Letter to Countdown re: Dana Milbank repeating myth about General Clark "bellyflopping"

[Sparkly]

I'm sick of this myth. If anybody missed it, my email to them says it all. (And if any flame-baiters want to repeat the myth some more here, don't bother.)

[e-mail]
Please tell Dana Milbank: General Clark did NOT "bellyflop" in 2003

To the good people at Countdown:

Dana Milbank repeated a long-standing myth to Alison Stewart tonight: that Wesley Clark "bellyflopped" after entering the race in 2003. The facts absolutely do NOT back up this oft-repeated soundbyte. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, General Clark had raised more money than any other candidate except Howard Dean, and he raised it faster. Before Iowa, he was second in New Hampshire (behind Dean) and either first or second in many of the early southern states. He finished third in New Hampshire, but won Oklahoma -- one of few to win any state other than John Kerry.

What changed the equation for Clark was Kerry's enormous momentum coming out of Iowa. Had Clark entered earlier and campaigned in Iowa, things might have been different. But as it was, Clark did extremely well, especially for a non-politician, and he graciously dropped out when it was clear Kerry was to be the nominee.

So tell Dana Milbank (and anyone else who repeats this myth, notably Tucker Carlson who repeats it at every opportunity): General Clark did NOT "bellyflop." And many people -- myself included -- hope he decides to run again.

Regards,

(Sparkly)

[flpoljunkie]

1. Give 'em hell, sparkly! K&R!

[Fridays Child]

2. It's a far cry from bellyflopping but they get away with the meme because...

...Kerry eclipsed every other democratic contender, after Iowa. I always felt the powers that be decided on Kerry--democratic process be damned.

Since the elections of 2000 and 2004, I've never quite shaken the feeling that none of it is really ever our choice and that, in the upper echelons of U.S. political power, Ds and Rs at the ends of names are, sometimes, pretty damn meaningless.

[grasswire]

40. you know, it's possible that THEY are rigging our primaries.

Why wouldn't they? In for a penny, in for a pound.

[karynnj]

48. No, it was the voters - that is democracy

After Kerry won Iowa, many people took a second look at him and liked what they saw.

At various times the media pushed:
Dean, who was on the cover of three newsmagazines in the same week.
Clark, who the media raved over as a knight in shining armor and "one of the 2 stars in the party" by Clinton.
Edwards, who got many articles as the "sunny" alternative. The NYT had an op-ed still arguing that they knew the Democratic nominee would be John, but the last name wasn't yet known at a point where Kerry had won 16 primaries and Edwards only South Carolina. This ignored that a week later, many big states would vote including NY, CA, and MA. Kerry had double digit advantages in polls.

Leading up to Iowa, Kerry mostly got stories on when he would drop out. There was one a week before Iowa, that conjectured he would be out for sure after NH - having done no better than third in each. Only after he won Iowa, did he get much media coverage. He didn't get a NYT magazine cover story till fall 2004. Like it or not, Kerry won the old fashioned way - convincing people face to face or in teh primary debates.

[Fridays Child]

49. If only I could believe that. eom

[Adelante]

50. That's how I remember it, too

Except after Iowa, Wes got just about zero media coverage, no matter how well he did against everybody who was not Kerry.

[Totally Committed]

3. Awesome letter, Sparkly.

I hope Wes gets the last laugh on these bozos!

TC

[elleng]

31. TOTALLY!!!!!!!

We're still working on that laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!

luv, e

[FrenchieCat]

4. I'll send one in as well!

It's terrible the way the "meme" that are untrue keep being perpetuated by the Media. Either they are lazy or they just want the lie to become a truth, so they keep repeating it, early and often.

My recollection is that Clark came in 1st in Oklahoma, and 2nd in Arizona, North Dakota, and New Mexico, 3rd in New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Virginia. In the other few contests that he contested in (he wasn't in Iowa) he didn't fare as well, but didn't that badly either, as he was even or 1or 2 percentage points behind Edwards. His worse showing was probably in South Carolina. The states where he fared the worst in were the ones that one would have needed that Iowa momentum that he didn't get cause he wasn't there. I mean, for one getting no publicity at all, Wes Clark actually did quite well, in fact, the media if they were "normal" would recognized that what he was able to accomplish was actually quite a feat!

[Sparkly]

5. I couldn't remember all those 2nd places

Thanks! Please post your letter when you've sent it? :hi:

[Cameron27]

8. It's both. The press is lazy

and they lie. They pidgeon-holed Clark as "lesser" candidate from the get-go, and then proceeded to treat him that way. It looks like they're going the same route this time, but at least now, Wes knows better.

[elleng]

34. me too, frenchie,

thanks for the list. wiki is WAY off, and needs editing badly.

i think they're lazy, so we have to inform them, early and often. i'm gonna write milbank at Post too, and may cc cilizza.

if we don't do it, no one will.

[blm]

6. Not to mention that Clark was one of the FEW Democrats countering the GOP

bignames throughout the 2004 campaign. The less known Clark and Cleland would show up almost nightly while the GOPs had their bignames Giuliani, McCain and Dole pounding away night after night.

Sometimes it seemed like Kerry, Clark and Cleland against the entire DC powerstructure and their broadcast media whores.

[Adelante]

19. It was nice Kerry flew him around in a plane

Wes did do a great job for Kerry. Then he outdid himself on 2006. I don't know where the man gets the energy, I really don't.

[Dinger]

7. Good One Sparkly! I'm SendingMine Now! K & R!!!

Whassa matter. Are they AFRAID of winning???
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Cameron27]

9. Thanks Sparkly,

Great letter. I can't send anything since MSNBC only uses Outlook Express. x(

[Dinger]

10. Here's My Letter. It's Not Awesome, But I Sent It Anyway:

Hello Countdown:

Clark a "belly-flopper"? I don't think so. A national treasure? Yes, that would be more like it. I suggest you have him on, whether Faux "News" likes it or not. But I guess you'd break the Wesley Clark Law if you did that. Oh, in case you didn't know, that's the law that was instituted in the 2004 election, that said mentioning him whose name must remain unmentioned will bring eternal hell and damnation to you and your ENTERTAINMENT network. Keith Olbermann is the exception to that rule, so I guess there is a time when you have real news on. I bet Keith wouldn't be afraid to have Wes Clark on. Go ahead, do it. Let's see what happens. He deserves a chance to respond to your false accusation.

Thank you

[Cameron27]

11. Oh Dinger, I love that!

ROFL, Wesley Clark Law! So true.

[Dinger]

12. Why Thank You My seasonedblue Friend!

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[jenmarie]

15. Smack 'em down!

I know we're supposed to be "polite" but enough is enough! Great letter, Dinger!

[Dinger]

16. Thank You My DU Friend : )

:)

[jenmarie]

13. Good job, Sparkly!!

Richsez posted about Milbank's smear at CCN and the letters are flying! Thank you!!

[jenmarie]

14. P.S.

Richsez posted this link to email Milbank directly.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dana+milbank/

[Cameron27]

18. Thanks for the link jenmarie,

I just sent one paraphrasing FrenchieCat's post. I'm so sick of this nonsense.

[Donna Zen]

17. I hope we all understand what's going on

They want to depress Wes Clark's ability to raise money.

Once you know how they work, it all becomes transparently ugly.

[elleng]

37. dz,

that's why we have to kick them, early and often. AND ASK FOR CORRECTIONS. and remind them they're responsible for the current state of affairs.

[populistdriven]

20. Milhouse has been annoying me lately. nt

[capi888]

21. Mine is on the way!!

I heard him say "belly flop" and I went beserk. What the hell! I think,these reporters are bought and sold!! They go with the highest bidder. They want to SPIN with words...just to satisfy their Corporate stockholders. Milbank is a wimpering lazy reporter!! Where are the facts!!
We have them , why don't they???? Grrrrrr

[TwilightGardener]

22. I don't remember him "bellyflopping" at all, just thought he got in too late.

Was that the meme around him at the time? I didn't watch the pundits much that election.

[Donna Zen]

26. The pundits were very careful

They never mentioned him....at all. Clark and Dean were running 1, 2, or 3 in most of the states prior to Iowa. The media while busy heckling Dean never mentioned Clark. In case you think that I'm exaggerating, I will tell you that I kept a paper on my coffee table with a running tally. Judy Woodruff on the daily politics program, never said Clark's name for 19 days. I'd say the media belly flopped except what I think happened was that they took a dive. The last thing bush wanted was a general out there splitting the military vote.

[TwilightGardener]

36. No, sadly, I don't think you're exaggerating--I remember Judy Woodruff

doing her CNN/politics gig (I don't watch her wherever she is now), and I can believe she'd pull shit like that. Never liked or trusted her.

[FrenchieCat]

30. There were several, all meant to "depress" his popularity......

There was, "he's fading away"...you know, like Old Soldiers are supposed to?
Then there was, "he's not ready for Primetime", and "he's not good on the stomp".....
And then there was the "he's a Republican", "he was really for the War", and then, "Clark who?"

Then low and behold, in January of 2004, to the pundits' amazement, Clark came out polling only a few points behind Dean(he had done so since his entry, but then lost polling numbers in November due to lack of Clark Coverage by the media)....and Dean was starting to slide (due to the Canada footage of "Dean talking about the Iowa Caucus").....and then all of the sudden it was total silence on Wes Clark who was no longer included in Pundit conversation. At the time he was polling first in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, North Dakota, Virginia, Tennessee and was 2nd in South Carolina, and doing well in many other states...and picking up steam in New Hampshire polls (had just surpassed Kerry there).

Then the Michael Moore "Bush is a deserter" assault on Wes Clark came from all of the News Media (and noone in the Democratic party stood up for Wes), and then silence on Clark again. The various local media wasn't so bad, but the National Media refused to ever say his name. I think that CNN went for 6 weeks from December through January without a mention of Wes Clark. After the Iowa Momentum for Kerry and Edwards, Clark basically was totally disappeared. This is why his placing in quite a few states as I noted in my other post was quite amazing, and to the dismay of the corporate media. It was obvious that "they" weren't going to allow Wes Clark anywhere near standing next to Bush in a debate. I believe that had Wes Clark been given even just a little exposure, he could have gone all of the way.

Here's some more information on that, http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clark_did_hella_goodthe_20.html including reports showing Clark being intentionally left out although his polling numbers should have made him a frontrunner (funny how then, they only had 1 frontrunner when Clark was polling second (Dean), and then only two Frontrunners when Clark was polling third --after Iowa it was only Kerry and Edwards with Dean imploding that the media reported on.)

[TwilightGardener]

35. I was pulling for Clark in 2004, and I remember looking for news

and often not hearing any--seemed like Dean and Kerry sucked up all the oxygen, and that always seemed strange to me. I think Edwards, in his national number three spot now, gets way more attention than Clark ever did. I do believe that he would have easily been the most formidable, and I can believe that Repub-dominated media would keep quiet about him, knowing this. The only way to win is with national publicity. It's as critical as money.

[Texas_Kat]

23. Mine... Numbers courtesy of "A Wes Clark Dem"

Mr. Milbank, your snide comment about Wes Clark's 04 campaign was uncalled for, and worse yet, your opinion seemed to 'catapult' a meme that is completely untrue. If you have such little regard for the truth, best share your opinions with the other guys at the bar and restrain yourself when appearing on Keith's show. He's not into propaganda. Here are some facts that you seem to have intentionally overlooked or dismissed.

The Clark04 campaign was more successful than most of the others in 04, despite substantial odds. Better than all the other career politicians except Kerry.

After Iowa, the only 3 serious contenders left were Kerry, Clark and Edwards.

Fundraising
Leaving John Kerry and his $253,859,245 aside and based on available data up to November 29, 2006, two 2004 primary candidates are listed:
• John Edwards raised $26,973,278 for the 2004 primary over a period of 14 months.
• Wesley Clark raised $21,971,302 for the 2004 primary over a period of 5 months.

• Wesley Clark raised $4,394 260.40 a month for the 2004 primary.
• John Edwards raised $1,926 662.71 a month for the 2004 primary.

http://www.capitaleye.org/prezhopefuls_fed.asp

Campaign Wins and Losses

Edwards officially announced his campaign on January 2, 2003 and finished it on March 3, 2004; 14 months.
Clark officially announced his campaign on September 17, 2003 and finished on February 11, 2004; 5 months.

From the CarpetBagger Report (an accurate summary, BTW)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html

After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates — Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards — met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.

In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests.

In those first eight post-Iowa primaries, if we look only at top-two finishes (candidates who came in either first or second), Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one.

[Clark2008]

27. Looks like "belly-flopping" is the new "forward group."

Milbank doesn't understand that Clarkies are WELL-INFORMED.

Not that he'll make a correction. :(

[Texas_Kat]

24. dupe post

dupe, self delete

[Clark2008]

25. Bookmarking to remind myself to write in the morning when

I'm not so danged tired.

[latinjum]

28. I added my 2-cents worth to Milbanks . . .

So, once Wes Clark got in to the race he did a great big belly flop? And your supporting evidence for this statement is what?

Let's see, maybe the fact that he discovered that he couldn't raise any money to compete? Oh, that's right, he raised $3.5 million in the first 2 weeks of his campaign, was 2nd only to Dean in the 4th quarter of 2003, and a total of about $29 million in the 5 months he was a candidate (and that in comparison to Edwards who took the entire 12 months of 2003 to raise $20 million), so that can't be it.

Then maybe it was that he discovered that he didn't actually have any "real" plans for anything - you know, he was just an "empty suit", so to speak. Well, not according to this: As a candidate for political office, he has been a quick study. Senator Bob Graham of Florida, after withdrawing his own candidacy, said of Clark, "Within the first couple of weeks of Wes' announcement, he had given five or six major speeches on different issues. He didn't just scribble those on the back of an envelope. He was well-prepared - better prepared than we were." And it has only gotten better and better and better.

So, what was it? Oh, I know, maybe it was that he discovered that he couldn't really get anyone to actually vote for him. Well, no, it couldn't be that, since a lot of people actually did vote for him (see below).

It's true that Clark skipped Iowa and he made some other mistakes, but who didn't in 2004? The facts I remember are these. Kerry won Iowa. Gephardt came in 4th and was done. Kerry won NH. Dean came in 2nd, but he was done. Lieberman came in 5th, and he was done. Edwards came in 2nd in Iowa and could only manage to turn that into a 4th place finish in NH. Wes Clark came in 3rd in NH. The only 3 candidates left standing after NH were Kerry, Clark, and Edwards. The next Tuesday there were 7 states - neither Clark nor Edwards had campaigns on the ground in either Delaware or Missouri and didn't actively campaign in either. Of the other 5, Edwards won his birth state of SC, Clark won Oklahoma, and Clark beat Edwards in NM, ND, and Arizona. At that point, everyone knew that Kerry was the presumptive nominee. Clark was ready to end his campaign, but the decision was made to go one more week into Tennessee and Virginia, where Kerry won, Edwards came in 2nd, and Clark 3rd. So, in the 8 states where Edwards and Clark actually actively competed against each other, Edwards had one 1st, three 2nds, three 3rds and one 4th - Clark had one 1st, three 2nds, three 3rds, and one 4th. So, would you say Edwards "belly flopped" also, because after running for 3 years he couldn't manage to do any better than someone who been running for only 5 months?

So, when I hear people like you or anyone else denigrating Wes Clark and suggesting that he ran a "terrible" campaign, my question always is, "As compared to whom?" Gephardt, Lieberman, Dean? I don't think so. Edwards? Again, I don't think so. Because even Edwards, who started running in 2001, didn't end up doing any better than Clark when it came to actual results in head-to-head competiton with Clark. And Edwards had neither the good sense nor the good manners of a true Southern gentleman to bow out after Feb. 10th, as Clark did, when he ended his campaign, gracefully, and endorsed Kerry the next day.

And don't forget, it was Clark who added some real backbone to the Democratic presidential candidates. He was the one candidate who didn't run away from the word "liberal", he was the one who took on the Republicans on the flag and patriotism and faith and family and values, he was the one who said years ago that we didn't have to live in fear, in spite of 9/11, he was the one who said that dissent is one of the highest forms of patriotism. Maybe you should go back and watch his speech at the 2004 convention, when his words on these very things alternately brought the convention to silence - because of the story he told, and how he told it, about the flag and patriotism and service and veterans - and then to rousing applause and cheering when he defended in no uncertain terms the Democratic Party and what it believed in and stood for and it's long list of "great" presidents and accomplishments. And if you really think that "once Clark became a candidate he did a great big belly flop", then maybe you can explain why, in 2006, Clark was the most requested surrogate for Democratic candidates.

Now, I'll wait for whatever evidence you have to back up your contention, because I'm quite sure that a big-time, well-regarded, Washington-insider reporter like yourself would never go on national TV and make a statement that you couldn't support with facts.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Most Excellent, and.....

Welcome! :hi:

[Cameron27]

33. That's an exceptional email!

Thank you so much!

Welcome to DU:hi:

[elleng]

39. FABULOUS,

latinjum! that's some 2 cents!

[jenmarie]

41. Wish there was a way

to recommend a comment, because this is deserving of many stars! Most excellent, latinjum!!

[BootinUp]

29. One thing I learned from 2004

the story of the primary campaigns as reported in the news is so often completely wrong as to indicate it is almost a non-event or not important to get it right. Everyone wants to tell the story with their own twist and often their own facts. Anyways, its important to me and I'm glad you wrote in with a correction.

[Auntie Bush]

38. I just sent Dana a letter even though I wasn't home to see KO.

I'll catch his repeat in a couple of minutes.
Thanks for the post wife of Husband to Sparkly.

[calteacherguy]

42. Clark is a championship level swimmer; he does not bellyflop. nt

[BillORightsMan]

43. My short note to Milbank

Ya know, these cretins never give up a meme, just parrot the inside-the-beltway crap.
Dana Milbank is a TOOL. :grr:

My short letter:

"Once (Clark) got into the race he did a great big belly flop"
-Dana Milbank on Countdown 6-30-07

Amazing. Al Gore speaks on Countdown about raising the level of discourse, about the Assault on Reason, and YOU Mr. Milbank, ignored EVERY WORD and just threw in derisive incredible misinformation about the Clark04 campaign. In one small sentence. No backup. No facts. Just an off-the-cuff attack on General Wes Clark and his entire 2004 campaign. For what reason would you lash out with such a childish comment against such an outstanding and intelligent American?

Sure, Clark's campaign was not without warts, but name me ONE candidate's campaign that isn't? As I recall, in late December 2003 in a poll of head-to-head matchups, Clark BEAT Bush. Clark WON in Oklahoma after a third place finish in New Hampshire, with several 2nd place finishes mixed in. To slander the Clark04 campaign (and by association the DraftClark campaign) as a "great belly flop" is insulting, uncalled for and inacurate at best.

The Draft Clark grassroots campaign was THE VERY FIRST of its kind EVER. Now it's "Draft This" and "Draft That". It has been said that imitation is the highest form of compliment. Draft Fred Thompson? Please. Accept no substitutes. Or astroturf operations like Draft Fred Thompson.

I think an on-air apology is in order, and I'll give you four stars for doing it. And I'll add a towel to wipe off the egg on your face.

Fill up the Milbank WaPo mailbox here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/dana+milbank/

imbillorightsmanandiapprovethismessage
:patriot:
www.BillORightsMan.com

[elleng]

44. BillO,

I sent to post and countdown, not as short as yours, nor as kind: no towel!

[Duppers]

45. I cannot stand Milbank

and I've complained for years about him. I don't understand why Keith keeps having him on.

This a slick tool.

[AtomicKitten]

46. A distasteful characterization of Clark's 2004 campaign

... but very typical of the Media Heathers.

An excerpt from a piece I wrote about the Media vs. Al Gore circa 2000:

CNN's Reliable Sources August 10, 2002 was a genuine eye-opener. Guest Josh Marshall, webmaster of Talking Points, stated, "... I think deep down most reporters just have contempt for Al Gore. I don't even think it's dislike. It's more like disdain and contempt."

None of the talking heads disagreed. Guest Dana Milbank, White House reporter for the Washington Post offered, "You know what it is? I think that Gore is sanctimonious and that's sort of the worst thing in the eyes of the press. And he has been disliked all along and it was because he gives a sense that he is better than us ... as reporters."

[NCarolinawoman]

47. Clark and Gore are too earnest, too serious . They know the world is literally ready to blow apart.

They have not developed the art of kissing a "reporter's" rear-end. They are not the ones that the "reporters" want to have a beer with.

Back in 2004 I heard Evan Thomas of Newsweek say the words out loud: After speaking well of Clark's resume he said, "But after all is said and done, the guy can be so intense, do you really want to have a beer with him?"

So using this criteria, they chose Bush, the alcoholic.

[robcon]

51. Anyone who wants to restrain debate on DU, like Sparkly

will only get more of same from me...

When Sparkly states "And if any flame-baiters want to repeat the myth some more here, don't bother."

Clark laid an egg in Iowa. Nyah Nyah Nyah.

[Czolgosz]

52. Clark didn't lay an egg in Iowa. He wouldn't even to go near that Iowa rooster.

[Adelante]

54. Surely Clark laid an egg in Iowa

And every place else he didn't run.

[Sparkly]

55. Knock yourself out.

Consider "don't bother" a suggestion, knowing there are enough Clarkies here to set the record straight that repeating the myth here won't get you anywhere.

But if it was worth the "nyah nyah nyah," go for it. :eyes:

[NCarolinawoman]

56. How can you lay an egg if you don't go into the coop?

:silly:

[autorank]

53. Milbank is just being Milbank. Talk about cynical.

Clark ran hard and had a Goring from the corporate media. They suppressed the truth of the news and
they trashed the true patriots telling the truth in campaigns, Dean and Clark.

I thought Clark did great in NH and always wondered how that came out the way it did.

He's a great guy and he does his political work at great sacrifice. He'd pull down 1-2 million a
year as a consultant if he were not taking so much time to help his country.

...and there's the lesson, self sacrifice, patriotic behavior, telling the truth, and providing warning
against great danger gets you what in the corporate media?

INSULTS and MISINFORMATION.

Gen. Clark is someone I admire and respect. That won't change because of Dana Milbank
or anyone else.