WTF? Clark at Faux News??

[cynatnite]

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."

Clark spent more than 30 years in the U.S. Army where he rose to the rank of four-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander from 1997 to 2000. Clark holds a master's degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes scholar.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/lifestyle/bal-to.people16jun16,1,6460826.column?coll=bal-artslife-today&ctrack=1&cset=true

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Pretty weird. But he needs to work too.

[cynatnite]

4. I've heard Faux's ratings have been on a steady decline

I wondered if they thought the ratings would improve if they tried the truth and some real journalism. If true, Clark would be a good start.

[Jai4WKC08]

19. Clark's not hurting for paid work

So he doesn't need this Fox gig.

He's doing it to reach out to the millions of Americans who watch Fox because they don't know any better. It's what he's been asking us to do for a long time (call in to RW radio, write RW papers, etc).

It's called leadership. And courage. And "When you can do good, you should."

[Djinn]

41. Do you think for a second

he'll be able to say what needs to be said? he's joining the very lowest of the "scum", although not overly surprising given the other ventures he makes money out of. The more I hear about the man the more I'm confused as to how anyone ever assumed he was even remotely progressive

[Clarkie1]

51. I most certainly do.

Did you think for a second?

[Djinn]

62. then you're seriously misinformed

free speech isn't big on Fox's list of priorities - guess you missed the memo

[Jai4WKC08]

68. You're the one who's misinformed

Clark wouldn't have taken this gig if it weren't on his terms. He doesn't need it.

But go ahead and prejudge. Don't wait to see what actually happens, since your mind is already made up.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

70. I call BS!

"His terms" huh?

So what's in it for the FOX news agenda if it's on "his terms"? Don't have an answer to that one huh?

FOX would silence him the moment he spoke out. Of course he knows that, which is why he's playing ball for them now.

It's all about the cash. Another DINO.

[FrenchieCat]

74. I'll take your BS and raise it

to idiocy.

You'll be proven wrong.

"Faux would silence him the moment he spoke out" ? you mean like CNN did? I didn't see Clark losing any sleep over that one. Did you? You mean retire him, like the Pentagon did? Gee, seems like Clark doesn't mind standing for his beliefs even if it means being given the boot.

And when did DINO start discussing PNAC on national television? Please give me their names.

Clark's been there, done that.

It ain't about the cash, and if you think so, you'll be proven the fool.

[wtmusic]

2. No, Clark's not a media whore

I'm sure he'll have plenty to say during the invasion of Iran.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

3. Infiltrate the enemy

That's what the Rethugs did with the MSM starting twenty years ago. It worked.

[terhuxtim]

5. Help us primary lieberman

http://www.dumpjoe.com

[newyawker99]

18. Hi terhuxtim!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Larkspur]

6. Is this Clark returning to his roots?

Guess Clark needs a job and Faux Newx needs to stem the tide of lost viewers to their shows. Fuax viewship has dropped 58% since the Fall election.

[LittleClarkie]

13. Horsehockey

He's a Dem. I think Fox wants fireworks, and figures Clark will bring them. And the exposure will do him good.

He hates neocons too much to go dark side on us.

[Zensea]

28. but he gives an air of legitimacy to Faux

by working for them.
Whether that is his intention or not, that's the result.

[CarolNYC]

7. there's another thread on this

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1857908

[dr.zoidberg]

8. Re: Clark

Clark probably took it because the money's good.

[rlpincus]

9. Possible motive

Perhaps Fox recognizes that its hard right bullshit isn't playing anymore and is going into survival mode. What better way than to hire a war hero/former Dem presidential candidate?

[mzmolly]

10. This can only help with a possible run in 2008. He's going to get

exposure as an expert on these matters, and he'll reach an audience he wouldn't otherwise.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Plus, it gives him the opportunity

To pre-empt the inevitable "swiftboat" attack.

The vast majority of Fox viewers are just average folks who don't pay close attention to politics. They've never heard of Clark, or if they have, haven't heard the lies that were spread during his candidacy.

If enough of the independents and moderate Repubs (even a lot of the right-wingers) form their own opinions of his integrity and intelligence now, well before the primaries and election, it'll be much harder for the GOP to run an effective character-assassination campaign.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

71. Hahaha no thanks

I don't vote for someone on the FOX/Rove payroll nor will anyone else with an ounce of common sense.

If clark actually did want to run in 08 he's just shot his chances directly to hell.

[FrenchieCat]

82. What an excuse!

So transparent and so simple.

Clark probably doesn't even care what you will do in 2008. It's not like 'enlightened' progressives came in anything but 3rd place in Iowa. You must think that everyone thinks like you do. They don't. There's a reason that John Kerry, who voted for the War, was about as "political insider establishment" as one could get came out as the nominee.

The Democratic party is made up of more than the DU world.

Your threats are silly, because you haven't even seen what Clark is gonna do. Patience is a virtue for a reason.

But I'm sure for you, it's all about principle, right? Right!

[kentuck]

11. I guess they thought it better he is inside pissing out rather than...

outside pissing in..? Or maybe they are trying to create a difference between he and Dean, who has called FOX a "propaganda" arm of the Republican Party?

[KittyWampus]

33. When Will Dean Also Call CNN A GOP Propaganda Arm? It Is.

just as much as Fox, if not more so for still being percieved by some as liberal or neutral.

[Village Idiot]

12. They will do almost ANYTHING for better ratings...

[Zynx]

14. Motive = $$$$$$

[phylla]

15. Wes is no sell out

He has never been motivated by money...and he makes plenty of it now between working tirelessly for our party.
So stop your posturing.
This is strategic.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I think that Clark could get work elsewhere, if that's what he wanted....

He was "dismissed" from CNN previously for speaking out against BushCo.

He was "retired" from the military for insisting on "boots on the ground" to minimize High Altitude bombing during Kosovo.

He's called out PNAC, Bush on 9/11 AND on Iraq.

Why should he lay back now...and only sing to the choir?

He's a General...and loves a good battle. What better place than in enemy territory?

He's no fool and certainly no tool.

Liberals are supposed to have an open mind and hold back judgement until they've seen the facts.

Wes Clark has admitted to being a Liberal....the question is....about you?

[janx]

17. So you think that Faux News is going to allow Clark to say

what he pleases?

That's not how the cable media work, Frenchy.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. Clark will say exactly what he wants

Exactly the way he wants to.

If Fox can't live with that, they'll fire him. Or sideline him. But according to his media guy, the contract in no way restricts him from other appearances.

Clark is not new to the business of "media consultant" so there's no reason to assume he's been suckered. He's doing this on his own terms or he wouldn't be doing it all.

[janx]

26. I don't assume he's been suckered.

But I've studied media and know how they work. If it works for Clark, more power to him.

[Djinn]

42. you think so?

coz Rupert has such a strong reputation for allowing free speech :rofl:

[Jai4WKC08]

56. I sure do

Clark has an even stronger reputation for taking no shit from Fox news talking heads.

[Djinn]

63. hahahahahaha

yes he'll be allowed to frame an actual debate, he wont have to constantly respond to pointless right wing talking points etc etc

although I guess rupert would have no problem with his glowing praise of the SOA and they could talk about they how they both pushed the "Saddam has WMD's" line, or his "might is right" doctrine:

"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

or they could chat about his lobbying for the defense industry, undemocratic influence on politicians is something Rupert knows plenty about

Actually you're right he may well be able to frame his own debate - whether it'll be a progressive one is open to interpretation

[Jai4WKC08]

72. How on earth do you get "might is right" out of this statement???

"The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

This is just a statement of fact. As Clark concludes. But nowhere does he say that our superior military power should be unleashed without justification, or that by having that power we are automatically justified in using it.

The rest of your "talking points" are nonsense as well. No illegal or unethical activity took place at the SOA when Clark was associated with it. And yeah, he thought Saddam had WMD. Pretty much everybody did. Clark testified before the Armed Services Committees of both Houses of Congress in 2002 that he did not believe the threat was imminent, or warranted immediate action.

As for the lobbying, so what? Nothing illegal there. Now, if he were an elected official who allowed himself to be lobbied (as are pretty much all of those who ran against him), it might be a different story. Besides, Clark's lobbying was for a very short time--six months or so--and very limited in scope. In fact, one of the companies was actually environmentally progressive.

But sure... drag up all the same old tired bullshit. While Clark is busy getting the Democratic message out to the Fox audience, people like you will be throwing shit from the sidelines. That's really promoting a progressive agenda. :sarcasm:

[ikri]

21. God Forbid

That a potential Democratic presidential candidate would ever even consider trying to sway voters who watch Faux and no other news channel.

Yes, what Clark should obviously do is find people who already agree with and like him and spend the next few years talking Democrats into voting for a Democrat.

:sarcasm:

[NYCGirl]

22. It seems to me that the problem people are having with this situation has

nothing to do with Clark appearing on Fox, but Clark being an employee of Fox.

[Jai4WKC08]

27. Whoa! Clark won't be an "employee" of Fox

He's on contract. One that he negotiated. I don't know all the terms, except that he's not limited from appearing on other venues.

But that's not the same thing as being an employee. Not at all.

[Djinn]

43. to paraphrase Bill Hicks

contractor/employee, dosn't matter it's still "sucking satan's cock"

[NYCGirl]

47. But all of the "on-air talent" is under contract. NT

[Jai4WKC08]

55. There's a fundamental difference...

As well as a legal difference, between an independent contractor, who negotiates his or her own terms, and an employee who generally must accept a standard union contract.

Just sayin'.

[NYCGirl]

58. It all remains to be seen how this will play out. I'm going to have to

depend on reports here and at newshounds.us ("We watch Fox so you don't have to) and mediamatters.org, since I can proudly say I've never watched Fox, and I'm not about to start now.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

73. Uh oh

You mean having a contract with an employer who sends you your pay checks doesn't classify you as an "employee"? I think A LOT of people are going to be in trouble with the IRS....

Sorry - whoever hands you your money controls you.

[FrenchieCat]

90. As an accountant....

and self employed individual (actually, I have an S-Corp) I can assure you that it's not the same thing.

Real Contractors don't generally depend on one contract for their livelyhood....and there can be no master/servant relationship, i.e., contractor is asked when he/she is going to show up, not told...and you are not told what to do, you do what you do. Contractors are on their own timetable, and provide the services that they are known for....but cannot be told, in any great detail, specifically how they are to deliver these services. That's actually what makes up the biggest difference between the two.

Have you ever tried to get a building contractor to show up at your house when you told him/her.....or did you have to ask, or did he/she tell you? Try to remember, K?

The I.R.S. is well aware of the differences...

I think the question should be..... do you know what the differences truly are?

[AaronforAmerica]

24. Clark or Novak?

like i've been saying to people, i as a little shocked at first but after thinking about it - would we rather have people listening to General Clark or Bob Novak...or an even better example...tommy franks trying to justify bush's blunders...

i personally think there is no way general clark would accept the offer if they put any limitations on what he could say...rather the success of activists have pressured murdoch into shifting away from the ridiculous faux news (while i have no illusions that it will be much less un-biased on the whole) of the past as also evidenced by his meeting with senator clinton this week..

feel free to check out this petition several former clark staffers just put up:

www.stopjohnbolton.com

[WhollyHeretic]

25. I'm not sure what his motivation is...

I can't see much good coming from this though. Fox only uses Dems as straw men. They will ask him loaded questions and cut him off, I've never seen them let any Dem actually speak their mind. Look at that poor skeleton they put on with Hannity.

[Jai4WKC08]

29. Then you've never seen Clark on Fox before.

Which is understandable. I never watch Fox either, unless I get prior word of Clark or some other STRONG Democrat scheduled to appear. Their regulars are typically weenies I'll admit.

But this is what News Hounds wrote up of a prior appearance:

Way to Go, Wesley Clark!
General Wesley Clark proved that a Democrat CAN hold a FOX host at bay.

During an interview that aired June 25, 2004 (5:03 PM) Gibson consistently tried to interrupt the General's comments. But Clark just kept talking and Gibson never got to ask his usual "big" questions, ones that frequently mimic the RNC's talking points.

Clark had some pointed and important things to say to the FOX viewers about the war in Iraq and how it was bungled. He also elaborated on the dismal job we've been doing in our foreign relations and briefly presented the European side of the issues.

This did not go over well with Gibson, who is a total xenophobe (which means "one fearful of foreigners"). He seems to think that everyone in the rest of the world is out to get us, especially - dare I say it? - France! The title of his new book sums it up: Hating America: The New World Sport.

It was refreshing to see an articulate, experienced guest express a moderate viewpoint concisely and clearly.

It was especially gratifying to hear it with no FOX Partyspeak interjected at inappropriate times!

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/06/27/way_to_go_wesley_clark.php

[FrenchieCat]

30. Things can change....

Just like hoping that congress will change into democratic hands in 2006.

4 star Generals have always been Republicans. Clark changed that.

No one would say PNAC on television...or discuss the term NeoCOn. Clark changed that.

No other Democrat linked 9/11 to Bush's incompetency. Clark was the first.

No other Military consultant talked negatively about the Iraq war policy during the build up for the war.....and upon its onset. Clark was the first and was fired for it.

No other Democrat defended Michael Moore right to dissent on National Television. Clark did.

No other General was asking the White House to intervene in Rwanda. Clark did.

So Clark has many "First" on his record.....and this Fox thing won't be the last.

[Sparkly]

44. There was a recent interview on Faux that was quite civilized.

Soon after Scarborough's disgraceful treatment of General Clark regarding the Iraq elections, Clark was interviewed by some guy (I don't know names there) who actually asked a question, let him answer, asked another question, let him answer, etc...

I'm not saying Faux is a great network. I'm just saying CNN and MSNBC aren't paragons of propriety and truth, either.

[julianer]

31. Ignorant Brit has a question

Isn't Fox owned by Rupert Murdoch's WorldDom Corp?

If so don't be surprised by a switch in allegiance. Murdoch's newspapers in UK switched from Tory to Labour when he sensed that Labour was going to win in 97. He's stuck with them since.

Murdoch is only concerned about number one and he wouldn't allow Clark on if he wasn't at least hedging his bets.

[LuPeRcALiO]

32. good point.

Murdoch owns London Times which printed the DSM. Also Harper Collins which published a Naomi Klein book.

[roguevalley]

39. One of his paper editors said the only allegiance that Murdoch

won't challenge is his allegiance to money. It rules his world and if there is a nickel in pursuing progressive agendas, he will, personal ethics and mores be damned.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. And therein lies the biggest truth I've seen in all the Clark bash threads

today.

Pay attention to where ol' Rupert puts his emphasis. Bet hedging. Bet on it.

Yep, NO one's brought up the fact that it was a RupertRag that sprung the DSM from the clutches of the Brit government.

Funny how some facts get fixed to fit a mission ... or an ideology for or against a person.

But nobody pays attention to small stuff like that when it doesn't suit them.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. If a Murdoch pub sprang the DSM, that SUPPORTS his conservative leanings

Let's untwist the logic here: if the contention is that Rupert Murdoch is a reactionary, pro-corporate Catholic with deep anger at all social movements, why is it surprising that one of his mouthpieces was trying to bring down the less-conservative Blair in the heat of an election.

This sounds thoroughly consistent, and yet more proof that he's a rabid monarchist with a bent for world domination.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. Not necessarily

It actually appeared Blair was gunna get clocked and Rupert wanted to be on the winning side.

But on your part and mine, all of this is so much pure speculation.

[roguevalley]

40. bringing down Blair doesn't matter now. Brown will take his place

and the laborite agenda continues. There is no win for Murdoch here except a personal good jolly feeling over taking out Blair. Which is not a bad idea.

[julianer]

64. Murdoch

doesn't see it in those terms I don't think. It's purely business with him.

Murdoch would not have been motivated by trying to get rid of Blair - he wants to sell newspapers. I can't remember whether the Times supported Labour but his much bigger selling Sun did, so he was probably hedging his bets there as well.

[Djinn]

45. it doesn't matter whether Rupert has switched

of course he's done it before and will do it again - that's not the point, working for Fox makes Clark the worst kind of whore doesn't matter who Murdoch happens to be pimping right now

[julianer]

65. You are making a judgement

I'm trying to understand the motivations of Murdoch.

Chacun a son gout!

[Mark E. Smith]

34. Not Preaching To The Converted

How un-2005 can you get?

[Gloria]

38. If he's an "analyst" I don't want to seem him debating RW jackasses....

I want to see questions that at least are polite and civil. After all, Bill Schneider at CNN pontificates without interruption and doesn't get into shouting matches with the "hosts." I wonder which shows he will be on?? Why should he go on with Hannity or the rest of the pm crew? What "news shows" do they have...Hume? Wallace? Cavuto?? Is that where he'll be?

I hope he maintains his dignity for the sake of any future campaigns he may be thinking of....or has he decided not to run again?

Is his appearance on Hannity and Colmes tonight under this contract??

Not thrilled with this, but will wait and see before passing final judgment....

[quinnox]

67. I had a similar reaction

That maybe Clark has decided not to run in 2008.

Because otherwise it seems this would not go down well with Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats in the primaries, who seem to be a more liberal group of voters.

"Hmm, What about Clark?" - "Well, he worked for Fox news" - "Oh I see"

[MidnightWind]

46. I'm glad to know that he's there. It's high time they got a real Dem

to interview instead of the half-assed ones they usually chose to provide "commentary" for them!

[Grooner Five]

48. Maybe he'll do some good there.

How can it hurt?

[MrSlayer]

49. Is he getting his own show? How is this going to work?

I'll unblock Faux from my TVs if I get the chance to hear General Clark speak the truth.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

75. "I'll unblock Faux from my TV"

Which is exactly what rove is expecting you to do with this move. Enjoy the kool-aid.

[MrSlayer]

93. If you are implying that Clark is going to be a propagandist.

I have to disagree with you most vehemently. Clark is a no-bullshit type of guy and I can't imagine he'd sell out to the neo-cons for anything. At any rate my question is still not answered.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Everything is speculation at this point.

We'll know within a couple of appearances whether he's going to speak truth to power or speak power to truth.

I have a guess but it's only a guess, so I'll wait and see before I comment.

[yebrent]

52. All this arguing about Clark w/ Fox News...

...comes down to two different views on how we can change things in this world.

1. Some believe that participating in or working for any institution that you do not agree with is a betrayal. Attacking a damaging institution from the outside is the only way to effectively deal cause positive change in the institution.

2. Others believe that to change certain institutions, you need to have positive voices working on the inside for change. That from the inside, you can have a more positive effect on the direction of the institution.

I understand this dichotomy more than most. I am a progressive bay area, CA who works for a large bank. I am sometimes dismissed by supposedly open minded progressives after they learn that I help approve multi million dollar lines of credit for large corporations. They expect that I must be unhappy in my job and wonder why I haven't quit for some more honorable profession. Even after I explain it to them they usually still are not convinced.

What I tell them is this:

I have been with this bank for 6 years and over that time, I have seen the effect I have had on my coworkers. I can tell that my priority of strong ethics has rubbed off on them. I can tell that my concerns about certain companies environmental practices has impacted how my bank does business with them. I can tell that I am making more of a difference fighting in the belly of the beast than I would be from the outside. I tell them that the longer I am with the bank, the more power I will have to make positive change in the institution.

Also, I explain that how you make your money is only one half of the equation. How you spend your money is as equally important. I buy organic, use public transportation as much as possible, eat at independent restaurants, visit independent theaters, and shop as blue as I can. I attend a lot of concerts often giving tickets to friends, which supports a vibrant musical scene here in the Bay Area. I give away more to charity and politics than I can afford.

This often isn't enough. I shrug my shoulders and write this off as the close minded progressives thinking they have all the answers and know best what all of us should be doing to save our country and the world.

Sometimes it is sad, but over time, I have found like minded people who do understand that effective change happens from both pressure from the outside and people fighting for change from the inside.

[Jai4WKC08]

57. That's a very good analysis, but...

I don't think Clark gives a rat's ass about reforming Fox News. I think he wants to use them to get to their audience.

[Clarkie1]

53. Clark will be on Faux news at 9:30 EST.

General Clark will appear on Hannity & Colmes June 16th at 9:30pm EDT.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Murdoch turned on Tony Blair and he may be ready to turn on Bush!

Murdoch is no fool and he may be willing to support someone that will stop the erosion in America's global influence that Bush's misguided neocon policies have brought about.

[Tom Bombadil]

66. Murdoch didn't really turn on Blair.

The Murdoch owned 'Sun' is Britain's biggest selling paper and it backed Blair in the recent election.

Clark is making a brave choice - dancing with the Fox propaganda machine. Hope it doesn't backfire on him and the Democrats.

[foo_bar]

59. maybe Fox knows which way the wind be blowing

Murdoch is a capitalist above all, he won't take a bath just because republican stocks are low.

[Nye Bevan]

60. There is a good chance he will be the VP candidate in 2008

and this exposure will help him in this regard.

[nickshepDEM]

61. Speechless...

Just speechless.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

69. I suspected him during the primaries

which is why I was solidly behind Dean and DK. This confirms my suspicions.

Just like "I would be a repub if rove returned my calls". Whoever has the cash gets him.

[FrenchieCat]

76. Is there a broken record in here?

cause it sure sounds like it.

You need to buy you a DU star and start doing some research into the archives my man/gal...cause you don't know Jack; and you don't know Clark!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#092303125pm
Fineman's evidence is the say-so of Colorado's Republican Governor Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman.

"I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls," they say Clark told him.

Clark told Fineman he had just been kidding around. But Owens and Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was dead serious.

Now, Owens is a Republican and he's close to Karl Rove and President Bush. So I don't think you've got to use your imagination too creatively to see what agenda Owens might be advancing -- especially since the story doesn't really add up on several other counts as well.

http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000839.html
Jeeze, if Clark wasn't joking....and he really did call the WH....why is this the story in a RW hack mag?
Clark Never Called Karl
Wesley Clark says he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House phone logs suggest otherwise.
by Matthew Continetti
09/22/2003 1:45:00 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.asp

[Joacheme Misrahe]

77. First I'll overlook the fact

that you're of a ton on this thread with a clark sig.

Oh ok. So I'm supposed to believe clark never called with WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS as a source? Ok, sure. It's not like the white house ever released false documents before right?

No thanks. All it takes is rove, some whiteout, and ten seconds with the phone logs.

The fact is Clark is now on the FOX (and thus by default Rove) payroll.

I'm not going to sit around saying "Oh what a brilliant master plan general. Oooh la la. I can't wait for you to speak out"

This is FOX and you know DAMN WELL they will not allow opposition on the FOX network. When Mike Malloy was on they CUT HIS MIC (yes, literally. I have the video of it) in less than FIVE MINUTES of speaking out against them. They totally silenced him as they do anyone who doesn't agree with them.

The ONLY reason I can conclude clark is now on the FOX payroll is that he has turned. This is not at all surprising considering his various republican connections, and makes me even more glad I only donated to Dean and DK. For god sakes the man was voting for republicans prior to clinton. (odd the first dem he voted for gave him a position... and then later officially became a dem when he wanted to run for pres... certainly no opportunism here)

Further we need to be directing people AWAY from FOX news. Anything that can get them more viewers is the wrong thing. There is no master plan here. FOX has a couple hundred thousand viewers TOPS. Most of them are likely the 15% of the bush base that can not be reasoned with. Making any claim this is some master plan to reach out to people is bogus.

I'm SICK of being stabbed in the back by DINOS and rove plants. I'm going to bookmark this thread so 6 months from now I can link back to it and say I told you so.

So what's Clark dedicating his time to now? Taking FOX pay offs and giving his time to FOX news as a puppet while actual dems like Dean are working their asses off trying to fix things. Wonderful. What's he going to say in 08? "Oh hi. I've been whoring my self out to FOX all this time for cash. Can I run for president on the democratic ticket?" Of course by then bush will be done and they'll be looking for a new republican for the republican ticket. Maybe rove will give him a call. I have to wonder if this isn't a setup for that.

Anyway - He COULD be dedicating his time to something like election reform so we could actually win elections. But then again that line of work doesn't get you cash. I hope he enjoys his dirty fox money. Maybe he can use it to buy some respect after he's done being used by fox.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Your conclusions are you own.....

AND you lack any insight when you say...."The ONLY reason I can conclude clark is now on the FOX payroll is that he has turned."

That's the only reason YOU can conclude...meaning not a whole damn lot!

Let me know why Clark is a DINO, when you have a chance.

In reference to Clark and Rove....Rove and Co. were attempting to undermine Clark (like they try with everyone else) by saying that he really did call Rove, and that he really was serious about what he had said. That's the first part that I posted. But then they got confused, and decided it would be better to just call Clark a liar, by stating that he never called.

Let me break it down...cause it might be kinda complicated:
Clark made a joke about his independent status.
Rovians said....uh uh, he was serious as a heart attack.
So now, they check the phone records and say;
Clark is a liar...he never called.
They also regularily call Clark imbalanced and weird...cause that's their only avenue of attack on him.

They realized that some "dimass liberals" would buy it lock, stock and barrel.
It's called manipulation.
How does it feel?
=========
So we're down to a several hundred thousand watchers....as you say....
But I do believe that Faux still is the most watched cable new outlet according to these ranked listings the most popular stations and cable watched program to the least.....
Note that all of the Fox shows are near the top compared to the other cable stations.

Vox Populi for both Tuesday and Wednesday…
The numbers are from Nielsen’s
Wednesday, 5/18
Total Day
FNC - 798,000 viewers
CNN - 337,000 viewers
MSNBC - 180,000 viewers
HLN - 209,000 viewers
Prime Time
FNC - 1,625,000 viewers
CNN - 690,000 viewers
MSNBC - 324,000 viewers
HLN - 373,000 viewers

Tuesday, 5/17
Total Day
FNC - 852,000 viewers
CNN - 388,000 viewers
MSNBC - 195,000 viewers
=======
April 2005 Competitive Program Ranker (M-F 6a-11p programs)
April '05: 3/28/2005 - 4/24/2005
Ranked On:
HH HH P2+ A25-54
NETWORK PROGRAM NAME DAYS COV AA%AA (000) AA (000) AA (000)
FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR MTWTF.. 1.9 1,660 2,178 465 19
FOXN HANNITY & COLMES MTWTF.. 1.5 1,272 1,630 436 19
FOXN ON THE RECORD W/GRETA MTWTF.. 1.4 1,178 1,490 399 19
CNN LARRY KING LIVE MTWTF.. 1.2 1,053 1,268 352 20
FOXN THE FOX REPORT W/S.SMITH MTWTF.. 1.1 967 1,266 330 19
FOXN SPECIAL REPORTW/BRIT HUME MTWTF.. 1.0 897 1,120 236 19
CNN NEWSNIGHT W/ AARON BROWN MTWTF.. 0.8 752 907 307 20
FOXN FOX AND FRIENDS MTWTF.. 0.9 772 885 365 43
FOXN STUDIO B W/S.SMITH MTWTF.. 0.8 694 820 260 23
FOXN THE BIG STORY W/J GIBSON MTWTF.. 0.8 685 818 211 21
FOXN FOX NEWS LIVE MTWTF.. 0.8 661 772 246 104
CNN PAULA ZAHN NOW MTWTF.. 0.7 629 760 252 20
FOXN YOUR WORLD W/NEIL CAVUTO MTWTF.. 0.7 633 741 210 22
FOXN DAYSIDE WITH LINDA VESTER MTWTF.. 0.7 610 705 220 20
CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 MTWTF.. 0.6 534 632 198 20
CNN WOLF BLITZER REPORTS MTWTF.. 0.6 499 569 146 20
CNN LOU DOBBS TONIGHT MTWTF.. 0.5 487 559 157 20
CNN AMERICAN MORNING MTWTF.. 0.5 467 531 171 19
FOXN FOX & FRIENDS FIRST MTWTF.. 0.6 495 517 233 19
CNN INSIDE POLITICS MTWTF.. 0.5 457 512 140 20
CNN LIVE FROM ... MTWTF.. 0.5 426 483 154 58
CNN NEWS FROM CNN MTWTF.. 0.4 400 479 134 18
CNN CNN LIVE MTWTF.. 0.4 395 453 126 35
HLN NANCY GRACE MTWTF.. 0.4 374 451 136 20
CNN CROSSFIRE MTWTF.. 0.4 371 414 99 15
MSNB MSNBC INVESTIGATES ....F.. 0.4 358 413 176 3
MSNB SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY MTWTF.. 0.4 295 352 119 18
MSNB COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN MTWTF.. 0.3 290 339 115 20
MSNB HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS MTWTF.. 0.3 273 324 88 20
MSNB IMUS IN THE MORNING MTWTF.. 0.3 284 316 92 20
CNN CNN DAYBREAK MTWTF.. 0.3 292 312 136 19
HLN PRIME NEWS TONIGHT MTWTF.. 0.3 227 276 94 20
MSNB THE ABRAMS REPORT MTWTF.. 0.3 220 259 86 28
HLN CNN HEADLINE NEWS MTWTF.. 0.2 196 223 95 520
CNBC CLOSING BELL MTWTF.. 0.2 193 207 43 20
CNBC THE CONTENDER M.W.... 0.2 156 206 121 8
MSNB MSNBC LIVE MTWTF.. 0.2 187 203 71 139
CNBC STREET SIGNS MTWTF.. 0.2 175 188 47 20
CNBC THE APPRENTICE .T..F.. 0.2 156 178 103 8
CNBC THE OFFICE ....F.. 0.2 142 177 121 2
CNBC POWER LUNCH MTWTF.. 0.2 166 176 41 20
CNBC MORNING CALL MTWTF.. 0.2 155 164 42 20
CNBC KUDLOW & COMPANY MTWTF.. 0.2 145 159 35 20
MSNB CONNECTED: COAST TO COAST MTWTF.. 0.2 141 157 49 37
CNBC MAD MONEY MTWTF.. 0.2 139 151 46 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 9:30A MTWTF.. 0.2 142 149 45 20
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT MTWTF.. 0.1 108 128 59 40
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 9A MTWTF.. 0.1 110 119 29 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 8:30A MTWTF.. 0.1 104 119 35 20
CNBC DENNIS MILLER MTWTF.. 0.1 90 107 60 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 8A MTWTF.. 0.1 87 104 25 20
CNBC LATE NIGHT W/CONAN OBRIEN MTWTF.. 0.1 75 88 45 20
CNBC BIG IDEA W/ DONNY DEUTSCH MTWTF.. 0.1 68 79 39 19
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 7:30A MTWTF.. 0.1 65 73 32 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 7A MTWTF.. 0.1 63 62 26 20
CNBC WAKE-UP CALL MTWTF.. 0.0 36 34 15 20

Please know that we are at war in this country.....at war to win back our democracy...that was lost in the year 2000.

I, for one, am intense in winning this goddam war! So you can hate, be disappointed, and opine all you want. Avoiding the enemy ain't gonna get it, IMO. We are about to finish off what's left of them.

I received this great note from someone, and I enjoyed reading it.

As a liberal (which I hope means that you have an open mind, and don't consider yourself has having the only divine truth), I hope you will read it!

People out there in DU land and other Clark
bashing wastelands are forgetting what Clark's
profession was for so many years.

Clark was a military man. A four star General.
First in his class at West Point.

A person does not get to be number one at West
Point for brightly polished boots alone.
A person does not become a four star General for
being inept at The Art Of War.

If Clark bashers would stop for a moment and
think (yes, that means actually activating
the neurons and synapses of the cerebral
cortex) they would realize that Clark
"joining" Fox News is a part of Clark's
campaign strategy. A political campaign
for a General would be run like a war campaign.
It would be like Sun Tzu running for POTUS.

Sun Tzu, in his commentaries, The Art Of War,
is studied by all great military men. Since
the basics of war never change, Tzu's work
is as relevant today as when it was written.

Look at some of Tzu's concepts and see if
you think Clark is a traitor, or, if Clark
is pursing a brilliant strategy in his quest
for POTUS? A strategy conceived in a military
mind.
---------------------

All warfare is based on deception.

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive;
when we are near, we must make the enemy believe
we are far away; when far away, we must make him
believe we are near.

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.

If his forces are united, separate them.

Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.

These military devices, leading to victory, must
not be divulged beforehand.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence
consists in breaking the enemy's resistance
without fighting.

Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's
troops without any fighting.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy unprepared.
-----------
I think that people, if they will put themselves
in Clark's mind, will understand that Clark has
gone on the offensive. He is in enemy territory
to divide the enemy. Since Fox News is a
bastion of enemy propaganda, where is there a
better place to undermine the enemy? Where is
there a better place to break enemy resistance?
Subdue the enemy without fighting; take the
enemy unprepared. Do not divulge your plans
beforehand. Is this not what Sun Tzu says the
superior General must do to be victorious?

If people are bashing Clark for being a traitor
to the progressives, then Clark must be using
the correct strategy, because Clark is giving
the deception of crossing over to enemy territory
when in reality he is attacking the other side
from within.

In my mind that is a brilliant strategy. I
think Sun Tzu would agree.

Name withheld pending permission to attribute.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

84. I will agree

that what you say is *possible*. At the same time, however, I've also been witness to countless actions of people we thought were on our side though ended up stabbing the party and country in the back.

I think I have a good ability to predict when a high profile individual is going to turn. For example, when I was at bartcop I pieced together enough information to come to my own conclusion of bev harris being a plant before most did.

I think those numbers are inaccurate. Everything I've read of late suggests that FOX is rapidly losing viewers, and that they are far behind CNN. Regardless of that, however, the fact remains most that watch FOX news are republican party base elements that likely will never be reasoned with.

Furthermore the primary effort of the party at this point in time needs to be getting rid of the voting machines. We should have learned back in 2002 that reaching out to the hard right (for example, FOX news) was a wasted effort and that the actual issue that needs to be addressed is the machines. Until that issue is addressed it doesn't matter if FOX news is turned solid blue so long as the neocons still count the votes.

That fact alone makes me question the sincerity of any attempt to turn republicans via FOX news. It could be that clark is simply naive and truly believes getting on FOX news could actually do that, but I don't think so. He doesn't come across as an idiot to me, and I don't think he would be so naive to believe FOX news can be used to convert republicans. (He would have to literally buy the entire network in order to use it for that purpose)

So I'm left wondering why he's selling him self to FOX news?

"A political campaign
for a General would be run like a war campaign.
It would be like Sun Tzu running for POTUS."

This is the kind of thing that really makes me wonder about some people. (It's also the kind of thing that makes me want to ask them to PM me so I can tell them about a bridge I have for sale)

This "general running an election like a war campaign" crap is truly out there. IMO it's a bunch of crap that sounds good but lacks any substance. (much like a rove written speech) An election can NOT be run like a "war" due to the simple fact that it is NOT a war. If clark wants to run an election like a "war" then he should get him self an M16 and some hand grenades and see how far he gets.

Clark had his chance in the primary. He failed miserably. Why? Perhaps because his experience was military - not running in civilian elections. That being the case he shouldn't have behaved like the green party and gone straight to the stop before he won some lower offices.

IMO clark is not joining FOX to run a campaign. He's joining FOX because the cash is nice. And it may also be he's been entirely bought by rove.

Let's look at the simple reality of FOX and WHY no "infiltrate FOX from the inside" strategy could possibly work

1. Fox is controlled by the hard right. In order to overcome this you must buy the network so that they don't control you (or at least when your mic is turned on). Clark has not bought the network therefore he has no control over what FOX airs.

2. Damn near any other network is better than FOX for getting out a democratic message. Clark has not chosen to be on the payroll of any of them and instead chose to work for one of the most right wing networks. Therefore it can be concluded working for the network that will most likely let him get out a democratic messages is not on the agenda. (further, if he worked for say air america the ratings could go through the roof. Instead he chose not to work for a progressive controlled network.)

3. Fox news cut off Mike Malloys mic within 5 minutes of speaking out against them. They shout over or otherwise silence other voices of opposition that may find their way on. Therefore it is entirely logical to assume clark will get ZERO messages out (assuming he wanted to) thus making the whole objective pointless from day one.

4. Fox has total control over who they let on the air. They would not let someone on who they could not control. Therefore it can be concluded that they have come to some agreement, and that clark won't buck the fox system.

5. Clark has questionable republican ties. They can all be refuted, but the fact remains they exist. It's entirely possible he's turned.

6. Fox is watched by a large number of hard right republican party base members. These people can not be reached.

Taking all of this in to account I can't see any claim that being on the FOX payroll will do even the slightest good for the party as legit. If anything it will be spinned as "Look! See the "democrat"? They support us too!" Much like Zell at the republican convention.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Whatever you surmise....

is fine with me.

If you were talking to someone uninformed about Wes Clark, you might appear to have a point....but you're not. You have YOUR point, but again, that's all it is. So you've been burned. Sorry to hear it. I have never been burned by Wes Clark, and so he has earned my calm and my trust.

It's kinda of interesting the way you choose not to show any interest in Clark's discussions of PNAC nor his calling out Bush, time and time again on 9/11, Iraq, and other matters. Nor does the fact that he was essentially fired from CNN...or that he defended MM right to speak when no on else would...or that he didn't run away from the word liberal, nor that he defended Howard Dean just last week, or that he was retired early because he argued that instead of High altitute bombing we needed Boots on the ground in Kosovo to minimize casualties. or the fact that he was one of the very few to call for intervention in Rwanda and is calling for something to be done now about Darfur.

Funny about that...how you choose to concentrate on something that he has yet to be judged on (cause he's only done one appearance, that by all standards was no sell out) and yet choose to ignore anything that he has actually done that could actually provide some measure of the man.

Guess with some folks, it's all about--What have you done for me like today? type of impatient shortsightness.

I will say that Bartcop has always been a great supporter of Wes Clark. Did you know that? I guess you must have....since you got so many of the answers to what's up and what's down.

You keep on being a being cynical (I don't blame you one bit), you hear!...and I'll keep having faith in someone that I have closely researched and have followed for the last few years.

But let me ask you this--What did you think of the Compromise on the Nuclear option? What was your insight on that, when it first came down?
=====
In reference to Clark and Faux, I will agree to disagree with your "Sky is falling" scenario, if you don't mind. But certainly feel free to hold those views....and by all means, we should both bookmark this thread, and see what's up in a couple of months.
That's certainly my strategy, rather that than to pounce and scratch from the sideline.

In the end, time will tell all ....and that's a fact! :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

87. you are clueless as to what Clark has been doing....

which is sad....considering how much you talk.

He's not the DNC Chair....and he has publicly called for a voting holiday....something he does speak about....
Here's his schedule for the last couple of months. I didn't include his Tv appearances on CNN and Faux.....cause I don't want to upset you anymore than you already are. :)

April 14th: US Naval Academy Conference, Annapolis MD
April 18th: 2005 Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills-on panel.
April 20th: Dewey Ballantine Distinguished Speaker Series event in Houston with remarks by General Wesley K. Clark. Followed by a question-and-answer session.
April 21st: Traveling to Kazakhstan from April 21st-April 24th.
April 27th: NDN conversation with General Wesley Clark about America's Role in the World...at the home of Chris Heinz in NYC, April 30th: White House Correspondants Dinner in DC.
May 4th: delivering the Tribute to Liberators keynote address for the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. This event is closed to the public.
May 6th: Speaks on a panel before The Atlantic Council and the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany --"Germany and NATO: The Next 50 Years"
May 7th : May 2005 Commencement Address at Lyon College and will also receive an honorary degree.
May 13th: Khakis & Catfish Democratic Constitutional Officers
May 14th: Associated Press Luncheon
May 14th: Democratic Party of Arkansas 2005 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner
May 15th: Ripon College Commissioning Ceremony
May 17th: Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus in Washington D.C.
May 18th: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations-
May 18th: A New Strategy for America-- speaking engagement
May 21st: Keynote speaker atACLU of Georgia Annual Bill of Rights dinner:
May 23rd: Jimmie Lou Fisher Campaign Debt Payoff Fundraiser
May 24th: Arizona Democratic Party Press Conference with Veterans
May 28th: Democratic Radio Response which will run on Saturday, May May 28th: Cornell University Convocation
May 30th: Al Franken radio show
June 1st: The City Year Awards-Robinson Center Music Hall-Speaker
June 6th: Ed Schultz Show
June 12th:Annual Flag Day Dinner-Manchester City Democratic Committee, NH- Keynote speaker
June 21st: Fundraiser for Congressional Candidate Eric Massa
June 22nd: Testifying --UN Task Force Congressional Hearing
June 22nd: Fundraiser for Congressman Lincoln Davis
June 23rd: Clark speaks on Kosovo, Military Channel
June 27th-July 2nd - 78th Annual LULAC National Convention -Will speak (in Spanish)
=====
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051705/dems.html
On the staff level, Reid’s aides have organized several meetings between about 50 Democratic aides and a group of national-security experts. The experts who have met with staff members include retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme allied commander; Rand Beers, who served as foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential campaign; and Brookings Institution scholars Susan Rice and James Steinberg. Three or four more of these meetings are expected to take place in the next 10 weeks, Democratic aides said.

The purpose of the meetings is to ensure that Democratic “staff has the confidence and tools to support members” of the Senate as they articulate their party’s position on foreign policy and security issues, said a senior Democratic aide familiar with the meetings. “Reid has the feeling that national security is highly important.”
=====
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.clark.html
Washington Monthly May 2005
War didn't and doesn't bring democracy
By Gen. Wesley Clark
=====
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.clark13apr13,1,1055715.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
A dose of humility
By Wesley K. Clark
=====
http://www.usnewswire.com/
Democrats Announce GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century
=====
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/campaigns/sgw/bio/general_clark/
Stop Global Warming March-
Top 10 Marchers
General Wesley Clark (3,228)
David (1,681)
Al Franken (1,677)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (1,368)
Laurie David (1,292)
Reverend William Sinkford (488)
charles (335)
Rabbi David Saperstein (297)
Wendy (244)
Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) (190)
====
http://www.eamedia.org/2005/nr05/01.php
US FORCES SHOULD INTERVENE IN DARFUR, SUDAN – GEN. WESLEY CLARK
Almaty, Kazakhstan, April 23 –
snip
"US forces with a mandate and adequate cover should go in and stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur," he said in answer to a question. "It has gone on long enough. Enough is enough. It must stop."

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/07/06/50105...
Out of time in Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast

For the past year, the international community has shamefully acquiesced to the crimes against humanity occurring daily in the Sudanese province of Darfur.

Clark is a board member:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1
as a Vice Chair -- of which George Soros is a chairman...
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1

[CarolNYC]

91. watch and listen

Well, it seems obvious from your posts here that you'd jump on Clark no matter what he did so I'm thinking you won't be swyed...but for the sincere skeptics here, watch and listen.....You don't even have to watch Fox if you don't want to....I believe, but am not sure, that transcripts will be up on the WesPAC site...and not Fox transcripts but ones transcribed by folks doing the dirty job of watching the video over and over to get every word correctly.

"watch and listen"

[Crunchy Frog]

83. Never believe the words of a Democrat

when you can believe the words of a radically RW Repuke instead. This philosophy seems to be very prevalent here on DU. I wonder if it this sort of thing might have something to do with the current dismal state of the Democratic party.

It is kind of gratifying to see the kind of credibility that my dear Governor Bill Owens has at this site though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. 2008 will be here soon

He is crazy as a fox, after readying the first transcript... crazy as a fox...

[ngGale]

79. What will we think if Clark starts...

spewing the faux line? Is it going to be his job to start spinning Iraq in Bush's favor? Lot's of questions here, everybody on Faux is an operative. Greta is the only one who seems not to be effected, but at times even she goes for the gusto. They have to tow the line.
This bother's me, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[FrenchieCat]

81. Well, I'm sure that those of us liberals

who intend to watch (only Clark appearance, mind you) will be able to tell if the man is "turning"...now won't we? Or are we just stupid and gullible?

He didn't turn while he was on CNN....so why should he turn now?
His first appearance since he signed didn't appear to have him cowing down to Hannity and Homie...now did it?
So, so far, so good.

Clark is not "everybody else". He's the only 4 star General who is a Democrat. So why can't he be another first? The first non-operative on Faux?

I don't even get the logic anymore. It's almost like just excuses.

I ain't f*cking scared of Faux....and neither is the General, apparently.

[Crunchy Frog]

85. Let's at least watch him and see what he actually does

before passing judgement. If he starts sounding like a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, I will be the first person with a mea culpa. But why don't we at least give him the benefit of the doubt and see what he does with this first.

By the way, this is entirely consistent with things he's been saying for months about how we have to go beyond just preaching to the choir, and try to get through with our message to people who don't normally hear it. He has always urged his supporters to listen to RW radio (something that I'm unable to do) and call in to give our opinions.

[Nikki Stone 1]

86. In 1992, The Weekly World News had Ross Perot shaking a space alien's hand

on the front cover.

For some reason, this is the picture that came to my mind after reading this thread.

[FrenchieCat]

89. I though that I was reasonably intelligent...

but that one just kind of passed right by me.

Maybe it's just late...

But could you xplain the parallels on that?

please?

[socalover]

92. Lost all respect for Clark but Faux is protecting themselves

from their critics and the "fair reporting act". Clark is just a pawn, it must have been some good money!

[FrenchieCat]

94. What you say, you don't justify......

which means your statement is one of those indignant "full of Shit" statements made by those poor uninformed souls who like jumping on bandwagons just cause....they can.

Real Liberals don't make such quick judgements based on nothing more than a misplaced intuition, especially when the one to be judged already has a sound track record.

Poseurs are a dime a dozen. You must have a lot a change in your pocket!