Clark's absence at Dem debate not good for his media coverage

[dd123]

imo.

Looks like the debate is sucking up all the media attention and Clark looks like an afterthought.

So its still Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean.

Clark people: Do you think this was a good move? Honestly...

[dfong63]

1. i'm not a Clark person, but

... i think it was a smart move by Clark. he's been in enough debates (as have all the other candidates) to show that he's not ducking and he can turn in a creditable performance. he would have only gotten a few minutes coverage by going to this debate anyway. and since he's not competing in IA, might as well be consistent and skip the debate.

furthermore, by skipping, he allowed the other candidates a bit more time. so it was a good move all around.

[slinkerwink]

7. lieberman isn't competing in iowa either but still showed up

your candidate's excuse doesn't wash with me.

[Rowdyboy]

11. I'm sorry, the debates are DREADFUL!

1. There are too many candidates for anything approaching a serious debate

2. The moderators spend far too much time with their elaborately lengthy questions intended to draw attention to themselves

3. The candidates get brief opportunities to speak, and usually revert to sound bites because its the safest thing to do.

4. Most questions deal with the "horse race" aspect of the election. Process...How will you beat Dean? Does Dean have the foreign policy expertise to win? Can anyone really beat George Bush? Comment on your opponents fund raising thus far...

Maybe some people watched the first few of these circuses but I seriously doubt that anyone but a political junkie has hung in through this one. JMO.

[slinkerwink]

17. if you watched this debate, it was a really good debate

that covered a lot of substantive issues, and it did Clark a disservice by not having him.

[SahaleArm]

29. No it was awful - Watching Dean defend against Lieberman, Kerry...

and Gephardt is like watching paint dry. The debate does nothing other than confirm soundbites; not to mention having less viewers than Meet the Press. Skipping the Boston debate didn't affect Gephardt in Iowa, the people in NH would rather have Clark in NH.

[slinkerwink]

31. the debate was carried on TWO national TV networks.....

so there was about 4 million viewers compared to 100,000 viewers that caught Clark's 10-15 minute appearance on MTP.

[SahaleArm]

33. MTP gets 4.5 million viewers - Iowa debate versus NFL playoffs?

The overnight on the last debate was 1.5 million, how many do you think this one will get?

[slinkerwink]

36. I'm certain it's much more than 4 million viewers for the debate on two

channels alone, and CNN went into the debate at 3PM, right before Judy's "Inside Politics" segment, so that grabbed a lot of the Inside Politics viewers, and other viewers, including NH and IA viewers.

[SahaleArm]

37. Against the NFL playoffs on a Sunday? You must be joking.

'MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT' DOMINATES SUNDAY MORNING BATTLE:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/07/03/20030703_170434_flash2.htm

The 1.5 million was the overnights from the last debate which was unopposed by high-profile sporting events. MTP is shown before the NFL pre-game shows and runs unopposed.

[slinkerwink]

38. it's all about the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire

and Clark skipping this nationally televised debate was plain stupid.

[SahaleArm]

39. NH is more interested in who the Pats will play next Sunday...

Not a debate in Iowa for Iowa voters. Only political junkies and Iowa voters not watching the NFL watched the debate.

[bicentennial_baby]

45. Yep

You got that right....Screw the debate, Pats are in the playoffs! Go Pats!

[Larkspur]

46. Whine, whine, whine. Sourgrapes for Clark

Dean has made all the debates that I know of. He doesn't like the format because he'd like more time to express his ideas, but he shows up for the debates and does well.

Dean makes up for this limited debate format by being a great campaigner. His campaign does things to make news and good news, like breaking the Democratic fundraising records, and Dean, himself, is a workaholic on the campaign trail. It was that workaholic attitude that garnered the endorsements of SEIU and AFSCME, the latter of which wanted Clark, but Clark screwed up when he made a big deal of pulling out of Iowa.

Clark's only saving grace is that he's a fresher face than Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman.

[JNelson6563]

41. he was just doing his part

in the great American saga we call "Get Howard". ;-)

Lieberman, a new kind of slime...

Julie

[Toucano]

2. Honestly...

(would I lie?)

The debates are not helpful to voters. We enjoy them because we're poli-junkies, but I've yet to see a poll that indicated these debates have influenced the electorate.

Clark really wants a good showing in New Hampshire. I think his ranking at 3/2 (MOE) is better than they hoped for and has made them want a strong showing all that much more.

His work there today was more valuable in that race. There will be plenty of national coverage after the tax plan is released tomorrow and further down the road.

I don't think it was entirely by choice (in that they declined because his grandson was due to be born and didn't want to pull a Lieberman), but I think it will work out very well.

[creativelcro]

43. Yesterday's debate was different

It was the first substantive debate, in my opinion. Compare that to the one with Ted K... Clark would have had a good opportunity to be articulate, which he is suposed to do well. But he missed it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Honestly, yes.

Not a perfect move, but one rarely is. Remember that Clark has scheduled a major economic announcement for 11:00 AM tomorrow. That should put him right back in the news.

I'm not sure why he couldn't have done both Meet The Press and the debate, other than him wanting to be in New Hampshire. I read on a thread that he originally didn't agree to the debate date because it was his new Grandson's original due date, simply don't know about that. If that is true, Lieberman might even have objected if Clark tried to get back into into the debate after originally opting out. Remember that one?

Clark had a great showing on Meet The Press, with many more actual viewers. He was not exposed to the danger of getting lumped in with "Other Democratic candidates all attacked the front runner Howard Dean" type coverage. 9 person debates aren't Clark's greatest strength anyway. One thing he could count on, by NOT being in it he avoided any chance of an unflattering "sound bite" coming out of it. Look at all the uproar here at DU over "software jobs to India" Clark has a solid set of proposals regarding job loss, but that doesn't mean that a crowded forum gives him the best format to present them. Clark's done enough of the debates that people can see he holds his own in them, this one will soon sink like a stone and not be talked about again. Sure had Clark gone, and had he been given the right questions, and nailed them, it would have helped Clark.

Lately every day in New Hampshire though has really moved his campaign forward. Clark was productive with his time, with a great "Women for Clark" event where he picked up a couple of nice endorsements. Clark has been doing well with men, less well with women. So much is riding on Clark having a solid showing in NH. There aren't that many days of potential campaigning left there, and he got to spend another full one there by skipping the debate.

[Gloria]

4. He wouldn't have gotten that much attention at this debate anyway...

meanwhile back in NH he's pulled in huge crowds, got the endorsement of the head of the Commission on Civil Rights (Berry) while addressing 350 women; and did MTP. MTP has about 4.4 million viewers, the debates have been averaging around 2 million (actually, less, I think).

He's not running in IA because he didn't have enough time to put together an organization and didn't want to waste his resources.....

As for media coverage....he's not getting as much as he should. Too much Dean, unfortunately. The media is working its magic to get Bush back in the WH.

[BeyondGeography]

5. It was the right move

Dean is soaking up the coverage, but it's all about the attacks on Dean. That was going to be THE angle from this debate. Clark would have had to have joined in (not his MO) in order to be noticed.

Time was much better spent building bridges in NH.

[Rowdyboy]

6. Honestly?

Yeah.

The first few debates were kind of neat, waiting to see the fireworks. But, eventually, the novelty wore off. No one says anything that matters, its just rehashing sound bites. Most Americans didn't spend Sunday afternoon watching the 84th of 253 Democratic candidate debates.

However, I'll bet a lot of them watch MEET THE PRESS and got 10-15 pure minutes of Wes Clark this morning.

Then there was the New Hampshire womens meeting later in the day.

I'll take the trade off. Only real nut case activists like us watch every debate.

[slinkerwink]

8. especially two national television networks that carried the debate

with repeats of the debate later in the night, and that compared to clark's measily 10 minutes on MTP just......it's a big reach to say that clark's MTP performance got a lot more viewers than the two national networks together combined did.

[Rowdyboy]

12. I'm sorry, the debates are DREADFUL!

1) There are far too many candidates for anything approaching a serious discussion of issues. You cannot have a serious nine person debate.

2) The candidate are reduced to quick answers, cramming as many selling points/sound bites as possible into their allotted 90 second response.

3) The moderators ask primarily "process" questions..."How can you beat Dean? How can you rise above 5% in the polls. **** endorsed ******. How could he do that to you? How can you win if you've only raised $179 million dollars?

4) Even I, the ultimate political junkie, am bored with debates. Been there, done that, passed on buying the t-shirt. Nothing new or newsworthy is going to be said at this point.

To adopt the vernacular of professional wrestling, "LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!!!" Onward to New Hampshire...

[slinkerwink]

19. this debate was different, it covered substantive issues

and I really liked the way it was laid out. To use the excuse to miss out on free media exposure, especially when it's carried on two national television networks, to a viewership over 4 million Americans compared to the pitiful following MTP has.

[BeyondGeography]

14. It was 30 minutes on MTP

but, hey, you've got the power to make things up.

[NV1962]

15. ...plus 30 minutes in the after-show yacking, makes 60

but hey, who needs math

[slinkerwink]

18. by my watch and rowdyboy's assertion, Clark was on for 10-15 minutes

[NV1962]

20. By your account, he had either a 6:1 or 4:1 dominance

:)

Look, Gephardt, Kerry, Mosely Braun, Dean, Edwards, Kucinich, and Lieberman had a piefight as usual.

That's one debate, in a state where Clark isn't competing in the primaries, for the obvious reason that he entered the fray just a few months ago - unlike the 8 others, and that includes the also "absent" Sharpton.

If you really think "appearance" matters, you do the math.

Instead, Clark had his own show.

This is at best an issue for micro-management specialists... I'll call your cards after the primaries.

[slinkerwink]

22. and Dean had his own two hour show

where almost all the candidates attacked him, and he had clear, excellent rebuttals to their attacks. Also, the portion of the debate where 5 of the 7 candidates there asked him questions, clearly established Dean as the frontrunner and the "head" of the pack. It was Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean for two hours where Clark had about fifteen minutes on MTP where he was asked about Dean, Dean, Dean, and foreign policy, nada on domestic issues which the debate covered in plenty of detail among the seven candidates there.

[NV1962]

23. ...in Iowa, where Clark doesn't compete - YET.

Thanks for making my point.

[slinkerwink]

24. and YET.....Lieberman showed up, and he's not competing there

[NV1962]

25. True, but I don't disagree with HIM blowing his resources!

Au contraire... :evilgrin:

[slinkerwink]

27. Lieberman isn't blowing his resources by showing up, and Clark can show up

also, because it's FREE media exposure.

[NV1962]

28. MTP was "free" too... Plus, Clark will tour Iowa when it's *really* due

See, yet even more proof of Clark's superior strategic and tactical insight!

Really, I think this "debate" has been popular / useful only for journalists and die-hard supporters.

I don't see massive swarms of voters switching to embrace any of the seven contenders, after today.

But I did see a load of BS aimed at Dean (as usual) who had to divert his energy (as usual) to fend it off.

The only issue I think (seriously) was resolved today in Iowa, was the nonsense about Saddam and the world being safer with his theatrical arrest - an issue laid to rest, thanks to (perhaps) a deliberate lay-up of Kerry, and (fortunately) a forcefully and convincing reply by Dean.

Well shoot me - I found that "issue" boring, irrelevant and foolishly sectarian to begin with.

The rest of it was like being pecked to death by ducks. Amusing, but not quite satisfying.

[slinkerwink]

30. no, you have to pay money to be on shows like MTP if you're a candidate

[SahaleArm]

34. Sure you do - Source? n/t

[NV1962]

35. hence the "quotes" which apply to almost all "free" opportunities

As other candidates undoubtedly will demonstrate to know first-hand, further up in the campaign.

Which, nonetheless, invalidates neither the sanity of the choice made by the Clark campaign today, or its outcome. :)

Today's debate was an opportunity for invisibibility in a senseless pie fight best seized by Clark: simply by avoiding it altogether.

The regrets of other candidates, not having Clark around to clean up their mess, is profoundly appreciated though.

[Rowdyboy]

21. My estimate was based on my GUESS as to how much time Wes

had to speak. In a 30 minute segment, I'd think he'd get 10-15 minutes, minus time for the interviewer and commercials.

No one gets 30 minutes speaking time in a 30 minute segment. To suggest that is disingenuous.

[tokenlib]

9. After watching the debate, it didn't matter...

What did matter was the absence of Al Sharpton. The debate was boring without him.

A few times a good exchange got going putting Dean on the spot--and they seemed to move on to the next question.. Instead of trying to cover so much ground--I think it would have been good if some of the exchanges between Dean and the other candidates could have went on longer.

At first I was concerned that passing on the media exposure was not good for Clark. But after watching..I don't think it matters.

[catherineD]

10. Most people aren't watching CSPAN, but they may check

in with CNN. Which gave a few seconds coverage to a couple of the people debating, Followed by a few more seconds coverage of Clark saying he wouldn't be vice president. So most people today probably saw more of Clark than of most of the debaters.

[NV1962]

13. Debates SUCK - we need a winner, not a participant

Oh goodie, let's play ten little yacking candidates... Nine... Eight...

Bah. As if one debate will decide the nomination. Hogwash!

What matters is who moves into the winner column, on Nov 2nd this year.

The rest is "I'll check out the blah-blah-blah in the newspaper" if there's anything shocking to be told at all.

So far, also based on this topic, I'm not convinced that I should invest the .50 at all.

This was Clark's smartest move to date: he ended up dominating a 1-hour show, in lieu of participating in a line-up of luminaries with no more time than 30 seconds each.

Instead, Clark managed to draw thousands of new people to clark04.com to read his proposals - straight from the source.

So, what's the excuse of the others?

[creativelcro]

44. You did not see this debate, obviously

Clark blew it by not going.

[flaminbats]

16. I agree, bad move

Clark has become the poster-boy of the stop-Dean movement. But this debate may eliminate some of Clark's Big Mo, with Gephardt and Lieberman finally making some progress toward winning the anti-Dean vote in this debate.

The irony of this debate is that it may actually hurt Clark more than it hurts Dean.

[incapsulated]

26. I might be concerned...

If more than a handful of people were watching, or this gets more than 48 hours of coverage, at best.

MTP is a guaranteed audience.

[Hawkeye-X]

32. Not really

CNN is aired in most of the airports/hotels on Sundays. So, in its likelihood, it had more than 10-20M viewers and most of them are wondering WTF is Clark. CNN is where I caught the debate (and captioned)

Lieberman withdrew Iowa, but he still showed up. Clark has no excuse for not showing up. Grandbaby came early. He should have showed up regardless of what happened.

So you must realize that it did no good for Clark not to show up, and NH voters do watch. All Clark has is his stump speech and lack of domestic policy which will not help NH voters go his way.

Trust me on this. Watch the ARG polls in the next few days.

Hawkeye-X

[NV1962]

40. What's an arg poll?

Is it a prescription drug against daily campaign management panic attacks?

Moreover, do you seriously think a serious campaign message can be crammed into a catchy, monosyllabic format that is snappy enough for the attention span of airport jockeys and hotel lounge lizards?

If so, I have some prime real estate in lower Manhatten on offer.

Still, C-SPAN and CNN on Sunday are no contest for the reach of MTP. Sadly perhaps, but true nonetheless.

[maddezmom]

42. dd123

where did you go?

[grannylib]

47. He got more coverage for what he was doing than the debates got

so yeah, I'd say it was good; he also refrained from playing the "let's destroy each other instead of Chimpy" game, and that is a great thing.