by listen to his own words here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1564522&mesg_id=1564638&page=If you bother to go to the link I provided on your first question...then you would not have stated that "he didn't do well in the South"....cause four southern primaries at a time when you have already been written out of the race and not given any publicity (but Kerry and Edwards got plenty)...doesn't lead to an accurate assessment. In fact, it's a miracle that he did as well as he did.
Plus Red state do not equal South. A red State is a state that the Republicans routinely win....and although the south tends to all be red, other states not in the south are red too.....like Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, etc... If we could win these red states, we wouldn't need the South.
Since Kerry did so well in the south in the primaries, how come he didn't during the General election? You see, the logic doesn't follow. The media manipulated our primaries, and if you were not aware of this.....then I've got news for you.
---------
Here's an exerpt from the link I provided...
Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004
THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.
Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-----------------------
While John Kerry is near 100% awareness according to the ARG, Wesley
Clark has the following numbers among likely Democratic primary voters:
Tennessee - 73%
Virginia - 86%
Wisconsin - 86%
---------------
Here's a few examples of mediawatchdogs doing their work and busting the media on the underreporting on Wes Clark. There are many more.....We won't even mention the endless manipulative polls used by the media to influence elections....
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerry ...
Networks Anointed Kerry, Edwards Before Iowa Did
http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000032.asp "Oops -- There ARE More Than Two Candidates"
http://campaigndesk.org /
In a moment of flashback, Mickey Kaus writing on Slate remembers that there's still, technically, a nomination fight going on, and acidly points out what a lot of our readers have been arguing: Wes Clark is getting an increasingly raw deal. :
Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004
THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.
Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.
-------------------------
NBC's Today Show Saturday morning, this is the coverage score for candidates:
Discussing the So Carolina Debate this was how many times Tim Russert mentioned candidates names:
Kerry 7 times
Dean 7 times
Edwards 1 time
Clark 0 times
This even even though one of the topics disc in this segment was national defense and other was the economy.
Pictured:
Kerry 2 times
Dean 2 times
Clark 0 times
This on backdrop of the fact that Dean is on a 'downslide' also so if Clark is dismissed for this reason, so would Dean. Also Dean is not running first or second place in any state in upcoming primaries Tuesday Feb 3rd.
In following segment on 'looking ahead to Tuesday', Tim Russert mentioned these candidates:
Kerry 6 times
Dean 0 times
Edwards 4 times
Sharpton 4 times
Clark 3 times
Sharpton is not running in first or second place anywhere and Clark is running in first place in OK and second place AZ.
------------------------------
ABC coverage report on 2/2/04- ABC's coverage the morning of the race for the primary on their Good Morning America Show. Tomorrow is primary day in 7 states.
The coverage was a two part theme.
Main theme was that Kerry was a Patriot fan and Edwards was from Panther territory, so all the coverage was on them and pictures of them campaigning and also watching the Super Bowl game.
No of Time Candidates Mentioned:
(in order of frequency)
Kerry 4 times
Dean 2 times
Edwards 2 times
Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0
No. of Time Candidates Pictured:
Kerry 6 times
Dean 5 times
Edwards 4 times
Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0
Second part of coverage was on the 'race in general'. It started out, "Well, that was in So Carolina, but there are other states in the race for Tuesday election: Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arizona (he named them all).
(The report "Amazingly there are NO negative ads running in these states against Senator John Kerry, the presumed front runner." (That was the report friends for the primary race friends on ABC.)
Candidates mentioned news segment two:
Kerry 1 time
Candidates pictures in news segment two:
Kerry 1 time
Candidates not mentioned or pictured in entire coverage:
Clark 0
Kucinich 0
Liebermann 0
Sharpton 0
If you were trying to pick a 'winner' for a race against Bush, who would you vote for in Tuesday's primary?
--------------------
ABC coverage report BarbW on 2/4/04- After Clark's Oklahoma win:
The below is a link to ABC New's Home Page. It looks like a Kerry/Edwards ad, not a cover story. Do you think that they are trying to tell us that Kerry and Edwards are winners. I think so. No sign of Wes on his win here. Clark is invisible.
Then even more amazing, check out their coverage of 'results by state'. I thought for sure I would find Clark's win here - NOT. Not even under Oklahoma!!
www.abcnews.com
Okay this is just online. I'm am coming with their television coverage this morning, which is the same. They don't even admit he won Oklahoma. They say he is leading in OK, like the counting is still going on at 7 am this morning. (Kerry won, Edwards won and Clark is leading in OK, tight race...they won't use the 'win' word with him, as in 'winner')
------------------
02/05/2004
The media continue their not so subtle BIAS.
The following page shows the Campaign Schedules for the runners.
* NOTE * - Clark's and Deans schedules do not include the address of where his rallies are while Kerry's and Edwards have detailed addresses.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/politics/main ...
This is clear discrimination, I used to like CBS News, I will never forget how they have shaped and dictated this nomination.
------------------
CBS coverage report BarbW on 2/6/04- CBS portrays Clark as a loser again.
CBS Evening News last night, Friday, Feb 6th.
transcript used, but transcribed to notes taken by hand so inexact:
"Next Tuesdays primary proves to be a do or die test for John Edwards and Wesley Clark. They are both native sons to the South. If one of these guys manages to pull off both states, the other one is gone.
Edwards says he is the one because he could carry the south (lots more words and picture of Edwards in cheering thongs).
The AR born Clark, *running low on money, cannot sustain his candidacy on just his slim win in OK (showing picture of a tired looking Clark speaking to practically an empty room.)
(Incidentally, the day before ABC showed pictures of Clark supporters silent and sitting in the grass with signs of support laying on the ground as backdrop for their report. Only one supporter was still standing and she was looking down, like she was discouraged. Gist of story there was also, campaign just barely hanging on.)
Coverage goes on to say that if Edwards and Clark split the South Tuesday then race is over and Kerry wins, and then race is between Edwards and Clark for VP spot. (of course looking at the pictures of Edwards cheering crowds, anyone would assume that the winner of VP spot will be Edwards, especially if this coverage continues. Although it IS better than nothing but barely.
----------------------
I could go on and on and on......