Fox News Channel has signed Gen. Wesley Clark

[onehandle]

Fox News Channel has signed Gen. Wesley Clark as a military and foreign affairs analyst, Bill Shine, senior vice president of programming, said yesterday.

Clark, briefly a candidate in the 2004 Democratic primary before throwing his support behind Sen. John Kerry, said, "I am excited by this opportunity to ... offer my perspective to the important issues facing the United States and the global community."

This is a small snippet piece from here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/lifestyle/bal-to.people16jun16,1,6460826.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

[Doctor_J]

1. Faux must be worried about their tumbling ratings

If they hire 10 more real Dems, they will almost be Fair and Balanced

[jojo54]

2. Either they are getting smart about their ratings or

they're going to use him as a scapegoat. I think it's the former though.

[Roland99]

5. Both.

[Horse with no Name]

3. You know what they sayyyyyyy

When you lay down with dogs you get fleas.
I really hate to see him whore himself to these parasites.

[AlinPA]

32. This is a major win for the phony Fox "News".Now he legitimizes the jerks

[high density]

63. Umm, actually Clark is going to bring his analysis to...

...the uninformed fools watching Fox News. How else are we going to reach these people if we keep avoiding one of the primary propaganda outlets of the GOP?

[LeighAnn]

75. He's bound to get fired

They'll not keep him on long, I'll bet

[WatchWhatISay]

98. There you go! That's what is behind this.

They'll fire him for his "radical views" which will anger the largest cable watching constituency in the U. S. So if hes too radical for such a large portion of the country, how could he be taken seriously as a candidate.

Educate their viewers? That assumes they dont think they already know it all.

[demokatgurrl]

99. If he doesn't get fired, I'll lose respect for him. n/t

[emcguffie]

93. thank you for apt observation. nt

[autorank]

153. high density, This is the EXACT point. Missionary work to those in need..

...desparete need. If he can peel off 20% of them, they'll just was Fox for Clark's show and tune in to the real news network...well, they'll get on the internet. Great point.

[calimary]

53. Yep, this is troubling.

Wesley Clark does NOT belong with these jackals. Unless he aims to become more like them, or to start "adjusting" his message to win more of the viewers in the Pox "news" mindset.

Troubling. I'm surprised. People like Clark should be doing everything imaginable to help DEFEAT Pox "news" - rather than becoming an enabler. Is he choosing to be part of the problem rather than the solution?

Sorry - I won't be tuning in over there even to see him.

Because. I. Simply. Do. NOT. Watch. Pox. "news." PERIOD.

[dchill]

96. I don't like it, either ...

but at least some highly misinformed viewers will hear something intelligent, something true. And Fox's viewer numbers are easily twice that of any other cable "news" network, so maybe this is a strategy that will work for Clark.

It's possible...

[Adelante]

Don't be troubled, calimary

I know it is a surprise to many, but this is actually in keeping with how he sees the Dems becoming the winning party in the red and purple states in 2006 -- Dean's 50-state strategy is similar. Wes believes the Democratic message is the winning message, but unless the moderate segment of this type of audience is in hearing distance, no matter what we say is preaching to the choir.

Wes has been talking about this for over a year now. He thinks it's criminal to let the right wing hate machine go unchecked. The Dems have to get on conservative media and get the Dem message out there. That's what he's doing. He's not afraid of anything Fox can do to him. He's never been afraid to go on Fox News.

So, don't watch Fox, but don't lose faith over this. It's a gutsy move and somebody's got to do it.

If we ever want to win elections again.

We simply do not have a large enough base to ensure it. We have to add to our base by drawing back the Reagan Dems. The Bush regime is going down the tubes and the Republican party can go down too, if the Dems are smart about it. Wes is one smart Dem, I think you would agree.

Give him the benefit of the doubt, a least.

[FizzFuzz]

134. I agree with you and WesDem---Clark will be able to talk to the Fox people

far better than I could.

I think its smart. And, IF they do him badly, it gives him a larger audience when he fights back.

[saskatoon]

137. does not belong

you are not thinking this thing through. The guy is NOT dumb, he wnts to be a voice of reason on that idiot station and hopefully he will catch the ear of some who are on the fence, especially those who ADMIRE Military and turn them around. Don't jump to conclusions my friend, we are all striving for the same thing.

[Tomee450]

152. deleted

[underpants]

4. Wes introduces himself (in person) to the right

Damned smart of you Wes.

I will look forward to him offering something very different to Fox viewers.

[tabasco]

124. I trust General Clark.

This struck me as odd at first, but I trust General Clark's judgment. He supported Howard Dean recently and I sure don't think he is going to the dark side. He is trying to spread the liberal message to the uneducated masses. A brave thing to do, but I suppose the other posters are correct that he won't last long there. He will embarrass the dumb asses too much. I give him about three months before he leaves Faux, laughing his ass off after making them all look like the fools they are.

[getmeouttahere]

6. Why is he legitimizing Faux News???

That's all he's doing by signing with these people. It's not like they are going to change the rest of their so-called programming.

[malmapus]

7. My first thought right there was the same

WHY WES!???

[Horse with no Name]

11. Will be hard to justify

Whoring for the government propaganda channel.
They won't listen to what he has to say.
They won't convert--instead--they will take it as a sign that he is going to the dark side.
They will politicize this to the end of earth...I think it is a very bad move on Clark's part.
It cheapens him.

[Clark2008]

65. There are tons of people - moderate Republicans

and even those who don't think they're political who don't know Faux is a channel of propaganda. Faux is on in nearly every salon, repair shop, restaurant and bar in the South and mid-West as a result. People really think Faux is telling the truth and refuse to watch anything else.
Wes introducing himself to these moderate and/or disgruntled Republicans and those swing voters is a GOOD thing.
Therefore, your theory that no one will "convert" isn't exactly accurate.
I think this is brilliant strategy for introducing himself to those people. We have to grow our base and Clark's the man to do it.

[Horse with no Name]

118. Because I respect your views

I will defer and hope you are right.

[reprobate]

78. I've heard Roger Ailes wants to turn Fox into a legitimate news outlet.

This is a step in that direction. Designed to show that he wants to be balanced. Believe it? I reserve my descision.

[malmapus]

80. Same here, will reserve my judgement till I see it. ..eom

...

[Al-CIAda]

87. BULLSHIT!!! Listen to his press confrence back when he first took over-

in '99 -he said the same lie back then too and assured he would be objective.

Lies, spin, and deception.

[JNelson6563]

79. Maybe he finally got that call he waited for

but never came....

:shrug: ;-)

[bunkerbuster1]

8. I daresay Wes Clark is bigger than crap-ass FauxNews

Faux gets, maybe, a million or so sheeple on a good day.

Hope Wes knows what he's doing, but I suspect he does. Godspeed.

[Tempest]

19. Faux News is already "legitimate"

Like it or not, Faux News is the number one cable news station.

Clark isn't going to pay Murdoch's game and this is an opportunity for the left to get a word in edgewise. An opportunity wasted when Colmes was picked to appear with Hannity.

[Horse with no Name]

74. A station that is losing its viewership in droves

So now they bring in the Dem's and say "Gee, we lost it because we added Dem's"
That jeopardizes a chance for the left to get a channel.
If there isn't any money--they won't do it.
This WILL be spun to hurt Dems in one way or another.
What was that quote (paraphrased) that Fox said a couple weeks ago "We occasionally let Dems speak, before we eat them?"
Or something to that effect.
This really sickens me. No good can come of it.

[BadNews]

101. Losing viewers to who? Not the other networks.

Their viewership may be down but that is because TV news in general is down. People who want truth, are finding news outside the televised media and circulated news print.

Their percentage of news viewers continues to grow last time I checked. Perhaps their number of viewers is down because it is a damn slow news cycle. No election, no new war, judges are decided, Jackson acquitted, Peterson condemned. You don't expect them to actually criticize the war do you? Do you think they'd go around digging for proof against this administration?

Summer is simply a time where political news drops off the map, and people quit paying attention. When an issue pops up that the normally apathetic masses care about, I believe the number of faux viewers will once again jump as will the number of viewers for other networks.

If the other networks want to compete, they are going to have to become the anti-fox by doggedly pursuing the important stories that Faux refuses to look at.

[neuvocat]

128. Possibly the internet.

I know I've stopped watching quite a while ago.

As for General Clark's decision to join Fox, I'm just going to wait before I make any decision as to whether this is good, bad, or otherwise.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. He's legitimizing himself to the the viewers of Fox.

In '08 they will be familiar with him, and the right will not be able to characiture him as they were able to do with Dean and Kerry, and as they now do with Clinton.

I think that Fox doesn't really know what they are doing for him.

[AlinPA]

34. He will come out of this like a cheap Fox "News" person. This

is playing right into their hands. Crap.

[Tempest]

46. Do you really think so little of Clark?

Clark can more than hold his own with the Faux cheap suits and talking heads.

[high density]

64. Huh???

Are you insinuating that Clark sells out his values to the highest bidder? I think not.

I don't understand why everybody in this thread is so afraid of having an intelligent and liberal guy like General Clark talking about military and foreign affairs on Fox News.

[Clark2008]

69. No he is not.

He worked for CNN as a military/foreign policy advisor before and no one thought of him as "cheap."

In fact, it's how he got exposure and why so many of us fell head over heels for his statements.

This is a good thing - particularly for his Southern Strategy. Believe me - I'm in the South.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

109. Evidently, you don't know much about Clark.

[bluedog]

9. ahhhhh...............hes working the media for him!

as an analyst he can say what he knows about the war in Iraq......he can say it was planned all wrong.and when its time to get the hell out........I do not think he will be at fox long......he has his own ideas and this way.....the GOP'ers who watch fox will see him as an up front guy......just my opinion.........

[Frederik]

50. I think you're right

I think it's a smart move.

[Morose]

104. I think he needs to do more public service

He should run for governor or something that gives him civilian experience, rather than just more media service.

Military fine.
News guy....not so fine.

The exposure is good, but I don't think that he'll make President just by being a pundit for the next 3 years.

[Frederik]

129. I don't really think he will be president anyway

Just a tad too inexperienced with politics and public service. I think he can do a good job as a voice of sanity on Fox, maybe winning over a few redstaters.

[pacalo]

10. This disappoints me.

I don't see any good coming out of this. It's a bad move.

[Tempest]

17. I disagree

Clark is his own man and won't compromise. And I don't see Clark toning down his criticism of the administration.

Nor will he let the Faux talking heads push him around like Colmes allows Hannity to make him his bitch.

[pacalo]

36. Regardless of Clark's impeccable character,

he should not associate himself with Faux News. I can only speak for myself & what perception I have of Faux News, but I hope his association with that bag of fleas doesn't bring him down.

Please reconsider, Wes!

[NoKillShelterGuy]

58. ROTF....

LMAO!!!!

[i miss america]

37. There's an old saying...

General Wes is quite familiar with Sun Tsu's classic, The Art of War: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

I see this as simply a modern day execution of that time-tested lesson. Have confidence in him. I really believe he knows what he's doing.

:patriot:

[pacalo]

48. ...if you say so

Because I do respect your opinion.

:yourock:

(But I'm still disappointed. x()

[calimary]

55. I hope you're correct, but I have my doubts.

Nevertheless, the lessons in "The Art of War" are well-worth considering.

[returnable]

56. True. But...

...having "FOX News" on his resume won't help him with the base. At all. (Then again, a lot of those folks already dislike him, so who cares?)

It's a curious move, but I'll reserve judgement until we actually see his act on the air.

[high density]

68. Umm, Kerry had the fucking "base" more than anybody could have and he LOST

Wes is obviously trying to reach out to inform the brainwashed that are probably lacking any sort of reality since they're watching Fox News.

[returnable]

85. Umm, ya still need the base to win the nomination.

:hi:

Make no mistake, I'm a Wes Clark supporter. And I'm sure he sees this as an opportunity to reach a new audience (and anyone who has seen him on the stump recently knows that is a big part of his message).

But as I originally stated, going on the Fox payroll is a curious strategy to winning the party's nomination - and that's what is being discussed. I suppose it's quite possible Wes is just doing what he thinks is best for improving the political dialogue in this country. And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

But if he's hoping to win the party's nomination in 2008, being a Fox employee could work against him (anyone who was here during the Primary Wars can attest to that). The fact is right-leaning independents and moderate Republicans will NOT be choosing the next Democratic nominee.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

111. It would have helped a great deal if Kerry had controlled the....

...electronic voting machines, wouldn't you say?

I'm always amazed, despite all that we now know about the ruthless people that are currently in control of the country, that some folks continue to want to blame Democrats for the results of the "elections" of 2000, 2002, and 2004.

[high density]

154. Don't buy it

I think blaming it on the voting machines is a copout at this point. It's obvious there was some voter fraud going on in 2004, but I don't think it was so widespread that it would have changed the outcome of the election. I've talked to many idiots that, given their economic situation and general worldview, should have been Kerry voters last time around but voted for Bush for whatever reason.

[Sterling]

89. "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

That works both ways you know? I would like to say this is a big mistake but compaired to just about everything else Democrats are doing wrong this is small taters.

I am glad I gave up on politics and only show up here from time to time to read the news. Even that has become harder to do.

[mazzarro]

51. Absolutely BAD MOVE WES!

eom

[OzarkDem]

157. Agree

He's no match for their ability to manipulate his message. You can't reason with right wing ideologues, especially when they're in charge.

I'm afraid Wes may have bitten off more than he can chew.

[evermind]

12. Maybe Murdoch is hedging his bets for '06 and '08..

He doesn't have any principles, he just wants to back the winner.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. The Cons will be abandoning Faux View in droves soon

It looks like they are slowly and subtley veering in a different direction. Perhaps they've designated the Left as the new niche market to capture for the 10 year plan.

When they axe Hannity, it's a sure sign that the country's pendulum has swung (snapped!! more like it) in the direction of the Left. :woohoo:

[Charles19]

130. I agree

You can only run a pure propaganda machine so long before it burns itself out. The sooner Faux goes down the better but I am sorry to say the neo-cons are too damn good at creating propaganda machines and the next Faux news may be even worse than this one.

[oscarmitre]

159. Murdoch has priors for that

His newspaper in Australia in 1972 (only one of two national newspapers here) backed the Whitlam-led Australian Labor Party against a moribund conservative coalition government. It might be that Murdoch saw they were on the way out and wanted to hop on the Labor waggon or perhaps he realised the previous government was running down the country but he backed Labor. Of course he canned Labor three years later but it might be that he's getting Fox (it's known that Murdoch exerts complete control) ready to move to the centre to take advantage of the coming dumping of the Republicans.

[formerrepuke]

13. It's (hopefully) a calculated move on his part.. A chance for all

the RWers to see what a real blue-blooded (Democrat) -like Clark- is all about.. and they wouldn't dare doubt his patriotism or service to the country.

[getmeouttahere]

16. Why wouldn't they?

Why wouldn't they doubt his service to his country? Look what they did to Max Cleland. Not to mention McCain, one of their own, and Kerry.

[rodeodance]

23. yes--they smash anyone's patriatism--it is on of their best tools (unfor-

tuately. I do not know what to think of Wes. joining the fray.

[sniffa]

14. he just wants to take a chunk out of oLLie north

[ixion]

15. I always knew there was something I didn't trust about Clark

and this just goes to prove it. I don't really care what his reasoning is FAUX is NOT NEWS and by becoming an analyist for them all he does is attempt to throw a veil of legitimacy on them, which I will not accept.

[AlinPA]

35. I totally agree; it is not News. Propaganda for republicans. Thats it.

[high density]

70. No, it gets an intelligent person on Fox News to shut down

some of the bullshit that is flowing from that horrible network.

[ixion]

92. yeah, well, that remains to be seen...

:evilgrin:

[BadNews]

102. Didn't it take Clark quite a while to decide which party to join?

I seem to remember that he toyed with becoming a republican for a while before he decided to run as a Democrat. Perhaps he still isn't sure which side of the fence he belongs on.

[ixion]

126. those kind of people are the worst kind, IMO, because

you never know when they'll turn on you.

As I said originally... Even before Clark decided to run for the WH I always thought he was creepy, and I didn't trust him.

That's my opinion, and I'm sitckin' to it. ;-)

[lumpy]

155. Sorry , he is not in Zell Miller's league.

As for the truth, Clark's record speaks for itself.

[Fluffdaddy]

20. freerepublic's are freaking out..........LOL

[rodeodance]

24. thanks for the tip-=-makes it a good day just to hear that.

[Daphne08]

135. Hahaha

:applause:

[RunningFromCongress]

21. If he wants to run again this is a smart move IMO

1. All the red-voters will get to know him, trust him, see he knows what he's talking about.

2. Fox will have a hard time bashing one of their ex-analysts when the time comes.

3. Stays in public eye and keeps name out there w/o getting involved in political messes that could backfire.

Pretty smart move, and I'm not even a "Clark fan-boy"

[Conker]

66. You make good points.

I'm still skeptic, though.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Good for General Clark. I suspect he will be consistent

in his analysis.

[Rowdyboy]

25. Brilliant move by Clark

Brit and his boys must be STEAMING right about now. In a head-to-head with Clark, I wouldn't be surprised to see Britt's head explode!

[i miss america]

29. I agree. I think it's wonderful

General Wes can certainly hold his own and I believe will be successful in pointing out the fallacy of irrational reich-wing arguments.

That is, of course, if he is allowed to talk for more than 10 seconds.

:applause:

[Rowdyboy]

45. I'd like to see them try to shut him up or talk over him....

You don't play that shit with 4 star generals. They can hold their own.

[AlinPA]

40. He can forget '98 ; this will cheapen him. For me it has already.

[QC]

94. '98 came and went seven years ago.

Unless you're already looking ahead to 2098, of course.

[On the Road]

26. Good Move

Clark appeals to a certain portion of Fox viewers. They just need to get to know him better. He will gain support in case of another run in 08.

[MaineDem]

27. A DNC "talking head" who appears on Faux often told me...

As long as she's on there talking it keeps their side off the screen.

I think Clark is being very saavy. He's introducing himself to the lemmings who watch Faux and he has the opportunity to tell them the truth. (If he's allowed...)

Let's give it time and see.

[AlinPA]

30. I had huge respect for Gen. Clark. I was pulling for him in the primaries

Now, I've had it with him. I can't believe it. How in the hell could he work for that crummy republican controlled propaganda machine? So, they will pair him up with some RW loudmouth who will smack him. That's rotten news.

[Zen Democrat]

42. Good. Let our side take some of their money.

The more face time Dems get on Faux News, the better.

BTW, he was previously an analyst for CNN -- and in my opinion, CNN is no better and maybe worse than Fox.

This is great -- Clark will get paid to familiarize himself with voters. Remember, it's not just Republicans watching Faux News. Check out how many TVs in airports and other public areas are tuned to Faux.

Clark doesn't mince words, doesn't play footsie with Republicans, and IMO this is a brilliant move.

[high density]

73. He knows how to smack them back

Haven't you ever seen him on these stupid talk shows? He's trying to FIGHT the damn propaganda machine for crying out loud and instead of praise, this thread is filled with a whole load of shit throwing aimed at him.

[alfredo]

84. You have it wrong friend. Faux viewers know him only through their

propaganda machine. What they will see is Clark unfiltered.

I think faux sees the handwriting on the wall and is distancing itself from a dying regime.

Clark will add weight to our arguments. Sometimes it is not the message but the messenger.

Give the General a chance. His intelligence and grace will win over a lot of people.

This move could get him into the Whitehouse either as Potus or as Hillary's Vice President.

[CreekDog]

132. You're such a big supporter of Clark that you bail on him...

Bailing out on a candidate because of this move says a lot more about your shortcomings than Clark's.

You say all these good things about him but despite all that, it's his joining Fox as a commentator that makes you leave his side.

Honestly, have you lost your marbles? Is anyone going to be good enough for you to support? Remember, we are talking about political support, not first-born, not life savings...political support. That's it. We're not electing Jesus or anointing St. Paul --it's politics.

Besides, Clark joined Fox as a contributor, he didn't become a fundraiser for the Republican party, he didn't start advocating privatizing social security, he didn't endorse Bush, he didn't accept a bribe, and so on and so on.

He simply joined Fox as a commentator and reasonable Democrats can disagree on the logic of it, but that it's a make or break moral decision is ludicrous.

[Politicub]

31. I never watch Faux

and therefore probably won't see Clark on any of the programs.

He's a smart cookie, and I can't imagine he will allow himself to get bullied by any of their reich wing hosts. Maybe he's doing the Clinton thing of keeping his enemies close.

[medeak]

33. Clark appealed to the rednecks in my town

when he came. This is good news. They respect him as military..

[nine30]

38. Unfortunately Wes will have to tone down his rhetoric..

.. and won't be able to "whip his pistol out of his holster" (as Rush says) every time someone at Fox pisses him off.

[candy331]

39. Maybe he needs the money n/t

[grumpy old fart]

41. It's his chance to make it or break it for '08......IMHO

If he can get through to the dittoheads and remain true to himself and us at the same time, we'll have us a candidate. Then again, it's hard to imagine his remaining at Faux very long without getting the ax.

[Frederik]

52. The only hope for a Dem prez in 08

is to convert some of those moderate redstaters. This is a smart move in that regard.

[DS1]

43. QUICK! SHIELDS UP!! TURN COLLECTIVE DU SHITSTORM GENERATOR

TOWARDS GENERAL CLARK! FIRE AT WILL!

Fucking hell, people.

edit to correct spelling of shields, and add one more !

[Tempest]

44. LOL!

People do tend to see the glass as only half empty at times.

[LeahD]

47. What divergent opinions....

Eating our own...again.

[KittyWampus]

60. I Am Resplendent In Divergence... Robert Fripp

[xultar]

49. Perfectly said!

:applause:

[onehandle]

54. I started this thread curious of folk's reaction.

All over the place as I suspected.

I straddle the opinions. I hate to see anyone legitimize Faux, but I love the idea of a Proven Non-Chickenhawk and Democrat kicking the shit out of the big mouthed pussies over there.

Get 'em, Wes!

[high density]

76. Is this thread an invasion by moles or what?

This thread is full of some of the dumbest things I've read on this forum in months. I can't understand why people wouldn't want a liberal to speak about military and foreign policy issues on Fox News.

[CreekDog]

133. Amen, High Density

People that consider having Clark as a commentator on Fox some sort of treasonous act on his part have lost their faculties.

First, it's Clark's decision, not ours.

Second, it's not a right/wrong decision, just a job and there are good and bad points to it.

Third, we still get Clark, one of our strongest Dem leaders on Fox News, instead of a colmes, which is what they usually hire.

So folks, get over it. What Wes did is not tanatamount to signing up for the S.S.

[Adelante]

119. Haha

Thanks :7

[1932]

57. Clark does two things that FOX is fine with:

1) His framework for analyzing society is war and the military. It's the framework Clark uses for almost everything. When he wants to talk about taking care of people, he talks about the way the army takes care of soldiers. It may be liberal to talk about taking care of people. But when the framework is the conservative heirarchical structure of the military, conservatives are going to be happy because you're still arguing that there are people who give orders at the top, and there are people who take orders on the bottom. The people on the bottom don't give orders to the people on the top.

2) Clark's identity is entwined with corporate America. He's an investment banker. His retirement is being spent making money in the capital markets. His books on war argue that American economic hegemony is an important ideal, and he has few criticisms of American empire so long as it's done by men with briefcases and Cole-Haans rather than men with M-16s and army boots. It's unlikely that Clark is going to use his platform on Fox to criticize the corporate power which is probably behind a lot of the worst policies in which Republicans are engaged.

Clark is a kind of liberal that is just fine. There is less difference between Clark and Democrats like Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney than there is between Clark and Republicans like McCain or Guiliani.

However, no matter how good of a Democrat Clark is, he is a kind of Democrat who doesn't really shift the framework away from one that the Republicans prefer, which is one where people believe a hierarchical society with most of us taking orders from strong, masculine men and that corporations making huge amounts of money at the cost of many many ordinary citiznens is important for American security.

[KittyWampus]

62. #1. The Military Is Socialism & Clark Has Partly Emphasised This

#2. His books and ideology rips apart the NeoCons & PNAC.

Clark is the ONE candidate besides Dennis who talked about a "Peace Ministry" and cutting the defense budget.

He came right and said the GOP favors expensive war toys rather than the soldiers welfare.

You are greatly mistaken about Clark. I have no idea where you got your info from, it's so far off the mark.

[1932]

90. Clark is not a socialist.

Furthermore, Fox has no problem with the miliatry. Do you think they avoid discussing it? Do you think Fox thinks of the military as socialism?

I've read Clark's books and he is an enthusiastic supporter of the expansion of American economic hegemony. He thinks that America is right to want to get as rich as possible and that the rest of the world will be better off as a consequence. His concern is that he doesn't think American economic hegemony should be (or needs to be) spread through militarism. (Furthermome, he is a proponent of a strong American military.)

If you consider Europe's strategies dominating the economies of their former colonies since the mid 1960s (and US intervention in those former colonies), it's seems to be the case that you can engage in imperialism without an army or guns.

Clark draws such a bright line between using the military and not using the military to support American economic interests that it's hard not to notice. To Clark, military imperialism is bad, but economic imperialism is very good. That's no surprise. That's the army in which Clark is now a soldier -- he's an investment banker.

I believe this is why FOX (or CNN) doesn't feel like they have to censor Clark -- he is a product of the military -- a very conservative instiution, which he never crticizes -- and he doesn't criticize America's economic empire.

But that's not saying that Clark is going to propagandize in favor of political philosophies that are dangerous and do not work. He'll probably give Republicans hell in his stint on Fox, and his stint might not last very long because of that.

Howeve, it is unlikelyy that his mere presence on FOX is going to be a reminder of how conservative pro-military, pro-corporate polices might not always work as promissed. If his goal is to do that, he's going to have to work very hard to make that point. (Incidentally, if you review Clark's performance in the debates in 2003, I think it's apparent that his greatest difficulty was negotiating this gray area between his image as a soldier and a capitalist and his precise attitudes on America's military policy in Iraq-- it wasn't always easy for him to clearly define his policies.)

Putting Clark on Fox is not going to be like giving a regular slot to RFK Jr, or any politician or individual whose very essence is a challenge to the conservative world view (who would those people be???). And the only reason I point this out is because I think some people believe that Clark is a living and breathing crticism of the Republican world view. I'm not sure that he is. I think it's more accurate to say that he's coming from within the world of conservatives and offering his criticisms of the world he knows.

In other words, I believe he is more of a product of a world created by Republicans. He plays an important role, for sure. But I think his ability to be a standard bearer for Democrats is significantly limited by the fact that his relevance stems from being a reaction to the Republicans' goals and focus rather than being a symbol of liberals' very different view of what's important and liberals' sense of causal relationships between policies and reality.

It's good to have the critics of the right who come from within. But they're limited in their effectiveness to rally people around the solutions to America's problems. I just wish there were more people who were given time by Fox and CNN who were, themselves, much more powerful symbols of the contrasting world view.

I think sometime the almost complete absence of real voices of opposition in the media makes us forget what real opposition looks and sounds like.

[BadNews]

103. Ding, Ding, Ding

That is exactly why that particular network hired him. They will only ask his opinions in places where they know he will support the conservative view.

There are going to be some very unhappy DUers when you here him talk only about subjects where he holds conservative views.

[KittyWampus]

105. What Conservative Views Do He Have? Support For The Military

and knowledge of military strategy is hardly "conservative".

[BadNews]

108. As 1932 pointed out. The first example is.

"His books on war argue that American economic hegemony is an important ideal, and he has few criticisms of American empire so long as it's done by men with briefcases and Cole-Haans rather than men with M-16s and army boots. It's unlikely that Clark is going to use his platform on Fox to criticize the corporate power which is probably behind a lot of the worst policies in which Republicans are engaged."

Do you think that is closer to Walmart and Enron, or Environmentalists?

[KittyWampus]

110. 1932 Doesn't Know What He's Talking About. And If You Can't Come Up

with your own assesment that says volumes about YOU.

Neither of you must not have paid any attention to Clark's platform as a candidate and I doubt you even read his books.

[1932]

117. I have read his books. And I think my summary is fair.

I'm not saying the Clark is conservative. I'm saying that he operates within a conservative framework. He's not much of a paradigm-buster. There aren't many Democrats who are. But I really don't think Clark comes anywhere close to being a paradigm-buster.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

113. It's actually closer in consistency to what you might find...

...on the ground in a cow pasture.

JMHO.

[KittyWampus]

107. I Didn't Say He Was. But He Was The Furthest Left Of The Democratic

candidates excepting Kuchinich.

And the military and its heirarchy are pretty damned close to being the most egalitarian sector of our society.

And you must have misread his books if you found anything in them that supports 'economic imperialism'.

Note- Capitalism isn't 'imperialism' unless you're Noam Chomsky.

You also have no clue about what his platform as a candidate was.

[KoKo]

97. Yes....and interestingly stated. n/t

[janx]

59. I think

I'm going to be sick...

[msanthrope]

61. "Subvert From Within." n/t

I imagine that Clark will be able to start his comments with some things that no other Faux commentator can:

"Well, Brit, I've actually served in the army, and when I was a soldier......"

"Brit, when I led the successful invasion of Kosovo...."

"Well, Brit, having been in combat, I can tell you that....."

[ckramer]

67. Maybe Fox realized that next Congress will be democrats controlled

So this was purely a business move.

[Maddy McCall]

71. Even though many old Clark supporters have come about to support Dean

it looks like some Dean supporters will never give Clark the same opportunity.

Always the same posters saying ugly stuff about Clark whenever there's a thread about him.

[Rainscents]

72. This is, win, win, win for both FAUX and Wes!

Someone here in another tread, Sam Seeder (AAR) know a friend from FUAX, the want good Liberal who Moderate Republicans and Liberal trust (they didn't want another colms type), someone who can bring their ratings up. Clark is loved by many Moderate Republicans and liberals! FAUX does not want any more hard cord neo-cons!
I guess, they want a new face lift???

BTW... My understanding is... Over at Fleeper-Land, they're going crazy and foaming out of their mouth over Wes Clark! LOL

[donsu]

77. Clark is a turncoat

I don't trust him for a minute

Fox should be ignored by one and all. if Clark 'really' thinks he can make a difference at Fox, he's kidding himself.

[terhuxtim]

81. I'm surprised

Joe Lieberman didn't get signed on to Fox.
He's there favorite Republicrat.
He never misses a chance to bad mouth his own party.
He has to go.
http://www.dumpjoe.com

[Rainscents]

83. Hi Terhuxtim! Welcome to DU!

FAUX didn't want him... Many Liberals don't like him. They need ratings, they need someone who moderate republicans and liberal trust. I guess, we have to sit back and see, what happen.

:hi:

[BiggJawn]

82. Kool-Aid! Kool-Aid! Tastes GREAT!

Somehow, I have a problem believing that Clark is so damn stupid that he thinks FAUX wants him for his "perspective".

But if so, maybe a good thing he didn't win the horse race.

[The Donkey]

86. I'm not really sure what to think of this . . .

I guess it depends on how they will use him and how long of a leash they'll let him have before they cut him off.

At the very least, it will make FOX slightly more watchable when I'm in an airport or at the gym.

[Adelante]

123. Well, that's the thing

The airport, the gym, the hair salon, the corner tavern, the bowling alley, the places where the public congregates, will be broadcasting a Democrat and the Democratic message. These are the people who need to hear it, not us. Clark is reaching out to those who would otherwise be hearing Britt Hume or Bill O'Reilly. This is a huge audience increase for the Dems and it is needed just now, as the Repukes implode, and running up to 2006. This is aimed straight at red/purple states. If it works, we can win out of it. If it doesn't work, we've lost nothing. Clark is the one taking the big chance here. This takes guts.

[phylla]

88. Quite Frankly, Wes has been right about most everything

And I have the utmost confidence in his judgment.
He is no sell out.
This is strategic.
Brilliant Wes, Brilliant!

[BenDavid]

91. Well hell! We will see

if Wes will speak his mind whenever he is given an opportunity. I have not read all the replys to this topic, but I will say: Say Clark decides to run in 08. What better way for the rethugs to use Clark's own words against him, then have him on video stating something in 05, 06, 07, that is different in his views in 08. Hell, they will be able to pull from the archives his comments on a given topic and see if there is any discrecpancies.Hell, the word "flip-flop will be used over and over again....

[Melynn]

95. I never was a Clark fan, so I don't care

On the other hand, I know Clark has a lot of supporters including a fair number of DU members. To the Clark fans I would say that Clark is just finding a platform where he can talk about the issues. Fox News is a good choice because he can reach out to people who normally don't listen to Democrats. I think it is a smart move by the good General.

[AaronforAmerica]

100. From a former Clark staffer...

I understand the argument for boycotting Faux News, but we can't argue with the idea that more people (including Democrats (albeit not activists, but ones whose votes we need) and independents watch Fox than any other news channel (as we all get sick of hearing..) Would you all rather have General Clark on Fox News defending Dean or would you rather be watching Bob Novak attacking him??? I'll take Clark any day...

www.StopJohnBolton.com

[Love Bug]

106. "When you lie down with dogs, ...

... you rise up with fleas."

I don't see how this will help him if he decides to run in '08. He's going to be compromised at every turn.

[CJCRANE]

121. "Preaching to the choir"...

is no use if they've heard it all before. Better to go preach to some-one who hasn't heard your message yet.

[BeHereNow]

112. Water seeks its own level...

Delphi technique.
Charles Shaw: Gatekeepers of the Left.
Look it up and for heaven's sake, please
consider this:
Would Fox actually allow the truth to EVER be
broadcast to the public at large?
THINK about it.
They will use Clark to create the APPEARANCE of
a voice for the so called "left."
A carefully managed voice- just enough conflict
to delude the so called "liberals" into feeling
represented, a pressure valve, that is all.
Staged conflict with the ouitcome controlled and
decided in the manner of the Delphi technique to
control dissenting views.
If you don't think Clark is aware of the plan and
isn't a willing and knowing participant, then I
sincerely believe we have the government we
deserve.
THINK people- THINK LOGICALLY.
please...?
BHN

[Media_Lies_Daily]

115. Uncontrolled paranoia can hinder critical thinking.

[BeHereNow]

116. Large doses of Kool-aid, red or blue, can too. n/t

.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

114. As the money talks.

The soul walks.

[Larry in KC]

120. ...but a rare few have more soul than that.

(As I posted in response to a very similar comment on another thread):

In the semantic sense that Faux will give Wes Clark money, he is "working" for them.

In the much more important senses of what he'll actually do (based on his past, ALL of his past), he'll be working for us. The "Daniel in the lions' den" analogy going around is pretty good. He's taking risks for us, and very few other Democrats have the mental gifts, the credentials, and the sort of charisma to make it succeed (some whom most of us respect would be a disaster for us in that setting). Wes Clark has those gifts, and the will to use them for us.

He'll be speaking truth to power, as always, and also truth to a large audience, many of whom aren't the caricature of Faux viewers that we so often assume (TRUE STORY: I have a strongly Democratic friend, a middle-aged schoolteacher, who's quite interested in politics but not a highly analytical person; I just learned she often watches Faux because it's handy, although she had vaguely wondered about their apparent bias. There are more like her out there watching Faux regularly or occasionally than we'd like to think).

Clark's commentary there brings a liberal viewpoint to these masses of viewers from someone they'll respect and learn to know as a no-nonsense voice of reason, and one who has certainly walked the walk.

By the same token, it makes him real and respected to those many viewers, not an unknown quantity that right-wing propaganda can turn into a cartoon character, as they've pretty handily done with our recent nominees. Not bad as 2008 approaches, not bad at all.

And they're paying him to do it.

Maybe they're not working for him, but I do think they're playing into his hands (and ours).

[Disturbed]

122. Perspective depends on mindset.

Wow! There are real pros and cons on this. This is another situation that cannot be predicted. I will make my judgement after a few weeks of viewing. This could have various outcomes that may be surprising in positives or negatives or it may not have much of an impact at all. Saying that is a negative or positive for those of us who abhor the Bush Regime is premature. That the Freeptards are upset about this is a good sign though. Let's give it some time, eh?

[snickersnee]

146. yes, and perception becomes reality

"There are real pros and cons on this. This is another situation that cannot be predicted. I will make my judgement after a few weeks of viewing. This could have various outcomes that may be surprising in positives or negatives or it may not have much of an impact at all."

Spot on, I say. Be advised that I'm neither overly impressed with the General, nor am I decidedly opposed. That's the happy muddle of ignorance, of which I anticipate being disabused by both ends of this debate.

Notwithstanding my own inconclusive impressions, "Disturbed" makes an excellent point, and I myself wondered why so many seemed obsessed with predicting the outcome of this highly unpredictable and interesting development. OT1H, maybe "Daniel" can pluck some thorns, drain some puss and succeed in portraying Dems and their policies in a fresh light, to a new audience. OTOH, perhaps the lupine lion will eat him alive, live. Perhaps they will mate and have hideous offspring. The only certainty is that a good portion of people in this thread will be surprised.

We may live in interesting times!

[AuntiBush]

125. This is going to Backfire on us! Bad feeling about it.

They'll make him look so "radical" with his viewpoints, which I agree with mind-you, but still... it might be a ploy to get "us" to watch (rating will go up-wards) and the FReepers will have a place to fuel their anger.

You know, the whole damn gang of "Sore Winners."

Knowing Clark, I don't think he'll take any crap. Knowing Fox, they're a mouthpiece for * & Company so if you think of my latter statement how can anyone trust Faux.

Just my opinion. Hope I'm wrong. It will take more then this to get me to ever watch Faux - a hell of a lot more.

[Submariner]

127. We've got a Fox inside the henhouse now

It may give FN some legitimacy, but he will clean their clocks when he gets rolling. This has more positives than negatives for us imho.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

131. my distrust of the general just quadrupled

we can do better than this milquetoast fencesitter as our nominee

[Adelante]

138. milquetoast fencesitter!!!!!

:rofl:

[BeHereNow]

147. Our mistake!

I can't seem to find the links to his vocal
stand on the DSM or anything else of consequence-
Please help!
In the meantime, I can point you to his financial
connections to profitting from Bush Sr and his KKKabal
if you would like to unfreeze your blind devotion.
Follow the money.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

143. Buh, buh, but...

What about his former corporate connections with
SIRVA! The global leader in relocation of out sourced workers?
http://www.sirva.com/
Or his large stock holdings in the lovely Entrust,
recently awarded large contracts by the Bush administration,
funded by Nortel Networks (Bush Sr.'s pal, Frank Carlucci & Co)
Nevermind about Axicom and the Capps airline profiling
plan.. yeah that's our "democrat" four star boy, Wes Clark!
Uh-huh.
BHN

[QC]

161. I'm sure he would be devastated to know that Adenoid_Hynkel

still doesn't like him.

[liberaliraqvet26]

136. if anyone can hold their own....

it is the good general. i fully support this strategic move by Clark. He is credible and has a great record. He can make the chickenhawks look like the fools they are.

[David Zephyr]

139. Wes Clark may be a good thing for Fox.

Murdoch is sending some strange signals of late.

In any event, Wes Clark has not been "purchased" as some are implying.

He will be a good thing for Fox.

[liberaliraqvet26]

141. maybe the bushies...

overplayed their hand and even pissed off murdoch??? I doubt it but wishful thinking dont hurt noone. just out of curiosity what signals have you noticed, i haven't seen anything.

[ElectroPrincess]

144. Hey, it's the ratings that FOX worships. - They see the tide turning.

[Placebo]

140. There goes the neighborhood.

What a shame.

[DemocracyInaction]

142. We need to rid ourselves of ALL "04" leftovers and a whole bunch

of clowns who are coming with their "baggage". We need to come as a virgin in '08 or not come at all 'cause the media will kill us. Sorry..that's just goddamn poltics. Let Clark stuff a few bills into his retirement chest. We don't need him in '04 or want him if we are smart. Kiss him goodbye and start searching for that one goddamn virgin...and fast.

[applegrove]

145. That is how they separate our leaders from us... just put them on Faux!

[Pastiche423]

148. I needed another reason

to distrust clark?

This move to FOX just made me realize I was always right about him.

[BeHereNow]

151. Amen to that.

Neocon Straw-dog.
Propped up in the middle of the field
for all of those who do not care to think critically
about just what it takes to become a
FOUR STAR GENERAL in the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex.

BLEH!
BHN

[high density]

160. What's so distrustful about having a liberal spread reasoned analysis...

...to the viewers of Fox News? I fail to see what is so bad about this. General Clark is not going to sell out his views to Roger Ailes and I think this move is a great thing for liberals in general.

Paul Krugman mopped the floor with Bill O'Reilly many months back on "The Chris Matthews Show" and nobody here uttered a word against Krugman taking on a Fox News anchor. Al Franken did the same thing to O'Reilly on C-SPAN 2's BookTV. Plus Clark has appeared many times previously on Fox News and delivered his own crushing moments to various Fox News anchors.

So after reading this thread it seems that many here think that liberals should only attack Fox News and the warped views spewing from there via channels other than Fox News. Why is it so wrong to have somebody actually on Fox News present these reasoned ideas directly to the brainwashed viewers? Please tell me why this is such a bad thing.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

149. Those are the battles in the information age

Whether or not Wes is making it through the primaries or not its at least a good position to support the democratic cause. Maybe something happens ala LIHOP/MIHOP and the rest of democratic pillars is knocked down with FEMA or any other fancy agency it could be useful to have him in the media. Elections may come or not...it's still about to take down a bunch of greedy warmongering traitors to country, ecology and humanity.

I think its a smart move. Can't be bad to have him on screen for the allready stated reason. The battlefield Clark entered needed Dem support and that no moment to soon imo.






a propos FEMA:
is there any statistic if the working arm of FEMA is hiring militia folk? Just an idea...hmmm have to check that later

[sellitman]

150. When you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

I'd never watch Fux News and many Dems feel the same way but if he isn't turned into Ailes bitch.... maybe he can convert a few Moderates.

I hope just hope Clark doesn't get fleas first.

[aresef]

156. Several things could happen

(A) He gets canned.

(B) He gets habitually interrupted by O'Reilly and is basically there to make them look fair and balanced without actually letting him talk too much

(C) This might actually be a legitimate attempt by Fox, but only to combat their ratings freefall. So it could work out for them, General Clark, and the viewers. Buuuuut I doubt that.

[Miss Chybil]

158. I'm disappointed. nt