Why are the media refusing to comment on Clark's comments about..?

[kentuck]

Bush not doing all he could do to prevent 9/11? Those are powerful charges! Yet the media has refused to address them. Clark then proceeds to tell them why he believes that, yet the media is still silent. They prefer to report on the "desertion" story. But the most important comments of the General go unreported or die in their tracks as soon as they are spoken.

[jmaier]

1. Let's guess?

The media would prefer to pump up a sensational sounding allegation that will be hard to substantiate than an important allegation that has a great deal of evidence to support.

Just a guess.

[maddezmom]

2. CNNI is reporting this as I type

maybe it's just getting more press in the international press.:shrug:

[GRocky]

3. My thought is that the media sees him as an also-ran.

It's a damned shame, but I get the distinct notion that his absence from the Iowa caucuses hurt him in terms of how the media perceives his campaign. Ridiculous as it is, this didn't seem to hurt Lieberman due to his VP run in 2000.

I'm holding on to hope that he can smash the competition in NH and grab the nomination. He could win it all.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Come April, they won't have a choice

Richard Clarke, ex-NSC staffer (reported to Rice), will publish a book that rips the Bush Administration's War on Terror and its failure to be prepared for 9/11.

[Cocoa]

5. media blackout

I agree, whenever I hear Clark talk about this I think, WOW!

Not only because of the subject matter, but how excellently Clark expresses his point. He's very good, and is absolutely conviniing that he's speaking out of concern for national security, and not playing politics.

But the media is inexplicably uninterested.

[lovedems]

6. The media are trying to spin this and present it as Clark is making

a promise that 9-11 won't happen again if he is President. They won't aknowledge that what Clark is saying is that if he were Prez. his promise would be, he wouldn't handle the intelligence and the warnings the way the * administration did. He wouldn't ignore it.

It is terribly disappointing to watch the media do a hack job to what the General is actually saying.

One more example was on MTP this morning about Clark's stance on abortion. He came right out and said he is pro-choice and then the roundtable said that he unclear about where he stands. I don't know how much clearer he needs to be before they get it.

[maxr4clark]

7. The political parties and the media don't want Clark to be taken seriously

...just like they don't want Sharpton to be taken seriously. Neither of these men have pursued politics through the conventional means of parties and networks of relationships with the established news organizations.

Clark and Sharpton represent a threat to the ordinary business of politics as it is currently practiced. Dean has been sold as the "outsider", but give me a break; he has won some 8 elections as a Democrat in Vermont. All he is outside is the group of people who were expected to run as of three or so years ago.

Whether they are doing it intentionally or not, the media and the Democratic Party itself are portraying Clark as a fringe candidate. What should be the case is that any citizen can run for the Presidency, and solicit the support of one of the parties that he agrees with on most issues; especially in the Democratic Party, which has racial and economic equality on its platform every election. And whether the media or the Democratic Party likes it or not, Clark has quite excellent credentials to be a very popular, effective, and historically important President. That's why he consistently gets a lot of support throughout the country, without ever having held political office before.