Why Won't Media Talk About Clark Who is Running Ahead of Dean & Edwards?

[catherineD]

Clark is running 1st in Oklahoma, and 2nd in 4 of the other 5 states that have January poll numbers. The 2 places that show Dean leading haven't had a poll since before the Iowa Caucuses. Edwards may be running 1st in South Carolina, but he is running 3rd in other states. How can the media pervert democracy by talking only about Kerry, Edwards and Dean, when Clark is ahead of Edwards and Dean?

[lovedems]

1. They don't want to give him any "free air time" and they are bastards

My husband and I keep watching for snips of Clark and it is always seen as a 3 person race. It irritates the crap out of me. Hopefully after his kick ass performance tonight, that will change things.

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

5. u got it.

Same reason that the media hasnt described Edwards as being in a tailspin after Iowa. No, Dean goes from 19 to 26 even after the screaming, and he's the one in a tailspin.

Clark, the antiwar southerner gets a respectable 13% over Edwards, and he is considered "finished", or "its over" to many of the media. lol.

hang tuff dean and clark camps, as if we have to merge and run a ticket as a new Anti-corporate Party, we will.

Dean/Clark would run over Bush/Cheney(Guiliani) and Kerry/whomever in a three way. Way too many conservative independents are pissed at bush. if the war continues like this:

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

bush is finished easy.

and then there's the valerie plame issue, the 911 commission, etc, etc, etc.

the new world order is covering their bets with kerry.

[krkaufman]

16. Edwards as being in a tailspin

> Same reason that the media hasnt described Edwards
> as being in a tailspin after Iowa.

Exactly. I like Edwards, but saying that "he has momentum going into South Carolina" after finishing 4th in NH -- dropping 20 points from his Iowa showing -- definitely is wrong.

UckfayTheEdiamay

[spooky3]

18. News flash: there were 3 local candidates in NH

Lieberman, Kerry, and Dean.

Edwards did as well or better than anyone else who wasn't from New England. And his favorability ratings from the people who didn't vote for him were better than anyone's.

[Rooktoven]

21. That is totally misleading--

He didn't drop 20 points. Iowa and NH are separate states. That would be like comparing a (hypothetical) Dean showing in a Vermont primary followed by one in Mississippi.

The question you should ask is "How much did Edwards fall from his highest NH polling?" (Answer-- a half percentage point at most)

And how much did Clark fall from _his_ highest NH polling? (Answer-- well, I think you know that...)

[spooky3]

17. I agree that NEITHER Clark NOR Edwards has gotten his share of positive

press. But I have to take some issue with some of what you say.

It is not necessarily bias for the media to have reacted to the results you describe because:

1) Dean has a LOT more money for ads, staff, etc. than Edwards did, and spent it in NH. Clark skipped Iowa (which legitimately meant less press that week) and spent much more time and money in NH than Edwards did.

2) NH is Dean's backyard, not Edwards'. For Dean to do SO much worse than Kerry, and not that much better than Clark and Edwards, and MUCH worse than he had polled a month earlier CAN be interpreted as a disappointing result. In contrast, Edwards had planned to focus on SC until his surprise in Iowa, yet he still managed to pull nearly even with Clark, who had focused on NH while Edwards was pressing the flesh elsewhere. Edwards pushed hard in Iowa and got 32% of the vote. Clark pushed hard in NH and got 13%. It is easy to see why the media viewed Clark's results as somewhat more disappointing than Edwards'.

That said, it is ridiculous in my opinion for the pundits to say any of these campaigns are dead at this early stage. 2 weeks ago they were all anointing Dean!

[mikehiggins]

32. And, of course, Clark has been running for President for years

has a well oiled election machine behind him, and a list of contributors a mile long.

Not only that, he is insanely popular with the press who fawn all over him all the time, and is clearly a local boy in New Hampshire.

Wake up, dude. That Iowa victory knocked the Clark campaign for a loop and he still beat Edwards.

Now comes Feb 3 and even if Clark wins dozens of delegates and a couple of states, he'll still be listed as a loser on his way out.

The motivation of the press has nothing to do with the actual progress of the campaign, which is of no real interest to them anyway. What they want to do is narrow the field as fast as they can so they can simplify the "story" to a mano a mano contest between Kerry and Edwards; the craggy old pro vs the shiny newcomer. Sort of like the Rocky movies. That is a story they can tell easily and cheaply and the sooner we provide it to them, the happier they will be.

[For PaisAn]

2. They get paid to pervert

It's disgusting and it's not democratic. Will they be able to disregard Clark when he wins some of those states? I wonder.

[Rooktoven]

22. if... (nt)

[For PaisAn]

27. Not meaning to sound presumptuous

I just believe in the power of positive thinking.

[blm]

3. It's frustrating. I sympathize.

We went through it all last year. Kerry had to friggin' WIN a primary before they gave him any attention.

You just have to keep plugging away and don't let the media change your resolve.

[QC]

4. They're only capable of covering one story at a time.

Unfortunately, that one story is usually the official storyline, like Dean is angry, Clark is really a Republican, Kerry looks funny and has a rich wife, etc.

They seem genuinely incapable of dealing in facts, discussing multiple stories, acknowledging any degree of complexity, etc.

[sistersofmercy]

6. That's a great question for the media knuckleheads

Kerry's the focus because he is the frontrunner but Clark does deserve and should be getting more media attention. I think it will change after Feb 3rd.

[anti-bush]

7. According to SurveyUSA

Edwards leads in SC, Clark leads in OK. Edwards ahead of Clark in Missouri, Clark ahead of Edwards in Arizona. Seems about even, except that most would argue that South Carolina and Missouri are the bigger of the Feb 3rd states.

Missouri
Kerry 41
Edwards 17
Dean 16
Clark 8


South Carolina
Edwards 32
Clark 17
Dean 16
Kerry 13



Arizona
Kerry 30
Clark 24
Dean 23
Edwards 7



Oklahoma
Clark 32
Edwards 23
Kerry 17
Dean 10

[OKNancy]

9. Oklahoma has more delgates than South Carolina

not much but it's SC= 45, OK=47

[anti-bush]

10. do you have a link to delegate counts?

I've been looking for someplace that shows the delegate counts (and I get somewhat confused over soft pledged, hard pledged, soft commit nonsense) for the primaries.

Also, the number of delegates doesn't necessarily relate to importance. Iowa and New Hampshire have small delegate counts, but are imminently more important than say, Virginia.

[krkaufman]

26. Delegate counts

Try this: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/

or CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

[Rooktoven]

14. The name of the game is TOTAL delegates

Let's see where we stand on Tuesday night.

Remember, the good doctor still technically leads...

[mikehiggins]

34. Verily, the vote of a superdelegate is worth the paper it is written

on. Ask Gary Hart about that.

[anti-bush]

8. According to American Research Group

And these are the American Research Group numbers, which are a few days older (from the 24th and 25th), and don't include Missouri. The main difference here is Clark not leading in Arizona.

South Carolina
Edwards 21
Kerry 17
Clark 14
Dean 9


Oklahoma
Clark 23
Edwards 18
Kerry 17
Dean 8

Arizona
Kerry 24
Clark 21
Edwards 15
Dean 10

[John_H]

11. simple: 'cause the GOP knows he'd win.

The fact that they're coming after him full force attack is unarguable. The reason is obvious. So let's give the bush shills their worst nightmare.

[Rooktoven]

12. Come on--

I think the Edwards people could come up with just as many examples of being dissed as the Clark people can. Besides, didn't the general make his preliminary announcement "coincidentally" on the day Edwards had his official announcement?

Win a few states or make a respectable showing and the media will follow. The fact is, despite his stumble in NH (by a mere 800 votes) Edwards pulled over 30% in Iowa, thus proving that at least in some places, he could attract large amounts of votes. Clark has yet to do that except in polls, and in NH he fell a great deal despite spending all his time there. Edwards, split his time there and at least _rose_ from earlier expectations.

This will all settle out after next Tuesday. We may have three serious candidates left, we may have four, but at that point it will be hard not to be judged on performance.

[spooky3]

19. Sorry, I didn't see your post when I posted a similar one! I agree.

[Myra]

13. Bingo. We need to fight this. They refuse to acknowledge him unless

it's to smear him.

Let's email them!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/30/41637/5733

Call to Action for Kossack Clarkies Addendum
by tameszu
Fri Jan 30th, 2004 at 04:16:37 GMT

"You've probably already read the email I sent to Chris Matthews about their lack of debate coverage on General Clark's (finally!) very strong debate performance.
I just realized that there is an even bigger problem: Clark is getted shafted even harder by the AP, whose wire report/poll article give Clark one line in its bottom paragraph--and this story is the one that will of course be used as the wellspring of coverage on the debate for resource-short papers and lazy journalists all across the country.

Please let the AP's National Desk know about this. I'm not sure if this is the right number, but the AP's site seems to suggest 212-621-1600 as the most promising number."

(Stolen from Daily Kos.)

[arewethereyet]

15. they're waiting for post NH polls

Clark's sliding backwards third may damage him while Edwards surging fourth will likely help him.

In short, nothing to talk about except Dean's money problems and the Botox bruhaha.

[spooky3]

20. you forgot about Martha Stewart! :-)

[anti-bush]

23. And Michael Jackson

and Scott Peterson, and whether Secretariat, or Seattle Slew, or Seabiscuit ..... oops, sorry wrong horserace.

[arewethereyet]

24. ah yes, the latest queen of mean hang her frosty butt !

and we can be done with it quickly.

Just in time to have Kobe and Peterson crank back up.

Or is it time for the snipers to make a comeback tour ?

[Skittles]

25. because Clark is their worst nightmare

of all the candidates, Clark will be the hardest to trash.

[MidwestMomma]

28. Because "This is what Democracy looks like"

:eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. or maybe it's more like something that rhymes with "democracy"

starting with the letter "H".

Dean's proclaimed "toast" while he's still the true front-runner (delegates) and Clark is ignored despite finishing ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire.

Why, if I didn't know better, I would think the DLC, the media whores, and the Bush Criminal Empire were all in this together.

[jpgpenn]

29. This has always been the case

Since the get go we had a major handicap to overcome with tactics like this being used. The sad fact is many voter are the type that come home flick on the tv and hear the same name repeated over and over. They then go into the booth and choose that name.

Get the word out!

[Capn Sunshine]

30. Hey , welcome to our world

I have seen the consistent pattern of this since before Iowa.
The corporate media is intentionally marginalizing Clark. Before him , it was Kucinich, Sharpton and CMB.

If it were Kerry or Edwards they'd be spinning out the huzzahs.

The outsiders become a threat, they get no coverage, or a consistent spin as "unelectable".

But, yeah, it's definitely happening to your campaign too.
We know what we're going to do about it. Do you?

[Tweed]

31. Because we sit around instead of writing to the media

I'm guilty of it too, but writing about it on the DU isn't going to do a damn thing.

[NV1962]

35. Here's a simple DIY test to see the pointed end of smearing on the Net

Just look at what's happening with Google News.

First, the generic search on Wes Clark:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Wesley+Clark

The same, at Yahoo! News shows:
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=wesley+clark

Another example, now including "abortion":
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Wesley+Clark+abortion

And on Yahoo! News we find:
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=wesley+clark+abortion

This is the result of targeted action, not by Google News, but by people who organize to apply the "Google-bombing" trick (of "miserable failure" fame) to news reports on Wes Clark, and I fear he's not the only Democrat suffering it.

If you want to jump on them with a request to weed out the rot, write to [e-mail]

[ozone_man]

36. I feel your pain.

Now you know how it felt when the media tried to kill the Dean campaign. We won't let them get away with it. You have you're work cut out for you. I will say that with Dean and Clark campaigns working to fight the unfair media, it can only improve the chances of success.

[DFLforever]

37. It was a policy adopted from the get go

(by the RNC and their media minions) as the best way to deal with the Clark candidacy. He was too hard to attack upfront: he doesn't have a political image or political record yet.

I don't watch cable so I'm not sure of the coverage Edwards gets there, but he gets precious little on the networks.

Dean is hard to ignore. Path-breaking campaign with an army of supporters, abundant funding, dynamic candidate who sounds different from the rest, criticizes Bush, criticizes Dems who support Bush. The media is fascinated with the Dean of candidates.