NPR and Clark

[Lurking Dem]

So I'm all happy about how great the debate was last night (for almost every candidate) and how Clark shined through the whole thing. I get in my car to take ACLYouth to school and NPR does a report on the debate.

Clark doesn't even get mentioned in the report. Not once. Not even an aside.

WTF?

[Bread and Circus]

1. Yeah, it's funny given that he actually lead in a 2/3 state and ...

Dean does not. Yet, Dean is still getting 50 times
more press.

[hippiechick]

2. Dean ? Getting Press ?

I think you mean Kerry ....


:hippie:

[mikehiggins]

3. No, he means Dean is getting more press than Clark

So is Kuchinich, and Sharpton? Oh my god, Sharpton gets more press than Clark.

Although that might make sense. Rev Al put the Dems on notice at the debate that the days are over when they could pat the little black boy on the head to get his vote, and then send him off to bed without dinner when the elections are over.

Three cheers for Al Sharpton! (which I never, ever thought I'd ever, ever say--I'm from NYC)

He may actually turn into a real leader, even after all these years as a shill.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

4. Do you know the

NPR station in the Pittburgh area?

[Torgo4]

5. He Could'a done Better!

Debating Terror
(posted Jan. 30 1:45 AM ET)
Memo to prez candidates: you have to figure out how to handle Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism.
In last night’s S. Carolina debate <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html?nav=hptop_ts>, only Wesley Clark was asked directly about it.
His tack? Play dumb regarding Clinton, pivot to attack Bush:
Well, I have not been on the inside of the Clinton administration, in terms of how they responded to terror…
…In '98, when Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa against the United States, there should have been, at that point, measures to go and get Osama bin Laden.
I'm told that there were such measures that were attempted to be undertaken. Why they didn't work, what they are, and so forth, I don't know.
But I will say this: that when the Bush administration came to office, the Bush administration was told the greatest threat to America is Osama bin Laden.
And yet almost nine months later, when the United States was struck, there was still no plan as to what to do with Osama bin Laden.
The Bush part is solid, but you can’t show complete ignorance about the Clinton years.
Why? Because you can expect GOPers to continue with their oversimplification of Clinton’s record -- “Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter, rather than warfare.” <http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/19/31716.shtml>
(Not to mention other distortions <http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm> the Right flings around.)
However, if they have an opinion of the Clinton record, and you don’t, then it looks like you’re ducking, you’re ignorant, or both.
Furthermore, you’d be letting them frame the parameters of the debate as “law enforcement vs. warfare”.
Instead, you need to display knowledge, and offer a vision that reframes the debate.
John Kerry, earlier in the debate, tried to do that.
He was basically right on substance, but treaded on dangerous rhetorical ground:
The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time.
And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.
But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at.
And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced.
Because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.
To read it as a whole, it’s fine.
But GOPers will not hesitate to pluck out, “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation” and say the Kerry way is the failed Clinton way.
This will be particularly problematic if bin Laden is captured or killed before Election day.
How should the Dems avoid this trap?
1. Show your understanding of the issue by candidly assessing the Clinton record <http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/051103.htm>.
Acknowledge that he may have been slow the grasp the importance of fighting terrorism early on in his Administration.
But remind voters that later, Clinton made fighting terrorism a priority, stepping up resources.
And he had big successes, like stopping the millennium plot <http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/17/clinton.terrorism/>.
2. Then segue into the Clark argument:
While Clinton prioritized terrorism, and urged Bush to continue the effort, Bush put it on the backburner until 9/11.
3. Finally, akin to the Kerry line, say what you would do different than Bush, but avoid the “law enforcement vs. warfare” trap.
“Law enforcement” sounds reactive, like you’re going to wait until the damage is done to only arrest low-level folks.
And clearly, that’s not what Kerry is trying to say.
Instead, say something like:
“We need improved intelligence and international cooperation to cripple Al Qaeda’s leadership and stop attacks before they are launched, not just in America but abroad as well.
(That last part makes it a little harder for Bush to callously claim success by merely pushing terror attacks into other countries.)
“But Bush has abused the intelligence community and weakened international cooperation.
“We also can’t let Osama pit us in a disastrous clash of civilizations.
“If we don’t win the hearts and minds of the Arab/Muslim world, we could kill 100 Osamas and we wouldn’t end the scourge of terrorism.
“And the last person you want to try to win the hearts and minds of the Arab/Muslim world is George W. Bush.”
Clinton himself actually put this very succinctly <http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50111,00.html> two years ago:
A law enforcement and military solution alone isn't the answer.
I don't want you to substitute the walls we've torn down with barbed wire.