Concerning the Newest Member of the Fox News Family

[norml]

He let Hannity get away with saying that we're not murdering anyone in our prison camps, when there HAVE been documented cases of murder.

General "taking the fight to the enemy" responded with broad pleasantries. He takes the fight to the enemy, like Colmes takes the fight to the enemy.

Those who really take it to Fox News, don't get invited on Fox News anymore, let alone get hired by them. Remember what happened when Garafalo called them for what they are, when on one of their shows?

What was his message, something about how we need to have input on this policy issue? Could he have been any more vague?

I was waiting for him to say something that would make me want to cheer him on. I suppose that I should be grateful that at least he didn't go along with denouncing Durbin, even though he didn't do much to defend him.

I'll be waiting for him to say something that makes me want to support this "He'll take the Red States" hero, and hoping it won't be just more playing pat a cake with the right wing media whores by this newest member of the Fox News Family.


It's nothing against him. Of course I'll support him if he gets the nod. It's just that I'd have something to say about any Democrat who joined Fox News as an employee, and didn't do more to risk getting fired.


I've got to get ready for work now. I close tonight, so it's not likely I'll be able to respond to this thread until much later. I may not even respond to it at all. We'll see how things go.





http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clark+fox+news&btnG=Google+Search

[Cooley Hurd]

1. I respect General Clark greatly...

...but his recent deal with FauxNews decreases my respect.:(

[oregonjen]

3. For someone out of this loop, why is Clark on Faux?

When did he sign on? What kind of deal? Thanks!

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Moonie Times link, but it explains it:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050616-121814-5460r.htm

Fox hires Clark
Former Gen. Wesley Clark, a Bush critic who ran for president as a Democrat last year, has been hired by the Fox News Channel as a military and foreign-affairs analyst, the network announced yesterday.
"I am excited by this opportunity to contribute to Fox News Channel's coverage and offer my perspective to the important issues facing the United States and the global community," Mr. Clark said.
Mr. Clark ended his presidential bid after the Tennessee and Virginia primaries in February 2004 and soon thereafter traveled around the United States in support of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry.

[Adelante]

83. Some background for you

For the past year or so, Clark's been talking about how the right wing has a monopoly on what voters in red and purple states get to hear over the airwaves. He talks to Dem pols about this. He has spent time meeting with journalists and editors, as well as media people, talking about how to break the stranglehold. He believes Democrats have been too complacent in permitting it to happen in the first place. We should never have given up and played dead over Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans.

He talks to his supporters, saying we're responsible, too, and have to do our part. Call into rw radio talk shows, write letters to the editors of conservative newspapers, correct the misinformation and propoganda.

His plan here with Fox is to get a Democratic voice out to that part of the Fox audience that is persuadable. We are in a lock in terms of votes for 2006 and 2008. If we can't peel off reasonable Fox viewer types, we will keep on losing. Clark believes, as Dean believes, that we have an agenda that can appeal to these voters, particularly now that Bushco is imploding. But we can't do that if they aren't hearing from us.

His deal is as a military and foreign affairs analyst. This is an area where Democrats fail in exit polls and opinion polls. Voters already trust us on domestic issues, but not on security and foreign policy. That's certainly been proven again and again. Clark is the ideal Democrat for this work and it should do the party a lot of good at the polls in 2006, after he presents his solid understanding of where Bush's foreign policy has taken the country and the world.

That's where he sees the winning strategy, putting our policies up against theirs.

He's never going to be the screamer much of DU seems to want. He's never going to be the Sean Hannity of Democrats. He's never going to be entirely partisan in his outreach, because he WANTS Republicans and Independents to grow the Democratic vote.

If we don't stop talking to each other and start talking to new voters, we lose and lose and lose. I think he's taken on a tough gig here. It's a shame how closed minded and shortsighted some Democrats can be.

[oregonjen]

89. Thanks for the background.

I really wanted Clark to run in the last election. When he announced his run, I was really excited. However, since Kerry was the chosen one, I of course supported him. If Clark runs in '08, I will put my effort in to getting him nominated. :hi:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cooley Hurd]

61. He is giving credibility to Faux by appearing on it...

What he should've done is publicly turn them down.:thumbsdown:

[FrenchieCat]

62. But yours is just one opinion.

Are you a paid strategist or something? Or is it "the" Principled thing with you. :shrug:

Did you tell Amy Goodman that you didn't want her to have a book published by that big Conservative publishing house she's using.

Should AAR just come off the air, instead of allowing Clear Channel's credibility to be increased (and their pocketbooks too)?

I mean, why be so judgemental about a man willing to go and tell the truth. Why is the venue the issue, and not the message?

Would you not have watched if Faux was the only network what would have broacasted the Conyers DSM Hearings? OT--(by the way, I am so very proud of my Black brothers and sisters (Barbara Lee--My Friend and Representative/Charlie Rangel--Big time Clark supporters, and many others) who, time after time stand for what's right. Hope that many (not just the choir) hear them too!

BTTS- I have heard other takes from yours, and they all make a lot of sense. None of the networks have credibility, if you ask me. During the primaries and the election, I didn't find one to be better than the other.

Clark on Fox
Posted by matt on June 16th, 2005 at 11:00 am

I’ve been receiving emails from readers pointing me to this story on General Wesley Clark taking a job on Fox News as a military and foreign affairs analyst. Clark was our choice for the Democratic nomination in 2004, and remains our preferred candidate for 2008.

Since the general tone of the emails is a sort of good-natured ribbing, I’d like to address them all at once.

Clark has all but announced that he will seek the nomination in 2008. The United States has experienced five years of 50/50 politics where a swing of a few voters here and there has made a huge difference. George W. Bush would not have been elected President without the votes of some Democrats, and no Democrat will be elected without some Republican votes. Name recognition and a late start doomed Clark’s campaign in late 2003/early 2004, and he seems determined not to repeat his mistakes. Gaining exposure to the Fox News audience on their dime is a win-win for Clark, and anyone at all familiar with him knows that he’ll speak his mind no matter what the venue. Consider this exchange from November 2003:

Quote:
David Asman: On Meet the Press you said something about Iraq. You said, “President Bush has said is the centerpiece for the war on terror. It isn’t. It’s a sideshow. It’s simply their easiest means of access to attack American soldiers. That’s all it is.” Do you really think Iraq is only a sideshow?

Clark: For the war on terror it’s a terrible distraction. We should have gone directly after Osama bin Laden….We should be putting a full court effort on finding Osama bin Laden….

David Asman: While our men and women are dying in Iraq, is it proper to call it a sideshow?

Clark: Our men and women in Iraq are doing a fabulous job….Don’t you dare twist words into disrespect for our men and women in uniform….You better take my words the right way.

I think you’re trying to distort my meaning. I want to make it very clear, and I think you’ve said I made it clear. The sideshow is not the men and women in uniform. It is the leadership of the President of the United States who would get us into this. And I think we need to be very straight in covering this. I’m not afraid to say what’s right and wrong in this country. And I’m speaking out, David. And I’m telling you this. That war in Iraq is a war that did not have to be fought.

This was no isolated incident, Clark has eviscerated Sean Hannity on more than one occasion, and has done the same on his other appearances on Fox and the other networks.

I’ll admit I’ve left my objectivity behind on this issue, but this will be a net positive for Clark in short order. If Republicans really are interested in a President “who means what he says and says what he means,” they’ll soon realize how lacking the current President is.
http://www.1115.org/index.php?p=1433

or this one...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/16/93044/8290

or this one...

Thursday, June 16, 2005
Wes Clark takes another one for his country

Faux News has signed Wesley Clark. This is causing some consternation in a lot of quarters. A lot of people are disappointed in the general and others are in "I told you so." mode about it. I'm in the camp who thinks it's worth a shot.

Faux News is. Nothing we can do about that. It's not just wingnuts who watch it. I've spent a lot of time in doctors offices and hospital waiting rooms in the last few years and Faux is on those TVs as much or more than other news channels. And that's in a pretty blue area. Lots of regular people of the non-news junkie persuasion watch it. It's kind of like the Danielle Steele of TV news. It's easy to follow, makes no intellectual demands and people who don't have any particular passion for issues sometimes find it entertaining. Those are the people who need most to understand how the policies of the current administration are hurting them. Right now, too many of them don't.

If Clark is considering another run for the White House, there couldn't be a better way to introduce himself to a lot of people who hadn't gotten to know much about him before. Some people think this is a crazy move, but it could be that he's crazy like a fox - you should excuse the expression.

We wish General Clark the best of luck in this new mission.
| zenyenta |
http://zenyenta.blogspot.com/2005/06/wes-clark-takes-another-one-for-his.html

[CarolNYC]

87. the credibility argument

This credibility argument strikes me as absurd.

Do you really think that those who now view Fuax as a credible source of news would suddenly see the light, realize it really is a propaganda arm of the administration and quit watching because Gen Clark publicly turns down a chance to appear there? Do you really think that people who don't now view Faux as a credible source of news now will because Clark will appear there? That just sounds like a really bizarre concept to me.

I love Gen Clark and I wish he had so much influence over so many as you suggest but I just don't think he does.

[FourStarDemocrat]

93. Clark is following thru with his plan, you should wait before judging him.

In August of 2004 at a clark event in Long Island which I attended, Clark spoke very seriously about the millions of Americans who would otherwise side with the Democrats on issues, but fail to do so because they recieve literally all of their news from right wing media, such as the Rush Limbaugh show. They believe the spin because that's all they hear. There's few progressive voices to counter that. He said that it's our duty to get on these shows and give the facts, to call in and do anything we can to let the other side be heard. He challenged all of us, no matter how distastful it sounds, to take just a few minutes per week to call into just one rightwing talk show and counter the spin with THE FACTS. With even just a few hundred more people a week doing this, it would help make a difference.

So, now here's Clark doing this--going right into the lair's den of Faux news and taking up Faux minutes that would otherwise be used to promulgate more freeper bullshit and use them to strongly and articulately present an informed progressive side to the millions of americans who sit in front of televisions with the Fox channel on in airports, bars, stores and living rooms, and people here are complaining? I applaud Clark for getting out there and doing what he's envisioned. He's been on the frontlines all of his life, now he's taking the fight to them.

[kentuck]

2. So long as he remembers Gov Dean's comments...

that FOX is a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, he'll be alright..

[Debi]

5. Doesn't that make him a catapulter of the propaganda

just by being there?

[Kahuna]

24. Clark knows better than Dean does what Fox is and does. You all act,..

as if Clark hasn't had numerous run ins with wingnuts on Fox already.

[FrenchieCat]

56. I'm sure he heard and remembers Dean's comment.....

after all, he did say that he was proud of Howard Dean...unlike some other people we know.

In fact, Clark probably knows a thing or two himself about the media.

After all, they did dismiss him from CNN....didn't they?

[KC21304]

6. I didnt see it. How often will he be on ?

I'm afraid he may be trading the opportunity to be seen by the rightwingers who watch Fox for the opportunity to be seen by by all the others who watch the other Sunday morning and MSNBC week night talk shows because Fox surely isn't going to let him appear anywhere else.

We will see if that is a good deal for him and us. Maybe this is a very short term deal and will give him name recogination with some of the fed up Christian right and bring us enough to win. I do think he has what it takes if he doesn't get sucker punched in this deal.

[norml]

8. DEMOCRAT WESLEY CLARK SIGNED BY FOX NEWS: Thursday, June 16 2005

DEMOCRAT WESLEY CLARK SIGNED BY FOX NEWS
Thursday, June 16 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what some critics described as an effort to counter Democratic attacks that it has become a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, Fox News Channel has signed 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark as a military and foreign affairs analyst. "I am excited by this opportunity to ... offer my perspective to the important issues facing the United States and the global community," Clark said in a statement. Fox News executive producer Bill Shine said: "Gen. Clark's extensive military experience and sharp insight make him a powerful addition to Fox News Channel." Clark, the retired four-star general who once commanded NATO, has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy in general and the war in Iraq in particular. Meanwhile, in an interview with today's (Thursday) Philadelphia Inquirer, Geraldo Rivera took aim at Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, who recently referred to Fox News as the "propaganda outlet of the Republican Party." Rivera, who signed a new four-year contract with Fox News this week, told the Inquirer that if Dean "had the guts to say that to my face, I'd smack him. Our shop is a place where ideas flourish."



snip



http://www.showbizdata.com/contacts/picknews.cfm/38834/DEMOCRAT_WESLEY_CLARK_SIGNED_BY_FOX_NEWS

[CarolNYC]

14. His deal with Fox

doesn't preclude him from going on other networks...

[CarolNYC]

15. Oh, and he will also be on...

Fox News Live
June 19, 2005 - 6:10pm
and
June 21, 2005 - 2:00pm

[CarolNYC]

17. here's News hounds take on the interview from last night

Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity

Wesley Clark, new Fox News contributor, had a chance to test his debate strategies with Hannity last night on Hannity and Colmes. Clark was on to discuss Dick Durbin's comment about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and if Hannity expected Clark to apologize for Durbin's comment, he was in for a surprise.
The segment opened with a video clip of Durbin's statement on the Senate floor. Seeing the complete statement in context with Durbin's intonations and body language gave a very different impression to viewers. Durbin described a detainee chained hand to foot, naked, on the floor covered in feces and urine for 18 to 24 hours. Durbin's point was that this scenario seems more consistant with a Nazi camp or Soviet Gulag or some other mad regime.Durbin was clearly concerned and sad that this had become U.S. policy.

Of course, Hannity called for Wesley Clark to condemn Durbin calling it "over the top, repugnant propaganda". Clark's response to Hannity was very effective.
" I'm not going to condemn Durbin. How we are percieved at Guantanamo on top of the bad press from Abu Ghraib is important. I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis but we have a policy issue here. How do we deal with it?"

After Hannity made his usual veiled accusations of treason, Clark calmly responded refusing to get defensive.He told Hannity that this should not be a political issue at all and we should all pull together and focus on the issue so we can find a solution.We need to look at the situation and evaluate. "We need a process."

Colmes then showed a clip of Rick Santorum comparing Democrats to Nazis and wondered why there was no outrage expressed over Santorum's comment. Clark dismissing the whole controversy said " Whoever uses the Nazi word first, loses. We have a national security issue here"

Clearly, he considered the bickering counter productive.

Comment: Clark's refusal to play politics sapped Hannity's power completely. In essence, Clark was saying this problem is real so stop deflecting our attention. Let's look at it and solve the problem together because it's wrong and the orders are coming from the top.

When Hannity thanked Clark for his appearance,his expression was somber and slightly sour.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php#more

[reality based]

7. The General was my candidate last time until it became obvious

that Kerry was the one. I am seriously considering him for 2008, but I have serious reservations about this Fox deal. He risks his Democratic credentials which are somewhat weak anyway. He can't win the Presidency if he can't get the Democratic nomination. I fear that Fox can mess him up in a variety of different scenarios. It is, after all, the propaganda outlet of the Republican Party. If he is clever enough to overcome them, fine, but make no mistake he is in the enemy's lair. If he views this as a gig on a legitimate news network he is more naive than I have previously thought.

[kentuck]

10. He is walking on dangerous ground...

But he has been there before. I will withhold judgement until I see how he handles himself. If he does well, that would be a positive that we have a voice to counter the right-wing noise machine.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Clark is used to it....

Dangerous grounds...that is.

[Clark2008]

81. For anyone who saw it - he handled himself just fine.

He made Hannity eat shit.

[CarolNYC]

16. I think he views it as a chance to get the truth out...

...to some who might otherwise not hear it.

As for his Democratic credentials, I think he believes there are much bigger things at stake here than the possibility of his risking winning the Democratic nomination. He's never been one to take the safe or easy path or to shy away from risks he feels are worth taking.

I think he's smart enough and tough enough to handle those guys over there....

[reality based]

22. With all due respect

Fox news viewers are not likely to be interested in truth. What he can do is entertain, draw some more centrist viewers to bolster Fox's sagging ratings, and perhaps lob a few confounding grenades into the noise machine. After which he should get the hell out.

[CarolNYC]

23. I think Fox News viewers

are a little more varied than you give them credit for. Some are, without a doubt, totally unreachable. But there are others who just aren't paying as close attention to things as we do who watch and really think they're getting the news.

I wrote in another thread that my Mom watches Fox News. She's a major Democrat so I don't worry that she will be swayed but it drives me nuts to go over there when she has it on. I holler at her but she claims that sometimes it's the best place to get the news...Now, if they can suck my mother in like that, they can suck others in too...

Gen Clark is an optimist, really. He believes in the goodness of people and he believes that if these people just heard another side they could be swayed. He believes very strongly in what our side has to say and thinks if others just heard it, they'd believe too...the problem is they are not hearing it.

You may not agree but I do think there are a lot of people who watch Fox that aren't hard right wingers...I know some of them.

And thanks for the due respect...right back at you. :hi:

[reality based]

31. Unfortunately

your mother may be right about there being a little more traditional news on Fox. I know some news junkies who watch Fox, too. Since you seem to know his heart and core beliefs so well maybe you have some personal contact with General Clark. If so, tell him to watch his back.

[CarolNYC]

59. I'm not certain

if you're attempting to at least mildly ridicule me or not with that post....

Did I write too much as if I knew the mind and soul of Clark? In rereading, I suppose I should have put in some "I think"s and/or "IMO"s, eh? My bad.

I have met and spoken with him a number of times and did spend an evening with someone who knew him quite well for a number of years but I'm only acquainted with him as a volunteer in his NYC office (where we did have a lot of opportunity to interact with him) and someone who attends WesPAC related fundraisers and events.

I'm guessing he knows he needs to watch his back and that he knows how to do it but, if I do see him again soon, I'll let him know there are those who would warn him to be careful.

[KC21304]

64. I'm glad to hear he will still be on other networks.

If that is the case, then I think it was a smart move. People who would not otherwise see much of him will get to know him. When some of them realize what a godawful mess we are in, as at least some of them will, they may come our way, especially if Clark is the nominee.

[ksclematis]

88. He's been in wars and battles before

and I'm sure he keeps track of the enemy at all times. He didn't make SACEUR NATO without proper credentials and experience....He knows his way around....just watch him!!!

[Al-CIAda]

9. I agree- a 4 star Colmes. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

43. Oh, really? I never saw Colmes calmly dismiss a blathering Hannity

even once while staying on message with the Democratic leadership:

"Don't get distracted, stick to the issues and let's discuss the failed policies of this administration."

[CarolNYC]

45. I do love the way

Clark was able to dismiss him last night...That was sweet....

[ClarkUSA]

49. Yes, almost as if he's used to dealing with petty despots - oh wait -

That was Wes Clark who saved 1.5 million Albanians from that genocidal Serbian
Milosevic, who's now feeding birds from his jail cell, right?

Hannity is child's play for General Clark.

Brit Hume will be milquetoast before and just toast afterwards. ;-)

I hope Wes Clark goes up against PNAC ringleader Billy Kristol soon.

:applause:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

18. Bull

He is who he is. Pro-military, anti-neocon. Former Republican-leaning Independant who became a Democratic leaning Independant, then a full out Dem. He ain't Dean, however. It doesn't sound like he gave Hannity a chance to be an asshat. What's Hannity the chickenhawk gonna say to the General, esp. when the General is being polite.

At the least, it sounds like the General was trying to reframe the issues.

I for one will be giving him a chance.

[Double T]

21. Time Will Tell Us The Truth.......

hope you are correct!!!

[Cha]

40. Get a Grip! All these extreme

blanket statements about our Dems..drive me up the proverbial WALL!

I spent all last week defending Dean now it looks like it's Clark's turn.

As George Galloway said on Randi Rhodes yesterday.."We need to Maximize our Strengths and Leave Our Differences At The Door"!

[FrenchieCat]

48. That's some old mess....and you have just found your excuse to make it new

again.

From what I saw on Faux (I only watched the Clark Segment), so far....seems like Wes Clark is getting out a good 2006 message--"It's the policy, stupid" to Fox viewers.

I am very happy that Wes Clark cares more about this country than he does about how the base will judge him for going into the Lion's Den! He's thinking with his head, and not with his heart or his interest on this one.

To his detractors...Goodie! You now have a real excuse. Why? Cause he gave you one. Why? Cause he understands that personal pandering to potential primary voters is not how this country will be saved. For those who believe that Clark should just sit on the sidelines and hold on until the primaries, you are not thinking about the good of this country. We do not have the luxury, nor the time NOT to speak to the folks that can help us take the house back. How are we going to get a majority in congress in 2006 if we can't get folks to switch whomever they voted for in their district the last time?

Clark knows that the Left hates Faux. He knows that this will not win him any popularity contest with those who vote in Democratic primaries. But he also knows that based on his skills, this is something that he can do to affect some change. It may not be a lot, to some....But it's really the only way that we are going to save this country....bit by bit.

Clark is not the DNC Chair. Clark is not a Senator. Clark is not a millionaire heading a poverty center. Clark is a retired NATO Commander and General who has spoken, written and done commentating on the various aspects of this War, National Security and Foreign relations....and the ramifications of the terrible policies on all of those issues. Clark is doing what Clark can do help and bring some sanity back to this country.

It's very sad and disheartening to see critics that would be so petty as to only become indignant in principle but forget what our real goal ought to be. Clark is going to inform Fox viewers as to what a real Kick-ass Democrat looks, sounds and thinks like.

Like Howard Dean said....we have to talk to those folks in their pick up trucks.
I think those folks watch Fox, don't you?

The real issue of discussion should be how to save this country ...and not the issue of picking on the few who are doing what they can to do just that.

[norml]

71. Wow! And you criticized me for reusing some of my lines from last night.

I often get ideas for new posts from past posts, something that no one has ever brought up to me before, that is not until now. Didn't you apologize for using that "a millionaire heading a poverty center" anti-Edwards line just last night?

[FrenchieCat]

74. Yeah....and?

Oops, so I forgot to take it out. Sue me! :shrug:

I used my same response because your attacks are the same...just veiled this time.

One could say; Same shit, different day.

[Justice]

79. Just like talking to folks in their pick up trucks,

you are absolutely correct. Dean and Clark are alot more alike than folks here would admit.

[1932]

12. It's not fair to criticize Clark for getting a Fox paycheck...

...afterall, FX purchased twelve episodes of 30 Days by the guy who made SuperSize Me.

So I'm suspicious of DU'ers whose knee-jerk reaction is that this means Clark is no good.

However, it is fair to listen crtically to what Clark says when he's on Fox, because no Democrat should be compromising themselves and their party by tempering their crticism of conservative politics just so that they can continue to draw a paycheck from Fox.

[janx]

13. Well he didn't have much time.

Hannity only gave him what, a few minutes? That's what I've read, anyway. I didn't see the broadcast. He probably did fine considering the lack of time.

[NeoTraitors]

20. I am waiting to withhold judgement on this move

to Fox by Clark. If it turns out that he is just being paid to be a punching bag like Colmes, it would bring new meaning to the term 'Washington General'.

Right now Colmes is the guy Meadowlark throws confetti at. Clark had better throw it back at those shills.

(I hope you get the Harlem Globetrotter reference.)

[Sopianae]

19. Well, some people saw a different show then...

Fox News watchdog group praises Clark appearance:

Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity
Wesley Clark, new Fox News contributor, had a chance to test his debate strategies with Hannity last night on Hannity and Colmes. Clark was on to discuss Dick Durbin's comment about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and if Hannity expected Clark to apologize for Durbin's comment, he was in for a surprise.

The segment opened with a video clip of Durbin's statement on the Senate floor. Seeing the complete statement in context with Durbin's intonations and body language gave a very different impression to viewers. Durbin described a detainee chained hand to foot, naked, on the floor covered in feces and urine for 18 to 24 hours. Durbin's point was that this scenario seems more consistant with a Nazi camp or Soviet Gulag or some other mad regime.Durbin was clearly concerned and sad that this had become U.S. policy.

Of course, Hannity called for Wesley Clark to condemn Durbin calling it "over the top, repugnant propaganda". Clark's response to Hannity was very effective.
" I'm not going to condemn Durbin. How we are percieved at Guantanamo on top of the bad press from Abu Ghraib is important. I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis but we have a policy issue here. How do we deal with it?"

snip

Comment: Clark's refusal to play politics sapped Hannity's power completely. In essence, Clark was saying this problem is real so stop deflecting our attention. Let's look at it and solve the problem together because it's wrong and the orders are coming from the top.
When Hannity thanked Clark for his appearance, his expression was somber and slightly sour.

Read the whole thing here.


Also, there's a previous thread on DU discussing his appearance (link) and most of the people commenting took it totally differently. I don't want to start a new flame war about this, but readers of this thread should be aware how one sided this account is.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Trying this same flamebait again but with prettier sounding language

after you got locked for flamebait last night?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1861838

You were "waiting for him to say something that would make me want to cheer him on."? "It's nothing against him."? I find that a little bit difficult to believe in light of what you said last night.

"Newest Member Of The Fox Family, Wesley Clark, Makes Me Gag!
Playing pat a cake with the right wing media whores, being on their payroll, not calling them on their lies? Disgusting! I'm glad that I've never supported him as a candidate for President. I'd be embarrassed now, if I had."

A bit disingenuous on your part if you ask me.

[Rowdyboy]

42. Nice catch....

I knew it was a little too familiar.....

[ClarkUSA]

51. another instance of setting flamebait on this thread too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1861383&mesg_id=1863189

This is ab-norml behavior indeed unless you have a Clarkhating agenda, of course, then it's just norml.

:tinfoilhat:

[JNelson6563]

26. Uh-oh

Prepare for an onslaught.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cooley Hurd]

29. I don't need to... I'm beginning to wonder what Gen Clark's agenda is...

WTF is he doing on FauxNews??? Trying to lend them credibility????:puke:

[ClarkUSA]

53. What's AAR doing on Clear Channel??? Trying to lend them credibility???

[Cooley Hurd]

60. Oh please - apples and oranges...

CC isn't a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party...

[FourStarDemocrat]

92. Of course it is. Remember the huge Bush billboards sponsored by CC?

Someone here may have saved the link to the photos of those massive propaganda billboards along Florida highways, sponsored by Clear Channel.

[Spectral]

30. Saw the thread, but I still think this issue is legitimate

Clark may have his own goals. And Fox wants to appear less biased than it is. But money is changing hands.

[Sparkly]

33. "Money is changing hands"

Clark's whole life story shows that he is NOT motivated by money.

He could earily earn a whole lot more than whatever Fox is paying him for 3-minute "interviews."

[Spectral]

36. Money creates a tie

and in this case, a credibility issue.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the General is selling out necessarily. But Fox money is tainted money in my opinion. Even if Clark is pure in his intentions and pristine in his actions, he needs to avoid the appearance of corruption. That is, if he is running in 08.

As a military correspondent for CNN, Clark was openly critical of the Iraq operation's logistics. (Not the war itself but the way it was being fought.) He seemed flabbergasted by the speedy move to Baghdad without the army's securing of cities and towns along the way, and he seemed to be very worried about the vulnerability of the supply lines. This was all in the first days of the campaign. I remember being very surprised that an American general was overtly criticizing the military planning in a national (probably world-wide) venue, but I really appreciated it. (I had read that the military was furious at Rumsfeld's running the war "on the cheap.") I was watching CNN at a friend's place. This friend felt that Clark's statement of his opinions was treasonous and could put our troops in great danger.


(Edited for grammar)

[Sparkly]

37. That's an incredibly broad brush.

So is money from any source considered corrupt thus "tainted?" Are federal government employees, soldiers, secretaries for bad lawyers all taking "tainted money?"

And again, it's not about the money. Clark has long been able to get work in the private sector for money. It's about exposure, a voice, the ability to present a different view to a particular audience, as I see it.

[Spectral]

39. You missed the point

I don't blame people for making a living. If all you can get in your town is a job at WalMart, I don't blame you for taking it. But, the General is not in that category. He certainly has a retirement and has a comfortable life. He doesn't NEED Fox or their money. His presence there creates a credibility problem.

Like I said before, Clark may have his own strategy, and I hope he does. But the very fact that he is now on Murdoch's payroll creates a credibility issue. Whatever strategy he has needs to account for this. In other words, his goal needs to be a large one in order to compensate for the doubt he is creating in some people.

If the General is running in 08 and feels he can expand his base by being on Fox--which, sadly, is the highest rated cable news network--then it makes some sense for him to be there.

I do like the General personally and he is one of my more favorite candidates for 2008. Maybe that is why his connection with Fox bothers me.

[Sparkly]

58. "Clark may have his own strategy"

Of course he does!!

And it needn't be about his own run later on. In fact, he's taking a huge risk in providing more transcripts and videos for the opposition to skew, as they're so fond of doing.

This is for the truth, for the country; and yes, for the party, and perhaps for a future run.

There is NO "credibility issue" to me.

[AllyCat]

95. DSM came from a Murdoch paper. Is that a credibility issue? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

50. If money creates a "tie"......why is this not a topic of discussion

on a consistent basis? Why is AAR being broacasted by Clear Channel? Why is C-Span owned by the Cable Network? Who published Hillary and Bill Clinton's book? Why is this so nefarious only when it's Wes Clark? He goes into the belly of the beast....and get sand thrown in his eyes by those who should be cheering him. It's not like one couldn't see if he started to show the selling of his soul or anthing? :shrug:

What telephone Co. do you use? Do you watch any television? Cause if you do, you are supporting General Electric and all of the other corporations.

I mean, at least, when Clark makes that money.....he'll probably end up giving some of it away to liberal causes. That's not a bad thing to take the money from the bad and give it to the good....last I heard.

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/AmyGoodmansCorporateMediaBookByJenniferNix.htm
Amy Goodman's Corporate Media Book Publishing Deal Criticized
By Jennifer Nix, AlterNet.
Posted March 3, 2005
Reclaim The Media Web site Editor's Note: This commentary was written by Jennifer Nix, editor-at-large at Chelsea Green Publishing, and will be the opening salvo at the company's soon-to-be-launched weblog. Chelsea Green is also publishing AlterNet's forthcoming book Start Making Sense: Turning the Lessons of Election 2004 into Winning Progressive Politics," due out in April.
======
I've got an invitation for all progressive authors out there.

How about putting your money and ideas where your mouths are? Why not work with independent book publishers to share with the public your thoughts about progressive politics, social justice, sustainability and media reform ... instead of lining the pockets of the corporate publishers (and ultimately the five or ten rich white men who control nearly every media message we read and hear in the U.S. today).

Let me share with you a story about an independent publisher waging battle against the corporate-owned and fossilized business of book publishing. We could use a little help from you, friends.
more....

[ClarkUSA]

54. Al Franken may have his own goals. Isn't he planning on running in 2008?

And Clear Channel wants to appear less biased than it is. Money is changing hands between AAR and Clear Channel. I hope no one is tuning into AAR - I know I won't.


:eyes:

[norml]

69. I don't think it's so much money changing hands, or any agreement

about making no on air criticism of the station. I think the conflict is between being an analyst, and being a candidate. How can you say anything harshly critical as an analyst, when you're concerned about being broadly liked as a candidate?

[FrenchieCat]

70. Why do you insist on putting words in Clark's mouth....

Who said he was "concerned" about being broadly liked as a candidate or concerned about being too "harshly critical" as an analyst? Did you? Cause Clark never said he had such concerns. And IF it was the case, and he was THAT concerned, he would not have contracted with Faux News. It's not like he doesn't know that the left can't stand Faux.

There is only a conflict where you have chosen to see it. Personally I don't see it like you do....because, don't forget....this is only YOUR take.

I remember when Wes Clark on CNN. I remember when he defended Michael Moore's First Amendment Rights on National Teevee? Do you? He didn't seem overly concerned then.

I remember when Clark got thrown off the Lou Dobbs show, cause Dobbs didn't like that Clark seemed not to be pleased with the policies of this war. He also wasn't that concerned when CNN decided not to have him on anymore...precisely because he was "harshly critical as an analyst". Then he went on to become a candidate. I didn't see the problem then...and I don't see a problem now. hell, McCain almost works for ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and the rest of them....and it ain't hurting his career!

Why do you keep making up these hypothetical scenarios for Clark...when Clark has already been there, and done that? Why?

Doesn't make any sense really.
Indignation is a strange beast, but certainly not very rational.

[norml]

72. Speculating on what possible conflicts there might be, isn't putting words

in anyone's mouth. I even worded my speculation in such a way as to make it a speculation about anyone in such a position. You missed my defense of him in that I don't consider the money he's being paid to be much of a consideration, except for whatever Fox News rules he might have had to sign on to as part of his contract, such as no on air criticism of Fox News. Of course you could consider my speculation that the money he's being paid isn't an issue for him to be putting words in his mouth also.

[Sparkly]

28. Clark is SMART. We all love "red meat" smackdowns, but...

sometimes it's smarter to do just what he's doing. Think about it.

It's not so much that he's "taking the fight to the enemy" -- he's taking the truth to the enemy and staying above the usual fights Hannity is going to try to bait him into.

When you have 3 minutes to talk, you have to choose carefully what it is you want to say. General Clark clearly had something to say, and he chose not to get into a discussion of the reasons to believe or disbelieve reports of murders in prison camps (something that would take 20 minutes of hashing through Hannity's defenses). His approach was much more effective.

First he said: this isn't about name-calling, and it isn't about politics, it's about POLICY. That shut down Hannity's whole script right there.

Then he said: open up Guantanamo to international scrutiny. And that says it ALL. There's clearly a reason BushCo has vehemently resisted that. To those who believe (or want to believe) there's nothing wrong there and BushCo is telling the truth, what's the problem with proving it?

He also discussed the need to establish a process for charging and trying people. That is something else BushCo has resisted.

He discussed the need for "buy-in" from other countries as a rational for both of those, framing it as a national security issue.

That's quite a lot of specificity to work in within the short time he was given to comment, so I don't understand your question, "Could he have been any more vague?"

Moreover, his tone -- which wasn't argumentative or hostile -- was the right one for reaching Fox's audience, it seems to me. Even if MOST of them just say "He's a Commie Democrat Perfumed Prince yadda yadda yadda," I still think a great many nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, that makes sense. He's right, I'm sick of political name-calling. Hey why don't we start prosecuting these people?"

Now imagine the converse: the General getting into a big fight with Hannity on the terms Hannity has set up, with Hannity ready to go in for the kill with pre-scripted soundbites. The audience nods and says, "Yeah, the Democrats are all wrong."

Finally, who looked really frustrated at the end? Not Colmes. Not Clark. That says a lot, too.

[janx]

38. It sounds as if he did fine, Sparkly,

I hope that in the future, they'll give him more than a few minutes. How is the programming for Clark set up? Will he always talk to Hannity? Does anyone know yet? Also, has Clark left any blog messages about this decision?

[CarolNYC]

44. Thanks, janx...I hope they give him more time in the future also.

As for programming, as he's being on Fox News Live on Sunday at 6:10PM and Tuesday at 2PM, looks like it won't always be with Hannity, thank goodness.

As for his blog, nothing up on the securingamerica.com site except for the times of his next two appearances but he did leave a note on CCN giving a shout out to those who were "supporting the chairman of our party or describing why the opportunity to offer my perspective on FOX is so important" out in the blogosphere....among other things.

[janx]

47. That's a relief. Hannity is just another idiot talking head.

There might be more time for real discussion in some other venue.

[CarolNYC]

77. Yeah, Hannity sucks.

It's hard to watch him even when Wes is on....although I do love watching the way Clark can put him in his place with hardly a word spoken.

As for Clark's note to the "bloggers", I like that he commended folks not only for backing him up but also for having Chairman Dean's back. He does seem to have a real problem with this Dems bashing other Dems thing. He was very passionate when I saw him speak about it at one event. No doubt, Fox will try to get him to criticize other Dems. It was what Hannity so wanted him to do. And he tried to set it up as you're either criticizing Durbin or criticizing the soldiers...Will be interesting to watch the way he continues to respond.

[agincourt]

32. I wish he was on a real news network,

but we don't have one and that leaves only Fox with toilet ratings to hire him. The verdict on this move won't be out for awhile, but I give the chance of it working in our favor, only 50% at best.

[FrenchieCat]

52. New Flash! There aren't any real news networks!

CNN and MSNBC are just as bad as Fox....just slightly sneakier.

Sure they have started to clean up their act just a tinsy bit as of two weeks ago....but then, we already lost the election.

[lojasmo]

34. No surprises here.

Pretty fitting addition to faux news.

[Sparkly]

35. It takes courage "preach beyond the choir"

so yes, it's fitting indeed.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Ah, another member of that Deaniac Clarkhating subset sneering away

People Never Change, do they?

Hey, while you're busy doing what you do best, Clark is out defending someone other than Dean this week. And he will continue to defend Democrats on Fox when no one else will.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

55. Hey, looks like you've got another excuse.....

To hate someone other than Bush.

You should be turning somersaults right about now! Oooh Goodie!

I say, more power to Wes Clark for defending Durbin. He defended Dean last week (something I'm sure you'll never bring up!).

What a concept for liberals - loyalty to the Party and your colleagues.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Your OP is soooo Disingenious....

that it's not even funny!

Last night, you said this:
Playing pat a cake with the right wing media whores, being on their payroll, not calling them on their lies? Disgusting! I'm glad that I've never supported him as a candidate for President. I'd be embarrassed now, if I had.

and today, your saying THIS????
It's nothing against him. Of course I'll support him if he gets the nod. It's just that I'd have something to say about any Democrat who joined Fox News as an employee, and didn't do more to risk getting fired.

What's the real beef? What are these two faces that I see? Is there a third face as well?

[norml]

68. I never supported him as a candidate. I never opposed him as a candidate.

I don't think I'd posted anything about him before. It was late when I posted what I posted last night. That thread got locked for being inflammatory. I think my original post of last night was too inflammatory. I thought I'd try to be a bit more polite in this restating of the issue for debate. So now you say I'm not very genious or funny? Well I say better to show many faces than to only show the face of a bully.

[FrenchieCat]

73. What--E-ver...

you say....

Which face I am responding to though; the attack dog take no prisoner tired one, or the reasonably sly and sneaky one?....inquiring minds want to know.

[JHBowden]

63. Clark did little to defend my main man Durbin.

Someone above referred to Clark as a 4-star Colmes.

Sounds about right.

[Justice]

65. You are funny, always looking for a way to spread the love

you have for Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

66. So what did Dean say about Durbin?

Did he go on national television and jump up and down and say that Durbin was right? If so, what channel was that on?
====
You see, as much as you want to talk Clark down (which appears to be a quest of yours), What Clark didn't do was to be a fool (unlike some people we know) and take the bait specifically about Durbin. Cause you know what....what Durbin was talking about wasn't Durbin...so there is no need for Clark to come in and start talking about Durbin..cause like Clark said, Durbin nor Hannity nor Clark are the issue here. Why distract from Durbin's original issue and make the issue "YOUR MAN DURBIN"? Doh!

See, that's your problem-- you would allow Faux News to dictate what's the subject of discussion should be. Clark ain't about that. Which is maybe why he was firt in his Class and a Rhodes Scholar. Intelligence is coveted for a reason!

On the other hand, thank God your not on Fox.
They would eat you alive, laugh at you and spit you out.
It ain't just about telling the truth...it's also about not playing into their little games.

You....you missed the whole thing. it's like, you don't get it. :shrug:

Just Hope you don't have a job as a political consultant.
Now...THAT....would be scary.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CarolNYC]

86. Well, yeah,

you can continue to stand in a corner (or the middle of the room) and stamp your feet and cry "make them go away"! and it might make you feel all self righteous and principled but it doesn't accomplish much.

[LightningFlash]

90. No, you can join the tens of millions and boycott Fox.

Until they go bankrupt, like rational people do.

[LandOLincoln]

91. You know, I'd be very surprised if I found out

that someone with your political acumen wasn't raking in the big bucks as a Dem political consultant to someone.

If we could get even half a mil or so of Fox's regular viewers to boycott them unless and until they fire Hannity, the man would be toast!!!!!!!!!!

No, really, he would.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brindis_desala]

78. When I look at Fox's sinking ratings then peruse these boards I

get the sense that the only people left watching that drivel are hard core Freepers and the folks at DU...how about trying for a liberal presence on a news show people actually watch...

[Clark2008]

80. Concerning people who didn't watch...

I'm calling bullshit.

And I have to say something about chickenshit Dems who don't want to take the fight to the enemy.

[Ell09]

82. I wish no Democrats would go on Faux Newz

It has nothing to do with General Clark, but I feel like the way to combat Faux Newz is to simply not give them the time of day. I was shocked that Faux News reporter was allowed on John Kerry's plane during the election season, as I would think his staff would have been worried about leaks. There is nothing to be gained from going on a network that is going to make sure that the Conservative side gets 95% of the air time from their "Newz" to their Bush and Friends morning show, to the outrageous scum that populates their primetime "opinion" shows. Even if General Clark speaks eloquently and hammers the Right Wing for ten minutes a day, that still leaves 1430 minutes of propaganda per day. The positive for Faux? giving that ten minutes to Clark (or to Dean or to Hillary or whoever accepts it) serves to camouflage their agenda.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. There's no camouflaging FOX. That isn't the point.

If Air America had a show on daily where they had a FOX anchor on to face off against on air, Air America would still be Air America and everyone would know it. No one would get "confused" and think that Air America had suddenly gone "fair and balanced". Clark being on FOX does not provide FOX with camouflage that will gain them credibility among thinking people as an unbiased news outlet. Those people who think FOX is really "fair and balanced" would think so even if all of their commentators were extended members of the Bush family, everyone else knows better. To worry about Clark giving FOX some type of new "power" or "status" is foolish. The only question is whether Clark can be effective in that context in delivering a real Democratic message, and those who watch will be able to see for themselves.

I am bothered by all the comments on this thread claiming that FOX viewers are all hard core Republican base who can not be reached. That is far worse than sad. In the last election Bush beat Kerry by 24 percentage points with white working class voters. Does anyone seriously believe that white working class voters are bedrock foundation can't be shaked Republican core voters? I certainly don't, they are voting contrary to class interests in voting Republican. There are lots of sociological explanations as to why that is, but my point is simply that I will NOT consider those people "unreachable", and many of those people are FOX viewers.

For me it isn't enough that Democrats somehow regain the White House. I want Democrats to be the solid majority Party again, and getting there is going to take challenging the current Republican hold on some voters who should be voting with us. I wish Clark luck. I know he has strength and intelligence.

[TorchTheWitch]

84. How very stupid

It's just that I'd have something to say about any Democrat who joined Fox News as an employee, and didn't do more to risk getting fired.

First, he's not an employee. There is a VERY definite difference between an employee and one who contracts out for a fee. By this misguided assumption that Clark is now an employee of Faux, logically one must also have the misguided assumption that if he contracts to do a speech before "Organization X" for a fee that would make him an employee of "Organization X", and therefore, under the control of "Organization X" in what his speech would consist of. I have worked both as an employee and as a TRUE independent contractor, and there is a WORLD of difference between the two.

Second, and most importantly, why in the world are you in such a rush for him to do something to get "fired" now that we've finally got a fox that infiltrated the hen house? Would you REALLY prefer that the farmer boots the fox out the door before he can even get close to the hens making the hens grateful to the farmer, and they get to stay safely locked inside while the fox has no other option then to crawl away or sniff around the door? Just what damn good does THAT do us?

What Clark is doing is actually very similar to DUers invading FR... there are those that from the first one or two posts spew what they want and get banned immediately just for the satisfaction of saying what they really want at that site, and all that does is confirm to the freeps that the "troll" is just a crazy leftwinger and congratulate each other on said "troll's" swift demise while reinforcing their collective belief that they're correct.

But then there is the other DUer that is careful how and what they say, gaining the confidence of the freeps so that there will be those that agree with at least some of what is said by the infiltrator. The longer this type of DUer is able to stay there sewing seeds of doubt in some of the freeps' beliefs, the more freeps may be swayed on more issues. This type of DUer infiltrator actually ACCOMPLISHES something. And it cannot be denied that we've SEEN it work at FR.

Sure, we'd ALL like to see Clark on Faux swinging lefts and rights so much he gets booted out the door STAT, but that's only because we want to see it JUST for our own personal satisfaction. But, far too few Faux viewers would see it at all, and once he got canned the lockstepping Bush lovers on Faux would discredit him for being a nut... and most Faux viewers would agree. Bottom line... NOTHING GETS ACCOMPISHED.

The whole POINT of infiltrating the hen house is to catch some hens! Clark's infiltration of Faux is brilliant. Little by little he'll be changing the minds of those Faux watchers who thus far have gotten no actual truthful information. Little by little, he'll gain their trust, so that more and more they'll be likely to believe what he says on whatever issue comes up.

Good grief, why is it that some people suddenly can't remember the concept that real change can only come from within?
:banghead:

Edited to add...

What Clark is doing WE DO OURSELVES AND ARE PROUD OF! We start talking to sheeple and Bush-lovers, carefully and stratigically in order to sway them to our side. We give them more and more information, and discuss and argue until slowly but surely, they begin to see the light... and we LOVE it when we get someone to turn. If all we did was bitch and moan amongst ourselves and pat each other on the back for the rightness of our beliefs, we would accomplish nothing at all, and in fact, would deserve nothing at all for NOT getting out there educating the masses.

[norml]

94. I said the same thing about Rosie O`Donnell.

What makes you think that he believes what he spews?
Edited on Tue Jun-07-05 09:31 PM by norml

He knows very well that he's lying, when he lies. I've heard it in the way he puts things together. They on the View let him slide on too much. I had to shut it off in disgust. They didn't call him on the doubling of the commonly used mass grave number. They hadn't done enough research to be able to come up with one accomplishment of Hillary Clinton in the Senate. That's one of his standard rhetorical questions when it comes to talking about her. Don't they even know how to do a web search?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hillary+clinton+accomplishments&btnG=Google+Search



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3806225#3806891

[Disturbed]

96. So far 30 detainee deaths have been reported.

How many more that have not been reported? If Clark doesn't challenge lies by Hannity what good is Clark?

[Boo Boo]

97. Hannity didn't just say nobody had been murdered, he said

that none of the alleged misdeeds had happened, and that these people deserved what wasn't happening to them. He also said everything else under the Sun in one long bloviating assault, and then he repeated it. He's an asshole. Clark stuck doggedly to his main theme, and I think he came in with a plan to set a non-partisan tone and wear his payed-analyst hat, which I'm pretty sure doesn't work in that format.

My worry with Clark/Fox is more or less what transpired on H&C. Clark signs on with Fox to be a foreign affairs analyst, and the first gig he gets is to appear on the totally partisan Democrat-bashing scream-fest that is H&C. When Clark appears as an analyst---a job he had on CNN for quite some time---he doesn't treat it as a Dem vs. Repub thing. He is pragmatic, logical, and tries to share is expertise with everybody that cares to lay down the partisan Axe and listen---that's not going to happen with Hannity in the room.

I don't think I would have taken the Fox gig without stipulating that I would only appear on news segments and would not appear on talk shows like H&C, Oh'Really?, etc. Put another way, I'd be willing to be a payed analyst but not a payed Democrat. I think that's a bad idea. If you're gonna go on H&C you should go there for one reason, and that's to kick ass---I'm not sure that's what Clark signed up for.

I doubt if Clark was pleased with H&C; we'll have to wait and see if things change for the better going forward.

On Edit: Maybe I should say I wasn't pleased with H&C rather than assuming Clark wasn't. Who knows, maybe he was fine with it. Me, I'm a worrier.