Clark Article at Buzzflash.com -- Gene Lyon Interview

[Bread and Circus]

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

The article is an interview between BuzzFlash and
Gene Lyons. It contains some very interesting insights
and analyis by Gene Lyons. It is not an endorsement of
Clark, per se, but rather sets the records straight on
a few things. I think for anyone interested in the
Democratic race, it is a must read.

[DemCam]

1. Loved this interview.

What I appreciate about Lyons is his deep understanding of politics as it is practiced today...and especially by the Republicans in the South. I also like his even-handed way of speaking that is soothing rather than evocative of strong emotion.

All who are still undecided should read this interview...and send it round to others.

[HootieMcBoob]

2. Excellent interview

It's basically the same view I have of Clark's candidacy, of course Lyons articulates those ideas much more clearly than I ever could. If we want to be smart and pragmatic and take back the country Clark is our best option. I can't help but believe that all of this Clark bashing is being spoon fed to us by the right who fear Clark. We are very very adept at cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Please, lets be smart.

[dbt]

3. Lyons MUST be an OK guy

Every other letter to the editor in the Alleged Little Rock Newspaper goes on at length about what a gutless, librul bu$h-hater the man is and how he's undermining this great country.

The mystery to me is why the Democrat-Gazette chooses to run Lyons on their otherwise right-of-Attila-the-Hun editorial page.

I :loveya: Gene Lyons!
dbt

[FrenchieCat]

11. Because I wrote them a letter

and got a response....

This was the response I got:
Your points are well taken. I will find a way to make use of your material.

Thank you

Paul Barton
Washington Bureau Chief
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
529 14th St. N.W., Suite 1190
Washington, D.C. 20045
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

This was the letter I had written:
Dear Mr. Paul Barton,
In reference to your 10/21 article titled "Clark extolled Bush at ’02 Searcy" appearing in the Democrat Gazette http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_National.php?storyid=45069, I don't understand why the 2002 Speech in which General Wesley Clark Praised President Bush on the actions in Afghanistan was even judged as news fit to print. Your story included the videotape quote attributed to Clark verbatim, but then failed to include an analysis as to why the tape was distributed to media outlets, and why the video sequence stopped short without making it known that Clark's words were in reference to the actions taken in Afghanistan.

One of my biggest concern in reference to your particular article is that your headline on the story is misleading and borders on sensationalism. As we both know, there are many who only read headlines. You were kind enough to include the Clark campaign's response, but you stopped short of a real news article by not dwelling on the real question a diligent reporter would ask , WHY IS THIS NEWS?

I have located the quotes of other Democratic candidates who also expoused praises on President Bush and/or his administration in reference to Afghanistan around the same time period. Now my questions is why is this not news, while when Clark says it, it is? Let's face it, it appears that you could have had a real news story if you would have only asked "who, and for what purpose" was this video put out. In addition, asking yourself the question, was Wes Clark the only candidate to have spoken positively in refererence to Bush's afghanistani war around this time frame? would have greatly benefitted a balance and perspective to your article. This would have been a much more fascinating story. Furthermore, had due diligence been a pursuit and the real journalistic questions been asked, you could have dug up the information I am now forwarding to you below.

My research shows that the following was said by the following candidates, of course I am not going to provide the context, so that I may be elevated to the techniques a la Drudge:
Howard Dean
May 22, 2003
Here is a quote from Howard Dean, praising George W. Bush's war in Afghanistan.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban. I thought that group was a clear and present danger to the United States, and I supported what the President did.
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lieberman
January 2002: praising George W. Bush's war in Afghanistan.
America’s great military strength, including particularly the precision air attack and special forces capabilities built up by President Clinton during the 1990s, and commanded so well by President Bush over the past year, has been stunningly impressive in this war to date.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/lieberman/lieb011402sp.html
------------------------------------------------
Dick Gephardt
June 2002
foreign policy speech from June 2002 where he expresses agreement with Bush foreign policy, and discusses some success in Afghanistan.

“We must be prepared to build alliances in regions that flare up unexpectedly. Afghanistan is the best example of this today. The Administration deserves credit for the military victory there. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gephardt/geph060402sp.html

A FOOTNOTE:
It appears that Karl Rove's attempt to influence the Democratic nomination is being aided by many in the media. In this case, there has been no attempt by journalists to find out why these videos are being put out, who is putting them out, and why they are not being presented in the context in which they occurred. I would suggest that you read the article that I have linked so that you know that News manufactured by the News media is unacceptable. News is made to inform, not to distort (or so it should be). Real reporters write by backing up their views with facts, not by omitting facts. The results of your participation in the "deconstruction" of a viable candidate (however small your part) is similar to the type of journalism practiced in 1930 Germany, which was later, upon reflection, deemed as propaganda. Let us not wait until the history books are written to understand that what many in the media are currently engaged in is eerily similar.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/010603a.html

Sincerely,
C. McClendon

[HootieMcBoob]

4. kick

because this is a really important article by the most excellent Gene Lyons and it needs to be read to counterbalance the overwhelming number of anti clark posts.
:kick:

[javadu]

5. Good Interview

I'm looking forward to payday to donate more $$$$ to Clark, '04!!!!

[burr]

6. hey...Gene Lyons for President!!!

Oh, and does anyone know what this Clark guy really stands for?? He could have a chance...:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

7. Gene Lyons is a stalking horse for the rightwing media...

... Lyons is secretly promoting PNAC.

Lyons once wrote a favorable article that mentioned a company that once did business with Henry Kissinger's nephew's son's best friend. </sarcasm off>

Actually, excellent interview!

[DemCam]

9. Scared me a minute, wyldwolf...

thought you'd changed your...er...ears? stripes? tail? whatever wolves change. .

[wyldwolf]

10. Have you ever read "Hunting of the President?"

One of the most meticulously (to the point of boredom) researched books I've ever read.

It is logical to assume Lyons has at least given thought to the far left's conspiracy-laced Clark/PNAC theory... yet he still seems to favor Clark.

THAT tells me something.

[RandomUser]

12. That is why I find this interview interesting

Lyons's expert background and familiarity with rightwing attacks on Clinton gives special weight to his words about the rightwing attacks on Clark.

[City Lights]

8. Good read.

However, they are forgetting about the 2000 census and it's effect on the distribution of electoral votes.

"As you've pointed out, if the Democratic candidate wins every state that Gore won, all the Democrats have to do is just pick off one more, whether it's Arkansas or West Virginia, and the Democrats take the White House."

Some of the states Gore won no longer have the same number of electoral votes they did in 2000, so winning every state that Gore won while picking up Arkansas or West Virginia won't win them back the White House.

The blue states lost 6 electoral votes to the red states after the 2000 census. Arkansas has 6 and West Virginia has 5. We need to win more than one of those two states to declare victory.

If the 2000 election been held using the 2004 numbers, Bush would have won 278-259-1.

http://www.presidentelect.org/art_newev.html