Why is Sen. Edwards to blame for Clark's downfall?

[Cuban_Liberal]

There is a distinct hostility among a certain segment of former Clark supporters here on DU that can be summed up, essentially, as 'No matter what, it was John Edwards' fault!'. I'm frankly puzzled by this sentiment, as I can see no factual basis for it.

Your thoughts?

:hi:

[cally]

1. Hugh Shelton advises Edwards

Shelton said Clark has character issues but refused to elaborate. Edwards never renounced Shelton or spoke out against the baseless attack. Edwards, by remaining silent, alienated many of us.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. But I see Kerry calling him a 'Republican' was OK, huh?

Sorta hard to reconcile that...

[EXE619K]

5. Kerry called Clark a "Republican"?

What?

"What you talkin' 'bout Willis"?

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. A little double standard, isn't there.

Than again, Edwards probably hasn't dangled the VP slot in front of him...

[EXE619K]

10. No, seriously though....

I've never heard that before....

About Kerry callin' Clark a Repuke!

I thought it was only my guy that said that.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. No. Like most good one-liners of Dean's...

Sen. Kerry borrowed it.

[seaglass]

41. It was Shaheen - guess she stole it from Dean. n/t

[AP]

9. Not only that, Shelton has praised Kerry in public, and has never said

anything in public about Edwards.

Go figure.

[atre]

62. Kerry's response to this? And Kerry's attack on the Michael Moore issue???

Why do you not jump on Kerry for not stepping up to defend Clark from this unwarranted attack by Shelton? Everyone knows about the Kerry-Shelton ties, as well, I presume?

I also see that Kerry not only "remained silent" after his attack dogs went after Clark for failing to disassociate himself from Michael Moore after the deserter comment; Kerry also actively participating in twisting the knife in Clark's back, loudly criticizing him for failing to denounce Moore (for his "failure to know the facts! Ha!). Kerry's attack did a great deal more damage to Clark than Edward's silence. How many people in the general public know what Shelton said? Very, very few. How many know what Kerry said? Many more.

It's absolutely perplexing to me why Clark supporters jumped over like lemmings over to the Kerry camp (perhaps because I was a Clark supporter). Many of them must be voting their votes exclusively on the "military hero" angle. Personally, I'm not a pro-all-image-no-substance kind of guy.

[BOSSHOG]

3. I'm not part of a certain segment

I was (am) a General Clark supporter however I blame no one outside his campaign for his not succeeding in capturing the nomination. Blame is the wrong word since Senators Kerry and Edwards have been more successful in doing what candidates must do to succeed. I have the utmost respect for Senator Edwards; however, as a military retiree, I can't find a reason to follow General Shelton to the Base Exchange let alone into combat. I hope Senators Kerry, Edwards and General Clark all have positions in the next administration.

LET US GET BEHIND WHOMEVER OUR NOMINEE IS; FOR WHOMEVER OUR NOMINEE IS WILL DEFINITELY BRING DIGNITY BACK TO THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE.

[Rowdyboy]

16. See BOSSHOG's statement

I supported Clark and don't blame any other candidate for his loss. I'll be voting Edwards on 3/9 in Mississippi in spite of Hugh Shelton and hope to see Clark, Edwards and Kerry in the next administration...

[democratreformed]

19. And bombtrack's is very good as well - down below here.

Oops, except for the second half.

[democratreformed]

22. Oh.. and Jackhammer Jesus' post has very good points as well. n/t

[jpgpenn]

4. question should be, Why is the media pumping up Edwards?

Just look at what they did to DK yesterday in Hawaii. Could it be that Edwards voting record and way of thinking , not to mention people he calls friends ( Shelton ) are very close to that of *Bush? I say a very distinct and thorough basis can be made for that assumption!

[jenk]

12. yes, it's the media, barry switzer, and Oj Simpson, they're to blame!!!

enough of the conspiracy theories, the voters rejected clark. endo f story.

[azmesa207]

25. Yes it the media

I cant see how the voters rejected Clark any More than Edwards they both only one one state and Edwards won only his home state He came close In Wisconsin but he has not won anymore so how does that make him such a big Threat to Kerry unless it is Media driven

[newyawker99]

82. Hi azmesa207!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[funky_bug]

76. At least Clark had the dignity to get out when the voters rejected him

yet Edwards stays in, and a few Edwards supporters post "Clark Out" pics in their sig lines.

I think the only issue I see here in GD is a few disgruntled Edwards supporters still bashing the guy whose votes they THOUGHT they'd garner when the general stepped aside.

Objects in mirror closer than they appear? If it weren't so goddamned funny, it would be sad.

[Bombtrack]

6. It's so obvious Kerry was. Before he came back in Iowa,

Clark was supported by a hell of alot of democrats in New Hampshire who thought Kerry or Edwards didn't have a chance to beat Dean for the nomination, but when Kerry won Iowa more than half probably of Clarks numbers broke away from him, most heavily towards Kerry.

The fact is that Clark's campaign, although I was a big supporter of him, did not treat Edwards campaign any better than Edwards campaign treated Clark. They decided from the outset that he was the person they wanted to knock out of the race most, and they did all they could, including snubbing his official anouncement and dimineshing his stature calling him a lawyer, instead of a senator.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

8. Not that I've seen.

I understand there was quite a bit of bickering between the two candidates' supporters while Clark was still in the race. I wouldn't attribute Clark leaving the race to Edwards any more than to Kerry.

However, there might be a vendetta of sorts on account of overzealous and rude supporters of both candidates - and some take that out against the opponents' candidate. Both sides are equally responsible, I think.

For example, some bitterness may have been carried over by Clark supporters on account of a few Edwards people constantly suggesting that "Edwards would be winning if Clark would just hurry up and quit the race," which annoyed the hell out of me personally, but like I mentioned, both sides were involved in that sort of crap.

Have you seen any former Clarkies say it was Edwards' fault that Clark dropped out, though? Or did you just see some apparent hostility and, essentially, jump to a conclusion? I ask because I haven't seen any of that sentiment - but I haven't spent a whole lot of time at GD04 lately.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. I've actually seen an incredible amount of vitriol

It's only a handful, but what they lack in numebrs they make up for in sheer volume and nastiness.

[Bombtrack]

14. yeah, I don't know how you couldn't see it. There are a number of them

who are now defacto or strong Kerry supporters, who care nothing about being completely hypocritical by blasting Edwards for everything Kerry is much worse on.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Yes, the scorched-earth crowd.

You'd have to be blind to not see them. :hi:

[Jackhammer Jesus]

26. Like I said, I tend to stay out of GD04.

Been that way pretty much since Clark dropped out.

I think it would be a safe assumption to say that these people were just as nasty as Clark supporters as they are now that they support Kerry.

Anyway, that's the best I can come up with - all the rottenness and bickering among supporters can be taken out on the candidates themselves, and ruins any opportunities for legitimate debate. That's what stinks about this place. :D

Edwards is a good guy, though. I'm leaning Kerry, but I don't hold anything against either of them from the campaign. On balance, I think Kerry had more negative things to say about Clark than Edwards did.

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. Good point.

Most of them were just as vicious when Clark was still in the race, true enough.

[atre]

68. You're absolutely right...

It's funny that the Clark to Kerry people viciously attack Edwards for failing to say something (I guess they don't think it unreasonable for a candidate to jump to the defense of an opponent), Meanwhile, these same people not care in the least about all the times when Kerry actively attacked Clark.

Make no mistake about it: Kerry's attack of Clark for the Moore comment was the straw that broke the camel's back for the Clark campaign. Before that, they were both vying for the same military-image crowd. After that, Kerry and his accomplices in the media made Clark look like a kook.

[funky_bug]

78. Unlike you, dear (and handsome) poster

here are a few Edwards supporters that egg it on. I don't have a problem with Edwards, it's his fan club that gets on my nerves (present company excluded).

[democratreformed]

17. He's not.

Now, if some Edwards supporters could quit harping that Clark kept Edwards from winning more, we'd be even.

[Protagoras]

18. None of the other candidates were to Blame

unless it's blameworthy to scoop the opposition...to show up to lead off caucuses that end up being important...and getting more support and momentum as a result of it.

Kerry and Edwards were both fairly quiet coming up to Iowa...everyone was sure Dean was going to blow everyone away. Instead he stumbled...and Kerry and Edwards both found messages...messages about Jobs and energy in their delivery that appealed to everyone.

And Clark chose to sit Iowa out. That's what bit him. He started late and skipped the big kickoff event and couldn't catch up afterwards. Once it was clear that other candidates had more momentum and the pace of the election didn't indicate Clark could catch up then people stopped contributing. So Clark pulled him own plug. Nothing against the guy...he's going to be a fine addition to some cabinet post in the future. But he came to the party late...and made a bad decision early on and it cost him. That's the nature of politics. Blaming Edwards or anyone else is sad, silly, sour grapes.

And I say that as someone who isn't a big supporter of either Kerry or Edwards. Time to move forward. :D

[kher-heb]

20. it was Clark's fault

he should have ran for congress or governor instead.

[tishaLA]

21. I don't blame edwards for Clark's "downfall"

especially since I don't see a "downfall," but a campaign that Clark decided to stop because of Kerry's obvious successes.

If anything, I oppose Edwards' policies and I react against him for those. I also found Edwards' assertion that he was in a 'two-man" race--after which he has managed to find four third place finishes and one fourth place finish--laughable, especially in light of his ostnsibly positive campaign. That has nothing to do with Clark's "downfall," though. Clark is not the nominee because Kerry has been a more adrit candidate.

[maddezmom]

23. he's not

never opined as such, nuff said.

[democratreformed]

24. I would just like to point out that I really appreciate everyone who helps

keep Clark's name alive on this board. I really do miss my candidate.

[BootinUp]

38. touchee

:clapping:

[DancingBear]

27. False premise

Who says this? I know of no Clark supporters who blame Edwards for Clark quitting the race, and quite frankly I am somewhat tired of this red herring being dangled about as if it were so.

The hostility toward Edwards (the candidate, not the man), however, is real. It stems from many things - "Edwards ties for second in OK" being one example. To many of us, myself included, that smacks of a smarmy defense attorney rather than an "above the fray' politician, as his supporters suggest. It gives the impression that if one were to meet Edwards and shake his hand, the next step would be to head for the washroom and wash up. He is playing politics while at the same time decrying it, and I don't care for that combination.

Additionally, there are Edwards supporters on this board who have alienated many folks to the degree that they want nothing to do with Edwards. A search of the archives will turn up many such examples, and I am sure that if any Clark folks are on this thread they will agree.

Finally, speaking for myself I find him extremely wanting as a candidate. He lacks the necessary elements to be able to beat Bush, for in these times having only a dynamic closing argument ain't gonna fly. His lack of experience in both foreign and domestic policy frighten me, and (on a less serious note) if he mentions he's a son of a mill worker one more time....

I've said this many times - he'd make a good candidate - 8 years from now.

[atre]

60. I must say,

I was once a Clark supporter, but the virulent lawyer-bashing from his crowd and the Kerry crowd has really soured me on both candidates' supporters.

[BeyondGeography]

29. The Clark/Edwards "wars" were nothing

compared with the Clark/Dean battles on this board. Truth is, Dean and Clark were both toast after Iowa, and most people with half a functioning brain can look back on this whole saga and admit that. The rise of Kerry, who has military creds AND legislative experience, is what killed Clark, not Edwards.

I migrated from Dean To Kerry to Clark and stuck with Wes from the time he announced to when he ended his campaign. I enjoyed every minute of it because I believed in the guy, and I don't regret a single penny of the not inconsiderable sum I contributed. I never considered Edwards because of his lack of military/foreign policy experience and his overly nice manner (appealing, but we're competing against animals). I'm certainly not opposed to him as VP, but I naturally prefer Clark. Probably both camps will be disappointed and Kerry will go with a Midwesterner.

Edwards will soon be toast as well, by the way. And his supporters will have their turn to grieve. It takes a week or two, and then your hatred for Bush takes right over. Before you know it, 95% of you will be shreiking for John Kerry to win in November.

[Adelante]

48. Dean/Clark wars and Dean/Kerry wars

Classics.

Edwards practically hasn't even been here. :eyes:

[democratreformed]

63. Great post.

In the early stages of grief, I wanted to blame every thing and every body. In the end, though, I know that many factors contributed to the end of the campaign.

You are right. I knew it long before he finally made it official. I held out hope. I worked by behind off trying to make it not true. But, I saw the loss of momemtum. I saw us not making enough progress. I talked to many many Kerry people and knew we would probably never beat him in Tennessee. I really thought we could top Edwards, though. Oh, well. That didn't happen either.

And I have never blamed John Edwards. Just b/c I don't believe he is the best remaining candidate does not mean that I blame him for losing my top candidate.

For the record, some of his supporters on here certainly give as good as they get. And THAT started long ago. I got so sick of their constant whining about Clark hurting Edwards. If he would only drop out, they could do better. THEY were the ones who portrayed a sense of entitlement, not Clark.

[Turkw]

30. His successes were greater than any one could reasonably hope for, but

were limited and handicaped by the media coverage, which has hurt or helped (sometime both at different times) all the candidates. Corporate media has done a terrible job with this election so far, any may do even worse in the future.

I am very happy with the work Clark and his staff did in the incredibly short time and steep learning curve they had to work with. Were mistakes made? Sure, any human being or enterprise will have mistakes. Did they learn from them and go on, stronger? For the most part, yes!

Is Clark going away? NO, and neither are his supporters! (the same can be said for Dean and his supporters)

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

31. I place no blame on Edwards

Clark got in the race extremely late, and most of the qualified campaign personnel were already taken by the other eight candidates in the field. The momentum that was awarded to the first place of Kerry in Iowa was hard to contest when he also was a senator with foreign policy experience and a war hero. Edwards and Clark split the independent and southern vote, and Kerry kept winning. And, regarding the hostility, most of it from my perspective started when Edwards tried to snuff Clark out before TN and VA by stating that it was clearly a two man race and that General Clark could fight for the third spot (this after Clark won Oklahoma and Edwards won his birth-state). This arrogance did not sit well with any Clark supporters.

[newyawker99]

83. Hi FreeSpeechCrusader!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jmaier]

32. Edwards has nothing to do with Clark's decision

Clark suspended his campaign because he felt it was the right thing to do -- the nomination has been pretty much decided.

With respect to a FEW Clark supporters bashing John Edwards, it is a small group and certainly smaller than the anti-Kerry crowd around DU from Dean supporters.

At the end of the day, Kerry is going to be the nominee and on the issues neither Edwards nor Kerry are too distinguishable. Everyone should take a few deep breaths and read a book. If DU had any electoral influence, Dean would be the nominee and Kucinich would be VP.

[dae]

33. I honestly haven't seen it. Gen. Clark got in late, should not have

skipped Iowa, and there still weren't any guarantees. He accepted responsibility for his performance.
Do I think he got a fair shake from the media? No.
Do you are anyone else probably give a $hit? No.
I don't put down your candidate or any other Dem running for President, I want Bush out.
If Barney Fife got the damn nomination I will work my A$$ off to get him elected. ABB!!!

[Adelante]

34. It was John Kerry's fault

He won Iowa and went on from there. Clark in his support for Kerry, and Clark supporters who now extend their support to Kerry, are grownups who want to beat George W. Bush. Edwards does not enter into Clark's "downfall" at all. Earned hostility toward Edwards and his supporters among Clark supporters here at DU is explained above in several posts.

[Cuban_Liberal]

36. You're right-- only Edwards did things to Clark.

We have fully earned the scorn heaped upon us, and you have rightly pardoned the other angels who ne'er said a word against the general...:eyes:

[Adelante]

46. I didn't say that at all - lol

You asked about Edwards. People answered you. I don't personally feel hostility toward Edwards. I don't personally care about Edwards. I care about Wesley Clark and defeating George W. Bush. I care about the false and current premise that Clark supporters are moving to Edwards and not to Kerry. As soon as Edwards drops out, Cuban, I won't care about that one. When we were fighting Kerry, we fought hard. But I don't hold onto past political grudges. I do this to win.

[Padraig18]

50. Well, you SORTA did

I don't think you meant to, but this statement

"Earned hostility toward Edwards and his supporters among Clark supporters here at DU is explained above in several posts."

sorta affirmed the impression that the hostility toward Edwards was 'righteous'. I think all CL was doing was pointing out that the basis for the hostility (as expressed in the threads) was perhaps a bit 'myopic', hence his sarcastic reference to all the other candidates being 'angels' vis a vis Gen. Clark.

My. $.02. :hi:

[dogman]

35. Clark took responsibility for his shortcomings.

Unlike Bush and most other candidates. That is why his followers respect him and know what he meant by a higher standard of leadership. Most of us just happen to realize Edwards has no qualifications to be President. After Lieberman dropped out most of his support went to Edwards because he was the closest to Repub-lite left in the field. If you need a lawyer, call one. Nader's available and he's another lawyer who has taken on Corporate America.

[seaglass]

42. You are absolutely right about Clark taking responsibility.

His interview on Charlie Rose was excellent. Dean could have learned something from him.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

37. The Anger Is Not Directly At Edwards But At The Media

Edwards became the media darling. I still can't figure out why. Clark looks and behaves so much more Presidential than Edwards, but that's my own subjective opinion. Edwards really didn't have much momentum after New Hampshire. He came in 4th behind Clark. Yet, I actually saw his name placed above Clark's when that happened, and people on CNN and on BSNBC acted like Clark was the spoiler for having prevented Edwards from attaining a higher position. It was this sense of Edwards' automatic entitlement that really drove me nuts. Why should Edwards have been entitled to anything without actually winning it? I also hated the media for having done the same thing over Oklahoma. CNN REFUSED to declare Clark the winner. They said that they would wait until official certification. But they never did declare Clark the winner after that happened. Clark won it, but Edwards was seemingly entitled to it, because he was the one the media wanted to see go up against Kerry. Edwards really didn't help with his likeability with me when he said that Oklahoma was a virtual dead heat. He lost, and he wasn't honest enough to admit it. Again, Edwards may be a good person. I don't like him personally; his personality really rubs me the wrong way, but that is just an irrelevant emotional reaction to what I perceive as his "slick" style. It wasn't Edwards' fault, but the media's. They never failed to raise every single minor faux pas that Clark made, like pointing to the wrong body part where he was injured, like the instant "insider, no outsider" correction he made, etc. Edwards really has had everyone fawning over him and I think he's received somewhat of a free pass. Not his fault, but the media's fault.

[Padraig18]

39. If it's 'directed at the media'....

... why does Sen. Edwards wind up as the public whipping-boy here at DU? :shrug:

[tameszu]

91. Edwards is NOT the public whipping boy at DU

Kerry is and always has been. Dean supporters HATE him.

Clark supporters are more irritated by Edwards supporters; we don't HATE Edwards, although we are not going to be friends with people who say stuff like "why do Clark supporters blame Edwards for losing?" and people like Trippi who presumptuously assume we are going to fall behind a guy who has no knowledge or skills at foreign policy.

[Rooktoven]

72. But it _was_ a virtual dead heat. --nt

[BootinUp]

40. Who cares

its nearly over

[Padraig18]

43. We'll see.

It ain't over 'til it's over.

[Adelante]

47. That's why I love you, Jim4

[BootinUp]

49. Back at ya

:)

[dae]

44. I'll have to modify part of my original statement on this thread. After

reading additional posts I do see some Clark supporters upset with Edwards.:)

[Padraig18]

45. I knew there were, dae.

Which I personally don't get, because I like Gen. Clark-- he was my #2, until he withdrew, and I never saw anything that Edwards did as 'nasty' (or whatever) regarding the General. :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

51. Having the gall to resist his entitled ascension

How dare he not withdraw in the face of an obviously superior person.

Okay, here's a reality check. Many Clark supporters rail about Hugh Shelton being a consultant for Edwards, even when Shelton had been one long before ever saying anything about Clark, and long before Clark entered the race. They also conveniently omit that Shelton and Edwards went to the same school and had other ties. (Everything isn't about one's candidate; vast spheres of influence exist that have nothing to do with him/her.)

Clark repeatedly lied, using the Dean lie that Edwards had voted for the Bush tax cuts, and when confronted about it, refused to respond. Instead, Clark fired off a volley of distortion about the number of votes Edwards had "voted with Bush" and more obfuscation.

Somehow we were all a bunch of assholes for calling out Clark for deliberately upstaging Edwards' formal announcement. When Clark's spokesperson echoed the conservative rant about Edwards being bitter because of his campaign's failure, it didn't go over too well. There was a very pronounced flavor of "nyah-nyah, you're a bunch of losers" from many of his early supporters, and it pervaded the campaign and returned with a vengeance at the end. Although many very nice people joined his cause, the beginning and end resembled nothing as much as the dittoing thuggery of conservative blowhards. Here's a warning sign: when you encounter people who accuse you of whining all the time and crush all opposition with the claims of inevitability, you're dealing with conservatives.

There was a sense of entitlement to Clark's campaign, especially in the early days. The Dean supporters were absolutely shocked that weekend day when the board was hit by a coordinated assault by Clark partisans.

Edwards played very decently in his responses to Clark, and didn't engage in personal attacks even when deliberately lied about. Quite frankly, if Edwards doesn't manage to beat Kerry, it's very legitimate to say that it was Clark's doing more than anyone else's. By entering the primary late as he did, he was playing games with the system and maneuvering for position. Fine. All's fair, but it also doesn't sit well.

On a gentler note, Edwards was the one they targeted, and Edwards did them in. Many supporters dismissed him as a lightweight while glorifying their champion, and the rest of the electorate simply didn't buy it. The disconnect between one's dreams and the sorting out of reality often brings extreme ire on the one most responsible for the fall, regardless of anything.

Remember: Clark picked a fight with Edwards, and used his fame and acclaim to enter the race late to ride a wave of media attention and money to crush him. It wasn't Edwards targeting Clark, he only responded to the attacks from Clark when they were egregious and outrageous, and even then, he did it with a gentlemanly approach.
How dare we get in their way. That's the problem.

It was not a proud chapter.

[citizen snips]

52. Your post said it all about Clark's character.

:thumbsup:

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

88. You know what I think says it all about Clark's character....

He served fighting for all those 35 long years so that he could be ridiculed by MATTMAN...and he will still fight until he is no longer able so that you have that right. He served his country in the highest honor with complete self sacrifice. He unlike your unqualified one term senator fought for this nation instead of immense wealth. He fought for the freedoms that our founding fathers founded this nation on. This is no better than your republican counterparts smearing "character" issues all over without the slightest hint of anything substantial.

[tameszu]

92. Correction: "unqualified one term senator"

2/3 of a term, half of which was spent running for President instead of attending votes.

[DemCam]

55. Fiction, my friend...

[LandOLincoln]

58. Absolute paranoid tinhat BS. n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

59. If anything appears to assert entitlement-it is the sentiment in your post

Sorry that Clark chose to announce his candidacy on the day your professional, established Washington politician had reserved as his own entitled date. I didn't hear Clark people complaining about Edwards having chosen the same date.

"...By entering the primary late as he did, he was playing games with the system and maneuvering for position..."

Are you referring to Clark the non-politician or to Edwards the insider in having played games with the timing? ...as I thought they declared on the same day.

"...Remember: Clark picked a fight with Edwards, and used his fame and acclaim to enter the race late to ride a wave of media attention and money to crush him..."

Maybe we've been watching a different primary season. Clark was and still is unknown by the electorate and uncovered by the media. Clark and Edwards were not in opposition until the very end. Even then, you can't exactly say that Edwards crushed Clark, or vice versa. Edwards could easily have been the one to withdraw, having done poorer than Clark in New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. Clark would probably have outdone Edwards in Wisconsin. And earlier in the campaign, Edwards' numbers were rather dismal. Edwards in fact seemed to come out of nowhere, right after Iowa. Even then he didn't do all that well. Anyone who watched any debate can't say that Edwards came anywhere near winning any of them, or even distinguishing himself to any great extent. Kerry, in my opinion, won the race after his dramatic criticism of Ted Koppel. That grabbed everyone's attention and was a turning point. Kerry clearly won that debate and hasn't looked back since. I'm not going to say that Clark shouldn't have pulled out. I'm not going to say that his campaign didn't make mistakes. It's just that you simply cannot possibly say that Edwards' enormous support in the media is directly proportional to his own success. Where is the success? Thus, it appears that it is the media (not Edwards' supporters - I'm not dissing them) who appear to assert his entitlement.

[Rooktoven]

75. Clark was the media darling when he jumped in--

"...as I thought they declared on the same day."

Edwards' event was planned much further in advance. Clark was playing coy with his "waiting to be drafted status" and then dropped the bomb on Edwards' day. Fair of course, but not very classy.

"...having done poorer than Clark in New Hampshire
1/2 percentage point. Clark put all his eggs in that basket and won a distant third. Neither Clark nor Edwards received NH delegates.

"...Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota,"
Edwards didn't contest there.

"...and Oklahoma"
Virtual Dead heat, even less than 1/2 percent-- Clark outspent him there, and in Clark's must win state he barely eaked out a victory. Contrast that to SC, where Clark contested against JRE heavily and managed a far distant third.

Let me add Tennessee-- Clark came in third in a state adjacent to his own. Virginia, third again behind JRE.

Let's be fair here, if either Clark or Edwards was not in the race, the other would have done better and would be closer to Kerry. If Clark was so put off by the "two man race" thing, he could have fought the insinuation. Instead he dropped out. Edwards only recently got media attention. He was pretty much drowned out from the time Clark entered the race. After the primaries start, you get attention if you _exceed_ expectations. Clark never did.

[tameszu]

89. Edwards definitely

contested AZ and NM UNTIL the week before Feb. 3, just like Clark.

And Edwards spent more time than Clark in OK (ask OKNancy)--this was another lie, perpetuated by the stupid media; the only one I've seen as bad was on Kos, where some Edwards supporter said that "it made sense that Edwards' 2nds were covered more heavily than Clark's, because SC, MO, and OK are big states, whereas AZ, NM, and ND are small states." Duh.

The fact is that Edwards has done as well as he has based on undeserved media attention after New Hampshire--even though he did nothing with his Iowa bounce. And he has no foreign policy exposure.

Oh, and none of you are making any inroads among Clark supporters with your posts. Every single one makes me more and more likely to actually go to the Kerry MeetUp tonight. I'm not a big fan of Kerry, but at least he has some sort of idea as to what's going on with foreign policy.

[Rooktoven]

73. Absolutely dead--on.

Thanks for detailing it so precisely.

[tameszu]

93. Bzzzt

"The Dean supporters were absolutely shocked that weekend day when the board was hit by a coordinated assault by Clark partisans."

Coordinated assault? That is such a lie.

Everyone in this race competes, and timing your entry and so on is part of competition. Clark's statement on Edwards' voting for the tax cut was a gaffe, not a lie, because he stopped once he realized it was wrong. But Shelton's was a character attack and a lie and had the distinction of getting into Milosevic's testimony, and unlike Clinton, Edwards didn't do anything to denounce it.

"Quite frankly, if Edwards doesn't manage to beat Kerry, it's very legitimate to say that it was Clark's doing more than anyone else's."

This line in the media also annoys us, because people started saying it BEFORE it was evident (at least from the vote totals) that Edwards was significantly ahead of Clark (i.e. between NH and Feb. 3).

Whatever, I wasn't sure before, but I guess I'm going to the Kerry Meetup before tonight. Thanks for this highly positive thread, Edwards supporters.

[KittyWampus]

53. Your Inference Is Based On Faulty Logic. And Don't Give Edwards

that much credit.

By the way, how about a couple of quotes proving your assasine assertion.

That Clark supporters blame it all on Edwards.

[Padraig18]

56. You know very well that would be a rules violation.

That's the equivalent of calling someone out. The assertion is not 'assinine', either.:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

57. It's Absurd As Saying All People Who Dislike Edwards Are Clark Supporters

Logically inconsistent.

And my comment was aimed at the assertion and not the poster.

[atre]

64. I don't know about the general assertion, but in your case it is true

Certainly you don't dispute that.

[Piperay]

54. I don't blame Edwards or

any of the Democratic candidates, the voters decided for whatever reason that they preferred Kerry. I think they didn't get enough time to know Clark because he entered the race late. :-(

[MAlibdem]

61. It was

they split the same vote, one of them had to pull ahead. That's why for a bit (TN and VA) they were at each other's throats, each needed the other to drop out.

[democratreformed]

65. Misconception in the greatest sense, IMHO. n/t

[wellstone dem]

66. I don't get it

I've never heard anyone blaming Edwards for Clark's withdrawing from the race. I've heard lot's of Clark supporters saying they don't support Edwards, but that's because of his lack of experience not because of anything that has to do with the campaign. It is natural that many Clark supporters are attracted to Kerry as many of us supporter Clark because of his foreign policy experience. While Kerry doesn't have as much as Clark, he has more than Edwards.

[Doctor_J]

67. Blame??

I think he took away some of Wes's demographic, but I don't BLAME him, and I am sure Clark doesn't either.

[Nashyra]

69. Kerry is the most logical for most Clark supporters

because of Edwards lack of foreign policy experience and lack of military experience. Kerry and Clark appealed to alot of the same voters. As far as hurling insults the only ignores I have on my list are edwards supporters who were so rude just after TN and VA, also the harping of the "two man race thing". Because of what I wrote above, most, not all Clark supporters would not gravitate to Edwards, so to me the two man race thing was never a reality, although it would have been kind of fun to see a Kerry / Clark two man race. 30 years of legislative experience vs 30 years of military-foreign policy experince along with the north south thing.

[Doctor_J]

71. I think Kerry and Edwards BOTH

siphoned off some of Wes's voters - Kerry the vets and Edwards the Southerners. Plus his operation was not quite as finely tuned as the Senators'.

I think we, the Draft Clark Draftees, got him engaged, though, and he will be either VP, SecState, or the next governor of AR, and from there will move to the WH.

[Adelante]

84. "rude just after TN and VA"

You lasted a long time. Mine filled up between Iowa and NH. :)

[tameszu]

70. Most of us don't blame Edwards

But a lot of us don't like him, and some of us are annoyed that he got much more favorable media coverage after NH, even though Clark beat him (the "tied for 3rd" thing is annoying and a lie, and so was the "tied for 1st in OK...it smacked of Jomentum's 3-way tie for 3rd thing). And he helped push the Shelton smear.

Also, even if he's "likable," he has no foreign policy experience or much knowledge (that's why he still weirdly supports the Iraq invasion, even though he didn't vote for the $87 billion), and most Clark supporters are kind of concerned with foreign policy.

And Edwards who make generalizations like you just did don't help either...

[Rooktoven]

77. Clark "beating him in NH"

is nothing to be proud for either candidate. It was a half percentage point difference. Neither man got delegates, and the candidate who finished second had more votes than Clark and Edwards combined. If that's a "victory" over Edwards, ok, but face it, it was a distant, disappointing third.

Oklahoma was a tie most of the night. A recount could have been ordered. I think the closeness shows virtual tie, but if you are basing your national recognition on the fact that you barely won a state you invested most heavily in, fine.

As for the $87 billion, Edwards said it's because the president is handling the occupation badly, and his argument was over the $20 billion in contracts. Are you implying Clark supported the $87 billion? Kerry didn't.

[BootinUp]

79. where to start?

When a vote is counted, there is some fudge factor like in a poll. The vote is the vote. When Clark bested Edwards in NH and OK that is exactly ehat he did, without any help from the fucking major media. I'd like to see wonder boy or any candidate do what Clark did. And that means starting Sept 17th 2003 with no campaigning experience. We are proud of the General, proud that he decided to put himself and his family in the bullseye for all the slime throwing that commenced immediately upon him entering the race.

Clark opposed the 87 billion until a better and more open plan was developed.

[Rooktoven]

80. You sound annoyed that Clark wasn't catapulted ahead

of Edwards by the media after his resounding "victory" in NH. (Count the delegates.)

No one is telling you not to be proud. But don't focus your hostility on Edwards when your campaign targeted Edwards most heavily (same voting base) and didn't exceed him. Clark started late, but had an overwhelming media spotlight he couldn't capitalize on. I wonder how Edwards would have done with the "anybody but Dean" tidal wave Clark had, but I realize that he and Dean are more kindred than most people thought.

[BootinUp]

81. I simply responded to your innacurate post

The hostility was clearly not directed at Edwards in that post. And the "wonderful" overwhelming media spotlight focused on inaccuracies like:

He's a republican
He's got integrity and character problems
He flip flopped on voting for the war
He started too late

Thats about all they talked about when Clark was mentioned in the press or television. Finally around mid November they just stopped talking about him. The first positive coverage he got was in last week of december when they were busy tearing Dean down.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

90. Yeah and that makes me lose more respect for Howard Dean

I mean everything that Dean has spoken out against for months and months is John Edwards. Edwards voted with George Bush on an average of 80.5% of the time since taking office. Edwards voted for Patriot Act, NCLB without required funding, and Iraq war.

[tameszu]

87. So how long is

Edwards' coming in 2nd IA and having a nice smile supposed to last? Apparently, for Edwards, the entire election cycle.

Clark's NH finish may have been a "distant disappointing 3rd," but by that logic, Edwards' finish was the same--so why did the media morph it into a 2-man race between Kerry and Edwards immediately after NH? Look, it's so obvious that Edwards, more than ANY other candidate, including Kerry, is the most heavily leveraged by the media.

Clark doesn't support the $87 billion, but he also has the sense to combine that with opposition to the war, unlike Edwards who still supports it. Face it, Edwards has no sense of foreign policy, embarrassed himself on Meet the Press on FP questions, and is running on a purely domestic agenda--and media leverage, and at DU, hate of Kerry, and the distortion that he's run the most positive campaign. No wonder he has a smarmy and visionless guy like Shelton giving him advice on foreign policy. Kid has a great message on domestic issues, but he's an empty suit when it comes to America's place in the world. You can keep him and his lying pals.

[oxymoron]

74. self deleted

nevermind

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. It's not Edwards. It's the people who voted for him lol

And it's the media who suddenly became infatuated with Edwards starting with Iowa after ignoring him before that. The media only provides so much oxygen in their campaign coverage. When the public finally started to tune in as the voting actually began, it all went to Kerry and Edwards (and Dean but negatively so). That left Clark out in the cold. I still believe that Clark would have done better outside the South than Edwards, and that much of Dean's support would have flowed to Clark. But I still think that Kerry would have won so it is actually a moot point.

[Cuban_Liberal]

86. I agree about the Dean support.

There's also some truth in the 'sucking up all the oxygen in the room' stuff, too, but MY point is simply that a lot of anger over that is unfairly aimed at Sen. Edwards, who had absolutely zero control over what the media did or did not do re: Gen. Clark.

:hi:

[tameszu]

94. Why are Edwards' supporters so eager to annoy Clark supporters

when they need their votes to compete against Kerry?

There is a distinct hostility among a certain segment of former Edwards supporters here on DU that can be summed up, essentially, as 'No matter what, it is Wes Clark and his supporters' fault!'. I'm frankly puzzled by this sentiment, as I can see no factual basis for you not to all agree with Joe Trippi and support Edwards.

P.S.: Because of you, I am confirming my attendance at tonight's Kerry Meetup. Thanks for the motivation.

:hi: