what clark did to edwards, isn't this EXACTLY what we want?????

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

Clark (may or may not have) purposely leaked his decision to run to preempt Edwards. As a result, Edwards recieved almost no coverage and got no bounce. Edwards is no threat to Clark because of this. Also, he may not campaign as hard in Iowa and New Hampshire, as was reported on MSNBC because he is at such a disadvantage entering so late (Clinton lost New Hampshire in 1992). He knows where and how to stage his battles. He thinks like a military man, because he is one. He knows that in war, you choose to fight only the battles you know you can win. Guys, this is EXACTLY what the dems need. Someone who can wage (guerilla) war against Bush. Someone who thinks strategicly, and can predict future events based off of past patterns (which Clark can do, according to a US Army exam he took). If we want to beat Bush in 2004, we have to fight like soldiers, and think like Generals. I think I am going to donate $50 to the Clark campaign. Guys, THIS IS OUR TICKET to getting back into the white house. Hell he is even Clinton's (unofficial) choice. Also, he can win the south, because he is from AR.

[Kahuna]

1. The media yawned at Edward's announcement. I think..

they would have done that anyway. One of the cable stations had a caption to the newscast: Senator Edwards announces (again). I swear! They had "again" in parentheses. Is that Clark's fault?

[salin]

5. Shouldn't we be taking the media to task (esp the example you gave)?

They will do it again and again to any and all democratic candidates. So regardless of what candidate one supports, we need to be loud in our complaints of coveraget that seems to intend to shape public opinion rather than simply to inform the public.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

7. you miss my point

Clark most likely announced when he did intentionally, knowing how much coverage it would get, and that it would marginalize Edwards' announcement, thus hurting one of his opponents.

[ant]

14. uh...

...I really don't want this to sound mean, but why would Clark care about Edwards? The idea that Clark's campaign would actually care enough about Edwards to make these sorts of decisions around him is absurd.

[Brian Sweat]

20. I don't think so.

Clark announced when he did, because he was probably planning to announce when he did long before Edwards decided to reannounce.

[tjdee]

2. Uh, no.

I like Clark, and first I don't think that HE leaked anything yesterday (I agree with Kahuna that it was the media), and second, NO it's not good to do.

Makes him look like a jerk who's trying to steamroll the process.

I don't want him to be mean to Dems, I want him to be mean to Bush.

This is part of the (man, LOL) reasons I don't like Dean.

Edwards being a threat to Clark or not has nothing to do with whether Edwards' announcement was aired yesterday.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

9. this is hardball man

this is what you do in politics if you want to win, you steamroll your opponents. wimps don't win elections.

[tjdee]

16. You don't want to alienate the supporters of your Dem opponents.

Clark is going to need ALL the Dems along for the ride.

If he picks off and pisses off other candidates (and by extension, other candidates' supporters), he's in trouble.

Again, this was one of my problems with Dean.

[SaintLouisBlues]

18. Except, of course, Poppy Wimp and his Boy Wimper

N/T

[CMT]

3. yeah we want him to be agressive against Bush

but on the day that Edwards was announcing it wouldn't have hurt him to put off his announcement a few hours. As far as him being "Clinton's unofficial choice" that may or may not be true, but it really doesn't mean a thing to me.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

11. clark has this ability against Edwards, and therefore Bush

I could care less if Edwards was hurt. He doesn't stand a chance at the nomination anyway. But this is the kind of thinking Clark would have going up against Bush. THIS is what we want.

[MGKrebs]

4. He has great potential for doing well,

but he sure had a hard time answering the question "Would you have gone to war with Iraq" this morning on GMA. He's gonna have to tighten his act up a bit, which is true of the other candidates also, but they are pretty much already ready, if you get my drift.

[Uzybone]

13. I dont think so

he said NO....how much clearer can you get?

[Unknown Known]

6. Shouldn't this read "What Edwards did to Clark?"

It's been blasting all over the media and internet that Clark was going to announce this week and then Edwards decides all of a sudden that he's going to announce too?

And because of his appearances in the debates, most everyone thought he had already announced. The whole thing by the Edwards camp was pretty absurd.

[ima_sinnic]

8. I thought the media treated Edwards very unfairly

On the 6:30 ABC news yesterday they did cover Edwards' announcement but then ended by saying, " . . . BUT Edwards was upstaged" or something to that effect, as they led into the Clark announcement. If Edwards was "upstaged" or however they put it, it was only because that was the way the media presented it. They could have said "Edwards announced today AND so did Wesley Clark"--something to that effect, instead of giving the impression that Clark automatically confers "also-ran" status to everyone else by his presence.

[ant]

17. that doesn't really make any sense

Edwards WAS upstaged, not because the media took off with the Clark story but because the Clark story is a better story...which is why the media took off with it.

Edwards has been in the race for a while now. He's attended debates. He's been raising money. Whether or not he is running for president is a question we all answered a while back.

The same is not true for Clark. There's been a steady build up of will he or won't he, and it all came out yesterday. It's a fundamentally different kind of story, one that by its nature results in more attention. It's an answer to a question rather than official confirmation of what's been known for months.

And in a few hours they will both be upstaged by Isabel. Not all news stories are the same.

[CWebster]

10. O here we go again

another newbie fawning over a man in a uniform.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

12. what are your intentions?

I want to win

[StopTheMorans]

21. we all want to win

however, not all of us think Clark is the Dem. to do it, and not all of us think that it's just great that he decides to jump into the race late and upstage a candidate who has been busting his ass for months (btw, i'm no fan of edwards).

[Cappurr]

19. "Newbies" are important to this site

No need to insult a poster for being new.

[cosmicdot]

15. "exactly what WE want?" I would ask for a definition of "we"

but, that would be rather redundant ... I already know the definition doesn't include "me"

although within 24 hours, "Clark" appeared in 75 thread titles ... this is DU and not a Clark Blog site ... "we" are many here ...

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Kinda balances the Dean threads, eh?