Any theories about why RW media is going after Clark, but not Dean?

[AP]

It might be too early to tell what the media's approach to Clark will be, but does anyone think that Clark will be on the cover of both Time and Newsweek this week (or any week)?

[trumad]

1. Because Clark scares the shit out of Rove

Wes doesn't have to wear a thrift store jumpsuit like bunnypant's did...

[StopTheMorans]

4. the other side of that can be argued just as easily

not trying to flame, just saying that if you're going to argue that point, then you also have to wonder why Wes has been given all the interviews he has in the past few months where he has been able to expound his views at will with little or no debate. If, as you surmise, Rove were really scared of him, and he really controlled the media, wouldn't Rove have made sure that media outlets didn't give him all the free press, and, that he didn't make the cover of Newsweek this week?

[tjdee]

9. Most of the "free press" came from CNN.

He was working there, so he was the military expert. After that, they'd interview him just because they wanted to be the first on the "will he or won't he" story--as for Rove, he had no reason to be concerned until Clark declared.

[StopTheMorans]

12. but, if he really was "terrified" of Clark as you said

wouldn't it behoove Rove to make sure that Clark didn't declare; or, that if he did, that he was already smeared so badly as to make him ineffective? You can't have it both ways IMHO:)

[returnable]

16. Who said Rove controlled the media?

We all know how the right wing likes to spin distortions and so on, and on that score Rove is the master.

But I don't think anyone has ever suggested King Karl decides who gets a seat on "Meet the Press" or "Hardball"...

[StopTheMorans]

21. the main premise of the thread surmises it

and by saying RW media, it assumes RW control, and who controls the RW? Rove. And look at the posts on here that say "Rove is terrified of him". Rove is never mentioned in the first post, but at least 2 different posters link "Rove" and "RW media". I was mainly responding to those posters and their ensuing arguments, if you look at many of the statements here, a lot is inferred without the poster directly coming out and saying it:)

[AP]

24. I, for one, think the editors of the Post, and the owners of the Times

and the five big newsotainment companies all have the same exact interests that Rove has. I don't care if they talk to each other every day or not at all. But it's pretty obvious they're set their compasses to the same stars.

[tjdee]

55. Rove couldn't control whether Clark declared.

I don't think it's both ways at all.

It may have behooved Rove/wingnut conspirators in the media to make sure Clark didn't declare, but they had no control over that. And they couldn't really smear a four star general CNN analyst for no reason (CNN wasn't going to smear their own guy!).

They could have smeared him badly enough, but there's nothing to smear, apparently. There are no dirty land deals, illegal gifts, etc. Even the namby pamby stuff they're coming up with now is pretty benign. And again, it would seem odd to all of a sudden focus on Clark when a)he didn't say whether he was running, and b)he wouldn't say he was a Democrat.

[AP]

15. My feeling last week was that RW media likes Clark because

his participation limits the focus of the primaries to a discussion about Iraq, which ultimately plays into the hands of the Bush. (So long as people ignore the economy, Bush has a fighting chance.)

But, like I believe they made a mistake in CA with Arnold (they thought that if they made it look like a circus, people would vote for Arnold, but people are taking it deadly seriously, and Arnold isn't doing that well), I think the media/Republicans misgauged the response to Clark.

Clark is polling better than Bush today, and he helps the Democratic Party look better on national defense, so they're trying to slam his credibility.

If Clark gets nominated, I think the problem I noted in the first paragraph comes into play. But I think the Republicans suspect that the Democrats aren't running Clark for the nomination. They're running him to wound Bush, and maybe he'll be the VP.

[NashVegas]

42. It's the Liberal Media Who Love Clark

By that I mean those left-leaning mainstreamers who torpedoed Gore.

[meegbear]

2. That's not true ...

they went after dean for a long time. Clark is the new guy and when he joined the race, he got high numbers.

He's the logical target and when the numbers change, which they always will, the new king of the hill will get it.

[AP]

5. The stuff I just read over at MediaWhoresOnline about media

attack on Clark doesn't sound like anything I heard the media say about Dean.

[tjdee]

23. I agree. It is at a much more vicious level.

Everything being thrown at Clark, in less than a week... I've not seen anything like this so early. It is *not* just "oh, he's the new guy".

Rumors, innuendos, 'personal' conversations... I really believe they are trying to rip him apart before the primaries. They really *do not want* Bush to go up against Clark.

**on edit** I read your other comments about Clark damaging his credibility on Iraq-I think that is part of it, regardless where Clark ends up on the ticket (or doesn't).

[AP]

25. I think what they really want is for him to drop out before the primaries

go too far. They don't want his voice and image in people's minds. They don't want it to seem like you can be a partriot and a general a disagree with the chickenhawks in the Republican Party.

[stickdog]

38. Because the "he's too liberal" meme won't work on a general who supported

Nixon and Reagan.

So they've got to tar him with something else.

But don't pretend the "he's an ultra-liberal" label that Rove stuck on Dean hasn't been extremely EFFECTIVE even though it's complete bullshit.

Everyday I have to convince people that Dean's not "way too liberal" to win the Presidency -- hence Dean's disadvantage in the national "vs. Bush" numbers.

Trust me on this. Defense contracting giants, big finance, big drug comapanies, insurance companies and the like are far more comfortable with a Clark Presidency than they are with Dean Presidency.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

[AP]

40. The 'ultra liberal' meme HELPS Dean. It's the ultra-liberals

who are drawn to his campaign and giving him money and raising his profile. If the media is characterizing him as ultra-liberal, it's just giving him more of the same stuff which has helped him rise to the top of the primary polls and which will help Bush beat him in the general election.

[stickdog]

58. You are DEAD WRONG.

Do you table for Dean?

Even out here in San Francisco -- even at raging neo-hippie events like Spearhead's free Golden Gate Park concerts for peace -- MORE people are concerned about Dean's electability (based on the utterly misinformed concern that he's too liberal to get elected) than are concerned about the "Repuke in liberal clothes" charges that get bandied about here.

[trogdor]

61. By Xmas, anybody's electable.

Barring a Bush-made disaster (and those are losing their effectiveness), he'll be in the high 30's by New Years. Better to get the man we want.

[tjdee]

3. They are terrified, IMO.

He's on the cover of Newsweek this week, though.

[southpaw]

6. Just my opinion...

But I think the RW media view Dean as a "McGovern" and would love to see him get the nomination. They probably see him as appealing only to "liberals", which, considering his broad based support, makes no sense.

Clark, however, can be seen as posing a REAL threat to Bush. No chimp in a flight suit can stand beside a legitimate 4 star general and not look like the pretender that shrub really is.

IMHO, the right wing media underestimates Dean's appeal, but they are right on the money about Clark

I believe Edwards told a story about how to make a phoney look like a phoney: stand it beside the real thing.

[Clark Can WIN]

7. I'll give you four guesses

edit for big hint

[Larkspur]

19. Those are 4 reasons why I won't support clark for president

Generals make poor presidents. It's in our history.

In fact, it was 2 civilian presidents that led our country through this nation's 2 greatest wars -- Abraham Lincold & the Civil War and FDR & World War II.

[returnable]

20. Ike was a poor president?

That's news to me.

And even to leading lefties like Ed Garvey.

Wow.

[StopTheMorans]

26. as a history major

I can say that, on the whole, Ike's presidency has generally been considered as "unremarkable" at best (look at his most famous quote, it is from his farewell address). Can you name some of his greatest accomplishments? The old school of thought tended towards characterizing Ike as a pawn who really didn't do much, the newer school leans towards giving him more credit for his accomplishments. Just my two cents:)

[returnable]

28. He was a bit before my time

...but I've read analysis that say some of his policies, by today's standards, would've placed him to the left of most of the current Democratic field.

For whatever that's worth :)

[Old and In the Way]

33. Development of the Interstate highway system?

I believe he is credited with that initiative...if so, I'd say that ranks up there as a very important contribution to late 20th century America.

Certainly Ike presided during post WWII era when people wanted order and peace...."not much happened" might be appropos for the social times in America.

But he also warned us about the MI complex....and I think it might take another General of Clark's stature to rein this in. In many ways, he could be the best candidate for America today.

[knowledgeispower]

47. Hit the nail on the head

The Interstate system was HUGE for the national economy, not to mention the freedom to roam. I don't think you can say Ike was an ineffective president.

[Larkspur]

29. One of Ike's "accomplishments" that haunts us to this day

1953 -- overthrowing Iran's democracy and installing a tyrant, the Shah of Iran. We are still suffering the consequences of this "accomplishment."

He also OK'd the Marines to invade Guatamala in 1956 and overthrow that countries legally elected president so that United Fruit Company did not have to lose their land to poor peasants.

As my mother, who lived during Ike's reign, said, "Ike was a pawn of the plutocrats and all he liked to do was golf."

I think Ike did more than just golf, but he was a pawn of the plutocrats.

[Larkspur]

37. And it was Ike that initially put us in Vietnam

He sent military advisors.

JFK started sending in troops and Lyndon Johnson accelerated it, but Ike got our foot in there first.

[hedda_foil]

32. Actually, at the time Ike was considered basically a caretaker president.

Dsspite his pegging the MID in his farewell speech, business in general and the Military Indistrial Complex in particular ran his presidency. The (Bush/Nazi)Dulles brothers literally ran foreign policy through the CIA and State Department, ramping up the cold war to amazing heights of paranoia and nuclear bomb building. The Joint Chiefs under Eisenhower were the models for Dr. Strangelove. The country was fat, happy and massively conformist while simultaneously being scared out of their minds by the commie threat. Ike mostly played golf. One of his favorite golfing buds was Prescott Bush.

He was truly non-political if not apolitical, and until the very end of his presidency (when he refused to endorse Nixon and warned us about the MID) he wasn't really in the loop. To his credit, he did finally catch on and made the effort as he left office to sound the clarion. After that, though, I believe he returned to his normally silent, apolitical self.

Sorry, but I remember it well and that's the way it was.

[Clark Can WIN]

34. If he gets the nomination you will not support him Larkspur?

Your argument makes as much sense to me as the idea that JFK wouldn't make a good President because he was Catholic.

[Larkspur]

36. I have said in other posts that if clark gets the nomination

I'd hold my nose and vote for him, but I'd work like hell to make his life miserable after bush gets booted back to Texas. I don't trust clark and his staff.

We need less militarism in the White House and more commonsense.

[Clark Can WIN]

72. OK, I see how uninformed you are now

Clark wants to reduce the defense budget, work with our allies using positive incentives to nations instead of shaking our fists at them and use our military only as a last resort.

"The highest calling of the military is not to wage war but to prevent war" - Wesley Clark

I hope you will take time to listen to what he has to say before you close your mind, (I assume you do not have a closed mind) as I have been doing for your candidate and others.

[Larkspur]

76. Clark has no previous civilian political experience to prove that he is

capapble of doing what he says he will do. He has never passed legislation, especially with a hostile Congress, nor has he ever run in a heated campaign before.

Clark can spout ideas all he wants, but he has never proven himself to be a capable politician. So far, I'm unimpressed with his campaigning and ideas to-date. They are sophomoric.

Because of his lack of elected office experience, I will continue to have serious doubts about Clark's ability to govern as President, should he get the nomination. I will always doubt him and the sincerity of his ideas. His campaign to me is a chimera.

Clark needs to prove to me that he is competent for the job of President, and I don't see how he will, since he has no elected office to show as proof of his competence. His military background does not qualify him for President.

[_NorCal_D_]

46. Isn't

the idea that 'Generals make poor presidents' a huge generalization?

Was Washington a poor president?
:shrug:

[Zero Gravitas]

48. It doesn't matter

"Generals make poor Presidents" is a very silly generalisation (ha ha) its not like having a general as POTUS is very common. A handful of examples does not indicate any sort of a trend.

[Larkspur]

73. Actually, Washington wasn't a great president

His greatest act was rejecting the offer of kingship from his army. For that Washington gets lots of kudos, but Washington was a strong believer in what the American Revolution was about.

As far as the rest of his 2 terms, his presidency wasn't exactly inspiring. He was the only President elected unanimously but he lost support running for his 2nd term.

Like Ike on the military-industrial complex, Washington upon his exit from the Presidency reminded us not to get entangled in foreign affairs.

[mandyky]

8. Dean did not make those covers just by entering the race

If Clark does something newsworthy I am sure he could make both covers. Heck, he made Newsweek just by entering the race.

Just a reminder Dean made Time and Newsweek because he was way behind and an unknown, and then out fundraised everyone, and had all the internet buzz of the MoveOn.org ballot etc.

As much as I am suspect of the corpporate media, I feel Dean at that time deserved and earned the coverage.

[StephNW4Clark]

10. So many reasons...where to begin?

1) 4 star general
2) Rhodes Scholar
3) Economics teacher at West Point
4) Worked in the White House Office of Budget & Management(he worked in that office - just forgot its original name)
5) Already kicking Bush's A** in the polls
6) AND...a Democrat?? The Republicans apparently missed the memo where it said the military DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM.

[Booberdawg]

11. Isn't Clark leading bush* in the polls already??

I'm not supporting any one candidate at this time btw, but I can see how the majority of murkins would view a 4 star general as a better alternative, under the present Iraq circumstances, to bonehead bush and his merry neoCONS.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. Three ways to look at it right now...

1) The GOP is really concerned about a Clark candidacy because Clark is everything he describes himself to be, which is directly opposite of whatever it is that Junior believes himself to be;

....or, if you have a real cynical thought process about politics...

2) If Clark is secretly in bed with the Bushies, this tactic makes Clark all the more attractive to Dem voters. Either way the 2004 voting goes, the NeoCons win.

...or...

3) Anywhere in the middle of the options described above.

Personally, I'm going to sit back and watch for a while.

[RobertFrancisK]

14. Because Clark's beating Bush already

They see Clark as the biggest threat, so the attack is in full swing. What bothers me is the Limbaugh-liberals that use Rush and the rightwings attacks against Clark to beef up their own candidates. Once you start listening to Rush for attack advise, you don't deserve to call yourself a progressive.

[robbedvoter]

17. Conason - "They smear because they fear"

In a different column he sums up the both flanks of attack:

He was painted as
both a patsy for war
criminals and a hothead who almost started
a war with the Russians. He
has been bushwhacked with exaggeration in
every publication from
The Nation to the American Spectator to The
New York Times.

[boxster]

18. The RW is afraid of Clark and underestimating Dean.

They think that Dean is beatable, which could be a serious misjudgment on their part.

They *know* that Clark can beat Bush, so they're trying to discredit him before his campaign gains ground. Too late.

Not to mention he's taking evening news face-time away from * and his pals.

[Donna Zen]

44. There is more here than just 2004

Yes, Clark could beat Bush...and yes, he is a Truman style Democrat who, with the help of a good Democratic Team, could save this nations ass. Heck, he might even govern free from Ken Starr.

But the fear of Clark goes way beyond a simple election; a Clark win changes the political landscape. We have watched for30 years while working class Southerners voted against their own self-interest. Since Vietnam, we have seen the lock, or the perception of a lock, the repubs have on the military. Then the GOP claimed Jeeezus for their own, followed by this year's claim of American patriotism.

This is extremely dangerous and is threatening the very foundations of Democracy.

Clark changes everything.....repeat....Clark changes everything.

When politically naive posters rant about how they do not want the middle-class southern or military votes in their purists ballot box, I am sent into shock. On many issues the liberal and conservative labels hide common positions that are held by the American people as a whole: eliminating the power of special interests, honest government, better health care, job security, fairness, ..................Yes_we have differences, but we share many common goals. We are deliberately kept divided...the easier to control you my dear.

The saddest part for me is watching the Limbaugh-liberals attack day after day based on the same debunked lies. Today I read a post in which a DUer reports with glee that their father had called and repeated one of the Clark lies. She of course failed to correct him, because she supports some else.

[Zero Gravitas]

51. Great post (+5 insightful)

Yes a Clark win could drasticaly change the political landscape. They attack Clark because they fear him the most, not only because right now he appears to have the best chance to defeat Smirk, but because a successful Clark Presidency could start to undo their enitre national strategy.

[AP]

54. I actually think the point is Clark doesn't have to win to change per-

ception of Dems. I think the point is that having him in the field says something about the Dem party in the same way that having Sharpton and CMB says something.

I really don't think the Dems expect him to be the eventual nominee. But I think they see him as doing a ton of damage to Bush in the process of running.

I think the Republicans had Keyes in the primaries for the same reason. But, notice, the Republicans DIDN'T need McCain in the primaries to say something about the Republicans stand on national security, and it didn't hurt Bush to be perceived as destroying McCain's character. If Bush wanted to look like a compassionate conservative, he never could have done to a black man what he did to McCain.

[tjdee]

56. EXCELLENT--would you consider posting this as a main topic?

I think you make some excellent, excellent points.

I hadn't considered that before....what WOULD America be like if the military wasn't part of 'the GOP vote'?

Clark looks very good, not just for us, but the country, if you think about his run in terms of your post.

[boxster]

65. Excellent points.

I agree wholeheartedly. Combine Clark with Dean or Kerry, among others, and the cultural change would be even more pronounced. Especially if we can also win back the Senate and/or the House. Any Democrat may have a tough road ahead if he/she has to deal with a Republican Congress.

The Republicans have become experts at snatching every issue and making it their own, especially some historically-Democratic ideals. And they have no qualms just stealing them outright and claiming them as their own.

Look at the Homeland Security Department. How many "average" Americans know that the HSD was summarily rejected by Bush before 9/11? How many "average" Americans think the whole idea was established by Bush & Co. in the first place? (How many average Americans think we really needed another huge government bureaucracy?)

The large shift to the right of this administration is particularly disagreeable, especially in light of the beliefs of most Americans. I always find it surprising that people mention traditional Democratic beliefs - health care, social programs for children and the elderly, fair employment, etc. - as the most important things to them, and then half of them vote Republican.

What really astonishes me is that ~50% of the American public still approves of Bush as president, even though there is so much evidence and experience showing he's unqualified and that he's taking the US down a disastrous path. It's discouraging, and I don't know whether its apathy or ignorance or a little of each. How anyone can think this guy is doing a good job is beyond my comprehension.

Re: the Limbaugh-liberals. I've posted in other messages that the amount of anger towards candidates on this site is amazing. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the arguments of the Clark-haters or Dean-haters from that posted by right-wingers elsewhere.

[Larkspur]

78. Clark is not a Truman style Dem. He's a Clinton clone and Clinton

did not change the political landscape. The Dem Party bled members under his reign. I was one who left in the early 1990's and came back last year, long before I joined Dean's team. I returned because I wanted to help the Dem Party rebuild from the grassroots up.

Howard Dean is the one who will change the political landscape because he is reaching out to those who have been ignored or rejected by the Party hierarchies. Dean's campaign is about changing the Democratic Party as well as our country. Dean's campaign is about restorig the health of our democracy by reducing the monied interests influence in government. Neither Clark's nor any of the other's campaigns are not or are incapable of initiating the change. Clark's campaign is Clinton's redux.

[Paragon]

22. They're sharks; they smell fresh blood.

Go rent "Jaws" to understand the predatory instinct.

[JVS]

27. Fresh meat

Just wait a little bit and the distribution of attacks will be more spread out.

[Kool Kitty]

30. I think it may be all of the above, plus-

Clinton has endorsed him. You know how the right-wing loves the Big Dog. The lunatic that has an overnight show on WABC radio in NYC (Steve Maltzberg) was screaming (literally!) about the "heinous Clark-Clinton connection". Apparently, poor deluded Steve thinks that if Clark is elected, he will cede control of the country to the evil Clintons. His callers seem to think the same thing. :eyes:

[AP]

31. Clinton hasn't endorsed him. Clinton, like Moore, said he brings

a valuable perspective to the field of candidates. But he hasn't endorsed him.

[Kool Kitty]

49. I guess that was a poor word choice on my part.

What I should have said was that Bill Clinton said that there were only two stars in the Democratic Party right now-his wife and Wesley Clark. You're correct, that's not an endorsement. But as far as the right-wing is concerned, it seems close enough. Or at least, that's what the wingnuts on the NY radio stations are bleating.

[stickdog]

35. Theory: Your premise is invalid.

1) Time & Newsweek aren't right wing media.

2) Clark became the media's darling without doing anything. Dean got a bunch of media coverage incorrectly labeling him as "too liberal" to be President only after he won the fundraising battle in the second quarter and the early NH polls.

3) RW media has been hammering Howard Dean and John Kerry mercilessly and now will be hammering Clark the same way.

[AP]

39. It's way more complicated than that.

And if you think AOL-Time Warner doesn't have a political agenda...then I don't know what. (You should spend a little time over at MWO and reading those magazines with a more critical eye.)

I thought Clark was a CNN darling during the war. But, from MWO and from reading about Rush here, I get the impression that he's HATED now. I will grant that my evidence is hearsay, but if anyone thinks Rush ISN"T freaked out by Clark, and that MWO is exaggerating, please let us know.

I, personally, from first hand evidence, believe that Dean's popularity grew along with increasingly positive (or helpful) media coverage. Mara Liasson on NPR was way ahead of the wave of interest in Dean. And I emphasize the "helpful" issue. Media coverage is a very complicated thing. A candidate has a meta-message they'd like to create, and the oppostion often wants to sabotage that meta-message.

Dean ran for president because he wanted to get out a message about health care. When he started going all anti-war, the media promoted the hell out of that, knowing that they were tapping into a sentiment that would get him coverage, attention and donations, but wouldn't threaten Bush in the general election (the Republicans were begging fro a Democrat to do this). The Republicans, and AOL-TW want to get that message out, definitely, in my opinion, and they don't do anything to promote his health-care message (which was what Dean planned to run on in the first place).

Now, Clark has a meta-message that he's trying to get out too. And it's about leadership, and the value of dissent in a democracy, and about national security and competence. Now, the RW Media and the RW WH is NOT trying to help this anti-Bush message get out, and their reporting is clearly aimed at undermining Clark's meta-message. (The stories are about how Clark might not have followed orders, wasn't cool in the heat of battle, and lost his European job because of "character issues.")

I think the disparate treatment of the candidates just in the last week is very revealing.

[stickdog]

60. You couldn't be more wrong.

1) Iraq is an albatross around Bush's neck.

2) "Nikita" Dean. Need I say more?

[w4rma]

41. Dean's negatives trickled out slowly over time (over a decade in scrutiny)

Clark hasn't ever been through *real* media scrutiny. Dean has been under a microscope for over a decade.

Dean's negatives trickled out slowly over time and have been largely debunked as they trickled out.

Clark's negatives all came out at once like a broken dam.

This doesn't mean the media is biased between Dean and Clark (big media is pro-Bush, IMHO). This doesn't mean that Clark's negatives are worse or better than Dean's (I'll save that for a different thread). It means that we're getting it all at once because he's so new to being under a microscope.

That's my hypothesis.

[AP]

43. A decade of scrutiny? VT has a smaller population than the county I grew..

...up in, and, as a consequence, I think it's no surprise that I know much less about Dean's record than I knew about the county executive's record when I grew up.

[w4rma]

52. Well, none of the Dems have managed to dig up anything of worth on Dean

And, it looks to me like they have been trying hard to.

Sometimes folks really are as clean as they appear to be.

[Renew Deal]

45. Easy: Gen. Clark 49- Flight Suit 46

[Padraig18]

50. Yep!

People are overthinking this one. As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." :P

[leftynyc]

53. Very simple really

Clark can beat bush, Dean can't and they know it. The wingers would love to see Dean nominated. Clark is their worst nightmare. I've been following politics very closely since Nixon and in my heart, I know this is the case.

[jonnyblitz]

57. i partly agree with you. I think the wingers think Dean can't beat Bush.

I am not so sure he can't beat Bush myself but I believe the wingers believe he can't. I agree with you on how they probably feel about CLark. A military guy who isnt on the dark side with them when they claim to own the military does NOT sit well. They will make him out to be unstable etc.

[stickdog]

62. The true believer wingers really think Dean is WAY TOO LIBERAL

to be elected.

They are mostly bigots and they see the "GAY MARRIAGE" issue as a single issue that will doom Dean's candidacy among like minded bigots.

They are correct. But luckily, they make up less than 20% of the voting populace.

However, every time a winger tells me that they want Dean to win because he's the weakest (this has only happened about 1000 times), I say, "Well, if you really believe that, how about donating $50 to his campaign right now. Isn't it worth $50 to you to guarantee another four years of Bush?"

I'm currently batting 0 for 1,000.

[jonnyblitz]

64. I wish he was waaaay to liberal myself!!

The whole political spectrum is so skewered to the right when the Green party platform is considered radical.

[TLM]

70. I've yet to see anybody give a good reason Dean can't win...

Dean has gained more support than anybody... he's raising money at huge levels. I see civil unions tossed around as a reason he can;t win, but the fact is that anti-gay voters don't generaly vote dem anyway, so the position doesn't hurt Dean.

[CMT]

59. Clark is on the cover of Newsweek this week

and I assume that he will be on TIME in the near future. The media spends plenty of time attacking Dean, just check out ABC NEWS, the Note political column, which regularly blasts Dean and Fineman has a nice blast at Dean as well.

Don't worry they spend plenty of time blasting Dean as well as Clark.

[stickdog]

63. Whoa! Well, I guess the right wing must want him to win, then.

Any theories on this, AP?

[AP]

66. It was the double-cover, plus all the other meta-message-affirming

coverage that I was talking about.

Like I said before, Dean's publicity tends to affirm the same meta-message which has brought him this far with supporters (the media stokes the flames which helps grow the ranks of the enthusiastic Dean supporter).

Clark's 'publicity' the last few days seems to attack the meta-message which is playing well vs Bush.

I could be totally wrong here, because, other than NPR, I really don't have a good first-hand perception of how the media portrays the candidates. I rely on hearsay from DU and MWO, however I did read the Time article on Dean.

[stickdog]

69. Kinda like the "Dean is an ultra-liberal" meta-message that

accompanied his two covers.

Right?

[AP]

71. Which helps him attract supporters and money, right?

Am I missing something?

His meetup numbers go up as he is portrayed as an ultra-liberal.

[stickdog]

74. As if people informed enough to actually sign up and attend a meet up

don't know Dean's real record.

Jesus Christ, WE ARE NOT MOONIES!!!

[TLM]

67. Because we know who Dean is, we know where he stands...

They already have tried hard to attack him and failed because Dean has a grass roots network so big and connected that they can get out the truth and beat the media spin.


Clark is weak now. He has no real momentum and no real record to speak of, so all Clark has going for him is image.

And the media can easily trash an image... so they will. Clark is the easy target. He'll pull support from Kerry and Lieberman, while removing the media attack dogs from Dean.

Looks more and more like Dean's going to walk with this nomination.

[AlinPA]

68. I think the Newsweek article about Clark was negative

At best, it was full of snide comments.

[Cha]

77. All those "time" and "newsweek" articles are "full of snide comments"

about all our guys!

And I don't read the ones about bush ..so don't know what they say.

[Donna Zen]

75. Whew!

Clark makes it through a Wolfie piece without blood on the floor. And I might add, my TV is intact. Now, can he make it through Paula Von Zahn the queen of Shock & Awe?

Limbaugh is full of shit.

ps. If all Wolfie's got is a charge that Clark didn't get along with Cohen and the brass, I suggest it's a big fat plus!

[remfan]

79. Because at this point he is the biggest threat to bush

and the big threats take the most work, and have to be gotten out of the way ASAP.

Charlie Coook's (conservative pollster) latest newsletter had this comment: For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible. President Bush now has a 40 percent disapproval rating on "handling foreign policy and terrorism." That is without a Democrat with any credibility in national security having thrown a punch. A credible Clark could inflict some very serious damage on this president, particularly after Bush's admission last week that there was no direct connection between the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Saddam Hussein.

The right wing pundits are doing what they do best. They're hoping that some of this shit sticks, or at least dribbles into the mainstream and becomes "fact". It's going to take a very strong campaign to survive the right wing media in attack mode.

[RogueTrooper]

80. Dean is the less understood threat

Clark is news and they see Clark as a threat. They know why Clark is a threat and they believe they know how to respond. I am not so sure they know what to make of Dean.