An interesting trend in RW columnists

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

They're acting as if Clark DOESN'T EXIST -- as if Dean's competition is Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20031227.shtml

Does anyone think Gephardt and Lieberman have a better shot at nomination than Clark??? Come on.

Also, does anybody else smell a fax-spreading rat?

[bryant69]

1. Hmmmmmm.

Very interesting, but as someone who reads the right wing press as well, I'd have to say, you might be right. It's hard to judge Clark, because his star is still rising, but I'd put him at number 2 to four, certainly higher than Lieberman.

But of course Lieberman is the candidate conservatives love, because if given a choice between a real Republican and a phoney Republican, well, most will take the real Republican.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Not just a trend

It's a fixed course that they have been on for a long time, and not just RW columnists. Most of the talking head pundits were doing that from mid October on. I remember one pundit associated with a polling firm going out of his way to say, you know, Dean was the favorite blah, blah, Kerry, Gephardt etc if blah blah, and then making a case that he could see how Edwards might slip in as the campaign moved south. After which he said "I see no scenario under which Clark could win the nomination", point blank - None.

Of course all he had to do was replace Edward's name with Clark's name and voila!; there was his possible scenario. Clark was running stronger against Edwards then just as he is now.

The strategy, starting in October, was to starve Clark of media attention other than focusing on Shelton's slur and that way overblown "controversy" over Clark's stand regarding going into Iraq. Even in late September they were already saying Clark was just a "flavor of the week" who would be in single digits soon. Whenever talk of the Primary "horse race" came up, starting three weeks into Clark's campaign, the standard talking point was to describe it as a failed candidacy and move on to the chances of, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, anyone else, with the constant focus on Dean. Newsweek once announced a poll stating Dean was running best against Bush when the actual results showed that Clark was; that header wasn't corrected until a number of complaints were filed.

Again, the aim was to cripple Clark out of the gate. Since Clark was late entering anyway, if they could manage to delay the date by which people finally realized he was a viable and strong candidate, by a month or 6 weeks, hopefully Clark would no longer have enough time to win enough backing to get the nomination. The public has a short attention span. If they are forced to by obvious facts, in January the pundits can pretend to start taking Clark seriously to preserve their credibility as wise talking heads. Their hope is that by now the damage is already done. Our job is to prove them wrong.

[poskonig]

4. How is Clark polling in NH and Iowa, eh?

Some people can't admit they are supporting a 3rd tier candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. If you define the top tier as the 3 front runners in Iowa

that is your priveledge to do so. I don't think that's how most people define it. There is a way of course in which Iowa is improtant, but in many ways it is a tiny blip. Clinton didn't compete there in 1992 either for what it's worth. Clark is running third currently in NH behind two virtual native sons who have had campaigns camped out in NH for well over a year. Only Dean and Clark have strong efforts underway in most of the Feb. 3rd contests, and polls there show it. But go ahead, define third tier anyway you want, it's a matter of opinion afterall.

[poskonig]

7. The Clark disaster has even spread to SC and OK.

South Carolina and Oklahoma are they states you guys want to win on the 3rd, no? If you can't hold them against Dean now, good luck when Dean gets 100mill in free airtime after he does well in NH and IA while Gephardt or Kerry take the initiative to become the "antiDean."

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I'll wait for the voters to decide when ballots start getting cast.

I was quibbling with your definition of "third tier" that's all.

[poskonig]

10. Before Clark supporters talk about media conspiracies,

they should have better numbers, especially in the states they plan to win. Otherwise the media isn't going to cover your guy without some sort of gimmick, controversial comment, or media stunt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Actually

The sort of benchmark to the "complaint" you seem to disagree with is the degree of serious discussion given to Clark's chances relative to the degree of serious discussion given to other candidates chance's, each of whom consistently poll equal to or lower than Clark in many samples and races. Granted Dean is the frontrunner, and there is nothing surprising or "cooked" about the fact that media discussion focuses on his chances to win, or that his campaign is given praise for being effective. I agree with that praise.

[OrAnarch]

6. I think Clark Supporters overthink/overstate his electability...

They operate immediately on the premise that 90% of America knows, loves, and will vote for this candidate that they have a deep emotion bond with. This is of course, age old psychology, in which people tend to attribute their personal views to an unrealistic quantity and range of people. For some reason, this is done far more by Clark Supporters IMHO.


Perhaps the truth of the matter is Clark really doesn't exist on the political scene whatsoever, expcept only in the minds of the Clark Suporters, who are in a far minority. They are so in touch with this belief and conviction, in almost a religious sense, that they cannot comprehend others have no regard for something they percieve as so normal (natural/sensical/logical/proper/right).


Could this most certainly be an option? Or is it a nation-wide right-wing conspiracy and fax-spreading rat? Sometimes the simplest, and longest established explanation, is the correct one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Nah, that's not it

Sure strong supporters of all candidates tend to be surprised that others don't seem to always "get it", that's not specific to Clark. It happens most with any candidate who excites a degree of enthusiasm at a grass roots level. So no matter how relatively positive press coverage may be, there will always be complaints, granted. But I do think that more is going on.

I don't think there is a giant right wing conspiracy against Clark. I do however think there was a conscious effort made by some Republican operatives and some right leaning owners of some media outlets to marginalize Clark as I mentioned in my post above. I even gave a couple of examples.

You however seem to be looking at some alternate universe with your statement:

"Perhaps the truth of the matter is Clark really doesn't exist on the political scene whatsoever, expcept only in the minds of the Clark Suporters, who are in a far minority."

Pundits aside, unless you are claiming that Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, and Sharpton don't exist on the political scene whatsoever also, since Clark consistently polls as well or better than all of those gents, I think your thesis is flawed. That would leave only Howard Dean exiisting in your political scene. If you are of that opinion it would seem close to the description of political distortion you describe above: "This is of course, age old psychology, in which people tend to attribute their personal views to an unrealistic quantity and range of people."