thumbsdown:

[KittyWampus]

32. Wow! A Stunning Heap Of Erroneous Information

I'd LOVE to see where Clark "publically LAVISHED praise on Bush team.

[Shanty Oilish]

33. You could be the only DUer who never heard it

Praised Bush & co., right after a stolen election. Praised Reagan and Bush 41 also. And what was he doing at a GOP dinner anyway? Proselytizing?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shanty Oilish]

88. Here's a link to the woodshed

Where you should be, for your hackneyed sexist insult :thumbsdown:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Wesley%20Clark%20at%20Lincoln%20Day%20Dinner%20Transcript.doc

"And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

He made this foolish statement only six months after the stolen election---to which he made this reference, regarding the military:

"And I also want to say that when they vote, we better count their ballots."

That's pandering. Wesley Clark was telling people what they wanted to hear. Just as he did in his campaign. All he got for talking like a Republican was a dinner. To be president he knew he'd have to talk like a Democrat. Sooner or later he'd even have to register as one.

When that became clear to him, he did. Not before. He didn't talk like a Democrat, act like one, work like one, or even vote like one, until very recently.

That's how it is. Facts can be uncomfortable things.

[Jai4WKC08]

90. Pandering?

You've got to be kidding.

He's at a Republican fund raiser, he's been asked to attend, he was selling a book. Basically the new guy back in town after 38 years and trying to make contacts.

And in almost 7000 words where he talks about engagement, and internationalism, and alliances, and working with the Europeans, and nation building (back before Republicans liked nation-building), and preventing genocide, and problems with our economy competing in the world, and with our energy over-consumption compared even to Europe, and all the things he tried to talk about on the campaign trail, before he caught on to that sound-bite gotcha thing, he speaks about 30 words complimentary to the Republican leadership. And the first person he names is Colin Powell, whom he worked for at Fort Carson and who has always been a close friend. Give me a break.

I don't even know where you're going with "And I also want to say that when they vote, we better count their ballots."

Let's have the context, shall we? "We've got a great group of men and women in the armed forces. Well, I do want to say that they're underfunded. I'm going to get to that in a minute. And I also want to say that when they vote, we better count their ballots."

So as far as I can tell, he's saying the military are underfunded, either in equipment or pay, and he's reminding the Republicans that they do vote and they ought to be listened to. This statement had nothing to do with Florida. There's nothing about Florida in the whole speech.

But I guess you know what he REALLY meant <wink/nudge>. Because your a REAL Democrat. Not someone who's only voted that way for 12 years. The color of your Democrat card must give you the right to decide who's real and who isn't.

[Shanty Oilish]

94. A statement is a statement, it is what it is,

no matter how many words come before and after it. Praising Bush and his team---either he meant it or he was pandering. To this Democrat it doesn't matter which. It was inexcusable.

Context, however, helps one understand why something is said, its rhetorical purpose, and sometimes its intellectual underpinnings.

The mention of counting military ballots was a non sequitur, injected solely to pander to the sensibilities of a Republican audience. Of course it was a reference to the Selection. It required no prefatory comment, no elucidation, and he gave it none, because everyone immediately understood the reference.

I don't see why Clark's fans continue to twist themselves into knots trying to defend the indefensible. You are taking him on faith, to be what he says he is (a Democrat). He admits to voting for Republicans, he has no record of working for Democrat causes, and has publicly praised Republicans, Reagan, Bush 41, 43 and team. You have to discount the evidence and believe that for which there is no evidence, merely his word. Why not admit it's sheer faith and defy anyone to shatter it? That's all you have. Exalt it.

[Jai4WKC08]

102. Not "inexcusable"

To THIS Democrat, it was no big deal.

I submit it wouldn't be to anyone who hadn't made up their mind already. And sugar, I don't take nobody on faith. I know what I know. But there are people who wouldn't know real integrity if it kicked them in the butt. Too used to politics as usual, where there is none.

[KittyWampus]

93. You Call That Lavish Praise. Thanks For Exposing Your Own Bias

did you read the text of the speech after Clark gave that gracious salutation?

He critiqued the Administration.

Which is what a DIPLOMAT does.

[Shanty Oilish]

95. Bias against people who ask for unearned trust

That is the hallmark of a dishonest man. Genuine, creditable people don't need blind faith and trust.

[KittyWampus]

105. Take A Look In The Mirror. And Clark Earned America's Trust

as Supreme Allied Commander.

He did what was right and got stabbed in the back for it by the Neo-cons.

He spoke out about PNAC before any other candidate.

He's still the only candidate who held Junior accountable for 9/11

Clark has proven his integrity.

It's sick to see DU'ers spouting Shelton & Milosevic's smear.

Congratulations, you're in "good" company.

:puke:

[ArkDem]

62. If you had been in Arkansas in 2001 you would have had the

opportunity to hear for yourself.

[Auntie Bush]

31. The primaries

If one of the first primaries had been in the South instead of Iowa and NH he could have gotten first or second and had all the momentum. LOL

[elperromagico]

35. I don't think "blame" is the proper word.

Both Clark and Dean were swept under by the Kerry-Edwards tidal wave. In national polling, Dean was usually first and Clark was usually second. Kerry and Edwards both were near the bottom of the list, and seemed to have about as much chance of winning the nomination as Kucinich or Sharpton.

Then came Iowa. Kerry and Edwards surged, Dean faltered, and Clark was a no-show. I suspect that, had Clark campaigned in Iowa, he would have placed 3rd, 4th, or maybe even 2nd. Before Iowa, Clark seemed poised for a strong 2nd place finish in NH. After Iowa, he had to fight just to get a distant 3rd. From there, things just seemed to go straight to hell for him. He had a few distant second place finishes, and barely pulled off a victory in OK.

I would say the decision to skip Iowa hurt Clark considerably, and the Kerry-Edwards upsurge hurt him even more. After that, he just couldn't seem to get a break.

[incapsulated]

36. Ok, seriously, there is no *one reason*

He got in late. This is the truth and it hurt him. However, that in itself isn't enough of a reason.

The media. They either ignored him or dug at him about 75% of the time. Now, some have said that all the candidates go through this process at the beginning of their campaigns, and that because Clark got in late in the game, he got his due but the timing was just bad. I disagree. The media bias continued throughout the primaries, even when he did well he was not given credit and they were questioning his even continuing in the race since after New Hampshire. This has all been beaten to death though. But, yeah, it's one of the reasons.

The dynamics of the race itself. When the primaries started, Dean was still riding high in the polls and Clark looked like a good contender. Clark would go after southern and independent voters, Dean would have his base and the east and west. Nobody was expecting Kerry to rise from the dead and upset the whole game plan, heh. But he did and there you are. Dean was in all sorts of trouble and Kerry was taking votes from Clark. Edwards was the golden boy as the competitor and Clark was ignored, even though he beat Edwards in NH and did well the third round. See "media" above.

And then there is the DNC and their plan to frontload the primaries and get the nomination wrapped up as quickly as possible, leaving little time for candidates like Clark to get their message to the voters when they were really paying attention, and he really needed that extra time. Because he came in late and was in a kind of race that wasn't expected, he could never catch up. Unfortunately, this sort of race doesn't help any grassroots candidate and you can thank that asshole Terry McAuliffe for that.

As for the Clark campaign and what they did wrong, I'm still trying to sort that out. I'm outside that loop and have little more than rumor to go on. I agreed with their decision to skip Iowa, it made sense at the time, they didn't have the money or the organization, and Iowans expect to be wooed for a solid year. He could never compete there. Hindsight is 20/20. I did not agree with the pouring of cash into States like NC, where he didn't have a chance. I know Edwards wasn't a big factor early on, but they continued when the game changed. They didn't seem to focus on which states he had the best shot at until it was too late.


So, that's my take. Make of it what you will.

[mgmartin]

37. Iowa didn't matter

The DNC did not want a grassroot candidate,the media fell in line with the main stream democratic party wishes. In NH Clark could not fart without being accused of gassing the kurds himself. No one heard of any newspapers, senators endorsing Clark or speeches that drew over a 1000 people drawn to their feet cheering. We only heard about the speeding ticket in OK. Then the media anointed Kerry/Edwards as a two man race before a vote was cast on Feb 3rd. After Clark dropped out the attacks continue on today.I have seen them do the same thing to Dean in the past week. If he brings up an issue about Kerry or Edwards he was trashed for a 30 sec. then they go into 15 min.promo of Kerry or Edwards. I still can't believe that main stream America is so gullible.

[Jai4WKC08]

40. Very true

Yeah, I agree with that too. The DNC was all behind Clark when they thought he had the only chance to stop Dean. After Dean tanked in Iowa, aided by the media replaying "the scream" over and over, they dropped Clark like a rock. After that, NOTHING he did made a damn bit of difference. 55 former ambassadors and diplomats endorsed him in mass, to include Andrew Young, about as well known and prestigeous a guy as you could want, and the story that ran that day was the speeding ticket.

[arewethereyet]

39. I just love the folks who pick "media"

All the media do is react to what actions and words the public figure provides them.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. uh-huh

That's really naive

[arewethereyet]

42. I defer to your opinion if you can demonstrate its true

have fun

[Tim_in_HK]

44. I wouldn't necessarily blame the media

for clark's ultimate poor showing. I'd say it's a combination of a bunch of factors.

But you can't deny that the media didn't play a part. Regarding Clark and the media, I would say it was a mix just ignoring him, or following silly non-stories (speeding ticket, argyle sweater, Clark's lack of blinking) :wtf:

You could make the argument that the media is just reacting to Clark's actions and words, which would technically be correct. After all, they did get a speeding ticket and he wore the sweater. But it's a question as to what they react to, and if there is any 'there' there.

But to disprove your point that 'all the media does is react to actions and words the public figure figure provides them,' I'd say a perfect example that that is NOT true is the media going along with the drudge story on Kerry and the intern for, what three days or so? with zero evidence, but WTF, run with it.

And they even brought Clark into that as well.

Drudge reports that other journos say that clark said Kerry will implode over an intern issue OFF THE RECORD. Quite a degree of removal. Story plays out in RW media, bubbles up to regular media outlets. Gets good play to further attack Clark on his motives for doing this, and then endorsing Kerry.

Again, zero evidence of the original convo with Clark occurring (or of the affair with the intern), but media takes it as a given and then posits Clark's motives. I have now personally seen three journalists state ON RECORD that they were present at that conversation with Clark and Clark didn't say that. "All the media do is react to what actions and words the public figure provides them." Hardly.

[arewethereyet]

47. the media avoided that story till it could not avoid it

by virtue of Kerry choosing to speak of on Imus at which point it dieappeared till the girls denials came.

The media in this case represents Drudge and a couple tabloids.

Poor choice, no dice.

I will say that the media played a huge part in focusing on a guy with no platform toying with entering the race and granting him a near leadership position in the race based on nothing at all. And even then they just reported the facts. Stars, Kosovo, strong. And then it finally happened, he had to go on camera where noone can spin you (the debates) and he is exposed. And it all went downhill from there. At that point they had to find something else to sell ads with and went in search of a more interesting story.

[Tim_in_HK]

51. You are right.

That is a poor choice. The mainstream media did not really report it until Kerry was on the Imus show, although in my (slight) defense, the cycle between the Drudge item and Kerry on Imus was so short (less than 24 hours?)there wasn't much time for it to come up. Although conservative media sure picked up on it during that time. But don't matter. I agree, poor choice for an example of the overall media. The majors didn't react till Kerry reacted to the charge on Imus.

Again, I don't blame the media for Clark's ultimate lack of success. But I do think the media could be 'blamed' for what they do and don't cover, and how they cover it (with ellipses, partial quotes, or whatever) to 'prove' what they want to express (Clark's tries to soften his image for the ladies = argyle sweater (a la Gore), Clark's an alien/crazy man = doesn't blink), and I think that can be said for all the candidates.

But your statement still stands. Let me think . . .

[Nicholas_J]

49. There was zero evidence other than Drudge

That Clark said anyting about the intern situation, but once Polier came out into the open and stated that Drudges accusations were false, Clark certainly would have been the next focus of media attention for beginning an unfounded rumor about Kerry, regardless of how the Kerry campaign handled Clarks part or lack of part in it.

It would have been enough to cause Clark severe problems in his campaign, and if there were reporters who came forth and did verif that Clark actually made the comments, Clark would have faced serious negative media scrutiny.

If he made the statements in fact, and Kerry let Clark in on the Kerry campigns evidence that the scandal was completely bogus, it would account for Clarks dropping out to avoid the media ruckus, as well as Clarks endorsement of Kerry, for giving him a means of retreat before the media started seriously going after him for it.

[Tim_in_HK]

52. In this statement . . .

"That Clark said anyting about the intern situation, but once Polier came out into the open and stated that Drudges accusations were false, Clark certainly would have been the next focus of media attention for beginning an unfounded rumor about Kerry, regardless of how the Kerry campaign handled Clarks part or lack of part in it."

I agree, but we don't know for sure b/c, obviously, this didn't happen. But I think it's possible that either the media would have confronted Clark with the accusation outright, or the idea that Clark was involved would follow the same path as the accusation against Kerry, and ultimately Clark would have to respond, like Kerry, to at the least kill the idea before it grows larger. This lends credence to the idea that the mainstream media only reports on a candidates actions. But the action seems more like a reaction . . .

On your other statement:
"It would have been enough to cause Clark severe problems in his campaign, and if there were reporters who came forth and did verif that Clark actually made the comments, Clark would have faced serious negative media scrutiny"

We have already see in hindsight that multiple journalists have gone on the record as saying Clark never made those statements during the 'off the record' conversation. And there are no journalists who have gone on the record as saying Clark did make the statement.

Do you think if he had remained in the race these same journalists wouldn't have come forward to refute the claim?

Do you think because he didn't stay in the race there are journalists who are not coming forward to verify he said them?

I would guess that had Clark stayed in the race, the reaction to the charges against Clark put forth by Drudge would most likely have followed the path of the accusation against Kerry. It looks to me like Clark did not say this, and Drudge was trying to use Clark (and Lehane) to add credence to the ridiculous charges.

As Clark did not make the statement, I don't believe Clark's dropping out had anything to do with this. Drudge added Clark to the mix to make a more colorful tapestry. Clark dropped out b/c he saw the writing on the wall.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. Demonstrate?

This whole thread is full of the evidence.

[arewethereyet]

50. just reviewed it all, nothing

but please take this lovely consolation gift as a token of our appreciation for participating !

:beer:

[Jai4WKC08]

67. I never ceased to be amazed

By people who see only what they choose to.

Too bad there's not an icon to show where you can put that beer. Right next to your condescending attitude. Which no doubt originates from the same place.

[arewethereyet]

97. neither can I, what a cooincidence !

and isnt it strange that the people who blame the media most are the same people who support candidates that fizzled nationally !

Could there be a correlation ?

[Jai4WKC08]

98. Of course there's a correlation

That's what we've been saying.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Except when it is.

That's all right. Edwards' time is coming.

[BootinUp]

99. I am going to hand over the reins

of defending Clark from baseless smears to you. You seem to know your shit, and I am mentally and emotionally drained. Why is he being attacked? He is out of the race, he has made an endorsement and is on a family vacation. Leave him alone for crise sakes!

[arewethereyet]

100. his time is coming ?

for what ? We did without media doting over us as they did for Clark for 8 months. Somehow the people figured it out anyway.

"He's a lawyer". Thats all anyone has.

[andym]

43. The campaign

1) No contingency plans if Dean or Gephardt didn't win IA.

2) Very weak in handling the media. Just a small example, Clark never appeared on Leno as a guest (outside of a segment which featured all the candidates). The only good media move they made was the timing of his tax plan, and even that might have worked better if it was made nearer to NH.

[George_Bonanza]

54. Unable to find a niche

By getting into the race so late, all the mantles were taken up by other candidates. The military hero hype was already taken by John Kerry. The grassroots hype was already taken by Howard Dean. The southern hype was already taken by John Edwards. And the complete lack of political experience gave the perception that he wasn't really reliable on what he was talking about. Plus, he skipped Iowa which allowed Kerry, Edwards, and Dean to rule the airwaves until New Hampshire.

I really liked Wesley Clark and he is an exceptionally intelligent man who ran a dumb campaign by getting in too late, and not being firm enough on issues he could've easily used, such as the IWR (since he had the benefit of not being a congressman).

[Piperay]

57. Other...Clark waited to long

to get into the race. JMO

[SeveneightyWhoa]

74. in that case, your vote should go to..

"Wes Clark". Since it was him who decided to wait so long.

[Guaranteed]

58. I really don't know. He was our second-best candidate.

The only thing I can think of is that he got started late, and skipped Iowa.

[Dr Fate]

59. Iowa mattered...

...he missed that early media exposure that Kerry & Edwards got...

[ajacobson]

60. The achievements

outweigh the errors. Even with WKC ultimately dropping out.

1) The organization that was built in such a short time, first the draft movement then the national campaign, took some of the other campaigns years to put together.

2) WKC framed the issues that needed to be raised. The defense of dissent in a democratic society; the questionable basis on which the American public was sold the war in Iraq; and a return to a sensible domestic policy. {IMHO, if the campaign stuck more with the theme of New American Patriotism, we would have stood out a little clearer from the other candidates.} When you look at the range of policy statements produced by the campaign, its amazing. It was almost like a European-style campaign manifesto.

3) The use of the Internet tools, the CCN, etc were excellent; again better than some candidates who had much longer to prepare.

I hope General Clark stays in the public sphere as a policy leader and keeps building a network of supporters nationally.

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. I voted "media", but

it was a combination of:

1. Getting in the race late.

2. Not running in Iowa

3. Being new to politics....BUT I think he was a fantastic campaigner once he found his groove! Fast learner!

However, I voted for the media because I think he could have overcome "all of the above" had he been given some air time and FAIR coverage. After NH, where he came in 3rd AHEAD of Edwards.....He was ignored by the media. In fact, the talking head pundits were saying how a 3RD place win in NH would be HUGE, HUGE, HUGE! But ONLY if your name was Johnny Edwards. When Clark came in 3RD in NH, it was inconsequential. After his OK win, a 2ND in NM, AZ, and ND....NO COVERAGE...none, nada, zip, zero. CNN REFUSED to give him any recognition for his OK win until after the recount. All we heard was Kerry and Edwards, Kerry and Edwards. Had the media spent hours a day talking about Wes Clark's GREAT showing in the primaries, he would probably still be in the race.
The MEDIA was complicit in his demise.

[BootinUp]

65. He was pronounced dead the day before NH voted by those

Bastards!

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. I still get so angry

just THINKING about what the media did to him. To think of what could have been had the media given him "fair" coverage breaks my heart and STILL pisses me off. :grr: :nuke:

[Jai4WKC08]

68. Amen

[tameszu]

64. Me

I could have worked harder; I could have done more to smack the media tools into line). =S

(OK, maybe I'm not *singlehandedly* to blame. But still...)

[LeinesRed]

71. skipping Iowa

I think that hurt...but to characterize it as a "poor" showing is incorrect!

[nolabels]

76. That's like asking why you got a FLAT TIRE

Even if you got some of them new fan-dangled ones that you can drive a few miles after the air goes out, it still happens to best of em. I never reason about the flat tire, I just get it fixed and go about my business.

I hope this guy sticks around, I am sure they will have a position for him very soon

P.S. In no way am insinuating he is or was flat, he's exciting, it's just public didn't understand and were not ready for such a guy

[krkaufman]

78. A showing superior to all others, but simply less votes

I still view Clark's "showing" as superior to the rest of the field. It's simply unfortunate that he couldn't gain sufficient momentum to break through the media blackout, and resistance from both parties.

Clark still stands above the field in terms of integrity and experience, and capabilities.

[Adelante]

84. That's it in a nutshell nt

[Adelante]

85. Anyhoo

A Campaign to Remember
By PAUL GLASTRIS

Published: February 20, 2004

No one can doubt that something new happened during the 2004 Democratic primaries: a candidate who lost may have as great an impact on the party's political future as whichever candidate wins. That candidate, of course, is Wesley Clark.

It is inarguable that Howard Dean put backbone into his fellow Democrats, tapping a powerful vein of anger at the way President Bush is running the country. And, with the help of Joe Trippi, his campaign manager, Dr. Dean devised a potentially revolutionary new model of campaigning by using the Internet to organize volunteers and raise money. In crucial ways, however, General Clark's candidacy changed not only this election but also elections to come.

General Clark made national security and electability the crux of his campaign. Before he entered the race, Democrats were suffering from a peculiar cognitive dissonance on national security. For any Democrat running for president in 2004, one question would precede all others: can you make voters feel that they will be safer with you as president than with George W. Bush?

Only if a candidate could persuade voters that they would be safer would he be able to interest them in other issues like the economy or health care. But most Democrats were afraid to ask the question. This unwillingness to confront the issue of national security made it possible for Democrats to convince themselves that Howard Dean could beat President Bush.

As soon as General Clark entered the race, however, Democrats could no longer avoid the issue. General Clark leapt to the top of most national polls of likely Democratic voters even though he had no experience in elective office, little name recognition and no staff or money beyond what he was provided by a handful of amateur organizers. And this wasn't just a momentary bump; he stayed near the top of the polls for weeks.

more...

The New York Times

[citizen snips]

89. Iowa.

Not stepping foot into Iowa was a big mistake. Clark assumed that the only way to stop Dean was to skip Iowa. But what I think really happened is that Clark lost media attention during the time of the Iowa primary. Clark was did not attend any of the early debates held in Iowa all the cameras was pointing to Kerry and Edwards who just came out of the political dead. And Kerry won and Edwards came in second.

Although Clark had enthusiastic crowds and was a great speaker it would be hard to stop Kerry and Edwards. Clark beat Edwards in NH, and in OK narrowly. But in the TN and VA primaries Edwards beat Clark by a big margin.

[Turkw]

96. Let's see, he won more states than 7 professional politicians, who have

been in the race for over a year. Got more money than at least 5, came in second more than at least 6. Has more delegates than 6. Got the whole thing off the ground in just a few months. Rivals Dean in web space innovation. Occasionally he still gets more votes than Sharpton.

Poor showing? How about better than anyone had a right to expect.

Whining about the media? Shit, how about unrealistic expectations by the media, which refused to cover Wes' domestic issues. I've looked at the data on the media watch dog sites, the type, and scope of coverage IS a major factor in how all of the candidates are doing. It is not even. It is biased.

[DebJ]

101. Clark supporters might want to sign the petition located here:

www.petitiononline.com/dnc/petition.html

[Adelante]

104. Signed it already, thanks nt

[BootinUp]

106. I signed it a couple days ago...thanks

If you have a problem with the primary schedule, THEN SIGN THIS PETITION!

[Donna Zen]

103. two parties

The repub. party we know, or think we know, revolves around the bush dynasty. In that respect it functions much like a royal court or club, some people get in and when they do they look solely to the center for their marching orders. The Christian Right and others form their voter base and have no clue what is going on. The head of the Christian Right is no longer Robertson or Falwell, it is now dubya. (see American Dynasty: a scary book)

The Dem establishment operates much more like the old Roman model with a series of spheres of influence, some overlapping. In is kept in motion with a complex web of clients and patrons. Edwards is in both the Kennedy and Clinton sphere. I would have assumed that Kerry fell with Kennedy's sphere, but I hear that may not be the case. A variety of voting blocks from the base which is often fractured because of opposing demands.

Wesley Clark, while acquainted with the Clinton sphere was never close to the center. His value to them as a client was his brains, and his resume. He is most likely nonpartisan but sees very clearly where this nation is heading, and joined with the camp he closest to, the Democrats and has been voting and assisting them for years. (info from a personal friend) He sees, as you should, that this is about our democracy.

As soon as Clark began to lay out his domestic policies he became even less valuable. A 5% tax on multimillionaires in order to correct the current shifting of the tax burden--a construct of both the rep. and Dem--an actual threat to get the pork out of the MIC budget! Wow. For the poster above who didn't like Clark's policies...please read them carefully, they were meant to make your life better. (read Perfectly Legal) As Krugman said: Clark "gets it."

The media from the beginning had its marching orders: ignore or bash--there is no third thing. Why? Look at the electoral map. It becomes not how do we win; it is how does Bush win.

I am sorry that Clark is not in the race because without him the question of winning becomes a gray area. But mostly the issues of foreign policy becomes an issue of life and death: who can stop the war? This war is also driving the economic policy, and will reduce our standard of living. Edwards will not include Clark in an administration, Shelton is his man. And Shelton not only supported this war, he has no vision that would lead us to peace. Kerry might include Clark--might.

While you all were cranking out the bogus Acxion-PNAC-BFEE posts, you let a keeper get away.

Clark's sole focus now is getting bush out of office--that's all. Kerry made Wes no promise beyond giving him a mic. But that is all Clark wants at this point.

The media took the first bite, and the watercarriers did the rest.

[BootinUp]

107. Donna, don't worry

this thing ain't over yet. Clark is going to get his chance. And we will be there.

cheers

[Adelante]

108. I agree with this statement

"Clark's sole focus now is getting bush out of office--that's all. Kerry made Wes no promise beyond giving him a mic. But that is all Clark wants at this point."

There's too much spinning of our wheels as Clark Dems. Let the man do what he's about doing and we can be there to help him.