Is Clark the media's choice?

[Punkingal]

I remember seeing him on Meet the Press, and Russert treated him with absolute deference. Woodruff seems very happy interviewing him, also. Any thoughts on this?

[Must_B_Free]

1. I thought he was Michael Moore's choice

and the media hates Moore.

[Lindsay]

4. Strange bedfellows,

as they say.

[HFishbine]

2. No

That's still Bush.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. Since the corporate media has been so pro-military

it's going to be difficult for them to treat Clark like they do the other Democratic candidates. Yet another advantage Clark brings to the election.

[Skwmom]

5. Woodruff seemed distressed.

That was not a happy face I saw on CNN. Plus Novak already started the attacks on Crossfire. Rangel's comeback was so great.

[Jim Sagle]

6. No, he's the DLC's choice. Their two dud candidates are

a dead guy and a guy whose campaign is dead. So SOMEONE had to sub.

[otohara]

13. I Too Think The DLC is Behind This

they promised him money, consultants, the biggie wiggies will back Clark, cuz the DLC sez so

[robbedvoter]

15. Sure, all us activists working to draft him are not real

I am just a figment of your imagination. Or Al Frum.

[Tinoire]

18. You may be real but the peddled "Draft " concept is a fraud

General for the Democrats?
By Viveca Novak
Monday, November 18, 2002 Posted: 5:51 PM EST (2251 GMT)


Retired four-star general Wesley Clark, who has been famously opaque about his party preference and political future, met privately last week in New York City with a group of high-rolling Democrats and told them he was seriously considering a run for the White House, sources tell TIME.

Lunching with about 15 Democratic donors and fund raisers at the Park Avenue offices of venture capitalist Alan Patricof, a strong Gore backer in '00 who is neutral so far for '04, Clark laid out his credentials and his differences with George W. Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/timep.general.tm/index.html

On edit: "Crank it Up" kind of gave the whole charade away... but the DLC gets kudos for creativity :)

[CentristDemocrat]

7. CNN has been the ClarkNewsNetwork today.

He's their boy.

[Richardo]

8. I hope so - the media decided they didn't like Gore and smeared him

with the Internet, Love Story and Love Canal atrocities. (As reported in "What Liberal Media?", "Big Lies" and "Lies")

If they like Clark, perhaps, I say PERHAPS, he'll get a fairer shake.

[Marlie]

9. Fair shake

I wish. Wait until we actually have the democratic nominee for
the Presidency. Who ever that is, the Corporate owned media will
give him the same treatment Gore got, military or not. They will
tear him up. Maybe the public will not get fooled by them again.

[Richardo]

11. Tend to agree - but it will be harder this time...Gore was "tainted"

by the Clinton scandals (not his doing, obviously) and many reporters just did not like him.

If they just do not make shit up, I would consider that a fairer shake. Like everything else, the RW has lowered the bar (and expectations) on what fair is.

[cjbuchanan]

10. Remember when Dean was the media's choice

It seems like only last week a lot of people on the board were saying that the media wants Dean.

How time flies.

[KoKo]

12. I think he's the media's choice. As a CNN "Pundit" he has good credentials

so the media does know he knows the "rules of engagement." You don't last on CNN or any big network unless you know how to deal.......Just ask Christianne Ammanpour......she obviously stepped over the line........:-(

[robbedvoter]

14. CNN promissed his interview on 2 shows and never aired it

(except from snippets commented by Woodroff). While the volume of the coverage is surely high, the tone is hardly encouraging - and I am not just referring to Nofacts&gang.
The media choice is the same one their bosses told them it was in 2000. Nothing changed.

[w4rma]

16. He **may** be the DLC's choice, but Bush is big media's real choice (n/t)

[Yupster]

17. So far, but

usually they build em up just so they can tear em down.

[dbt]

19. Nope. Media still firmly embedded in bu$h's pants.

Tuesday afternoon, the one thing the well-groomed airheads at the anchor desks kept harping on was how late it is for Clark to be getting into the race.

Not one mention of that OTHER Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas who launched HIS campaign on October 1, 1991.

They're already showing their bias against Clark. It's merely an extension of their bias against ANYTHING from the Democratic party.


Off with their talking heads!
:argh:
dbt

[clar]

20. Let's kill this meme

Clinton announced in October 1991. He'd been actively running for some time prior to that. Think Edwards announcing yesterday or Kerry a couple of weeks ago.