Why Clark is out....

[Dookus]

One reason and one reason only: Not enough people voted for him.

It wasn't the media. It wasn't voter fraud. It wasn't dirty tricks. It wasn't the DLC, the DNC, the FCC or the MTA.

He didn't get enough votes. And it's a damned shame, but that's politics.

[JasonDeter]

1. He blew it staying out of Iowa. Everyone miscalculated

Dean's support. If Clark would have gone to Iowa and campaigned hard he might very well have been in Kerry's shoes right now or at least Edwards. imo

[Jack_Dawson]

11. At the time, it was the right thing

Hindsight's a bitch but remember, Clark was the "Anti-Dean" candidate. Dean had Iowa sewn-up. And if Dean lost, it would have been to Gephardt who had been campaigning in Iowa for 16 years.

Then Kerry won Iowa, Dean melted down, and everything was turned on its head. I wouldn't have advised him any different.

[JasonDeter]

28. Anti Dean my ass. Clark was a Presidential candidate.

Clark got into the race because he knew only a military man had a chance with this spread-eagle pResident and lock step republican and media establishment.

[Jack_Dawson]

33. You're preaching to the choir

Nobody believed in Clark more than I did. The dude radiated presidentiality. But Dean was leading in all the polls and Clark, like the rest of us, knew that would be a disaster so he jumped into the race. God Bless General Clark. He saved us from another four years of Bush.

[JasonDeter]

40. We're sending Clark a snail mail thanking him for running.

When the rumble started that he was going to run I fully supported him doing it. We love UWesA Clark. I hope he gets a job in the new Democratic W.H. Sec of Defence and he can tell rummy to not let the door hit you on the way out for me.

Peace Jack_Dawson!

[Dookus]

41. good idea...

I'll do the same.

And while we're at it, how about a snail-mail to Kerry urging him to choose Clark as his VP?

[JasonDeter]

43. I think Governor Mark Warner would be a better choice.

Wes Clark should have a some role in the Kerry W.H. but Warner would kick butt imo more than Clark. Warner has a GREAT resume.

[Birthmark]

2. Agreed.

But doesn't the lack of votes, in turn, have a cause? I would submit that collective media silence is the reason.

[Dookus]

7. I disagree...

playing the media is as important a skill in any other when running for President. He didn't get a lot of media coverage because he didn't do much that was newsworthy (like winning primaries).

[tishaLA]

24. and his media people were not proactive

which is what they needed to be. When he had gastro-intestinal distress, the media should have known. I blame those within the campaign for not being aggressive enough with keeping his name in the headlines. "the media"--that multiple, bedeviled thing-conglomeration--would have been better if the campaign had deserved it. It didn't or couldn't.

[Dookus]

30. I agree

He should've had a better media team, but nonetheless, if you don't win much, you don't get a lot of attention. That's just the facts.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

3. well then you can say the same thing for gore

that voters didn't vote for him enough. But we know that their was fraud in florida. The african-americans that weren't allowed to vote.

[Dookus]

12. agreed...

Gore's case was different. There were many demonstrable cases of voting "irregularities".

I make no such claim for Clark. He just didn't catch on like I'd hoped he would.

Anyway, it backs up my perfect voting record of supporting a loser (not in the bad sense - just someone who doesn't win) in every primary since I've been old enough to vote.

[xray s]

4. Wes Clark is an Officer and a Gentleman...

...but he is not a politician. Which is really quite a compliment, in my opinion.

[Tinoire]

10. Yes, yes it is

and Clark ALWAYS came across as a gentleman. That is a compliment. And the supporters he has had at DU for a while now come across that way also.

You guys put up a great, awe-inspiring fight. I am sorry about tonight's news and hold his supporters in respect because of your grace in dealing with this.

[revo2004]

5. Because he's not a skull and bones / only they are allowed in /eom

[Old and In the Way]

6. Problem is, too many good candidates...and you can only choose one.

Apparently, the Republicans must be pretty much at the bottom of the barrel. It's pretty funny when you think about Bush as the best that the Republican Party can offer.

[BeyondGeography]

8. He had a very steep hill to climb

This hasn't been done since Ike, and World War II received a little more coverage than the war in Kosovo. Plus Ike had BOTH parties begging him to represent them, so nobody would dare question his affiliation at the party establishment level once he made his decision.

Kinda makes you wonder what us hopeless idealists were thinking when we put our hearts and souls behind Wes. Maybe we just loved the guy (we did) and were convinced he would beat Bush (we were).

And there were other problems:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1144942,00.html

[Dookus]

14. heheh..

Yes, he certainly did have a steep hill. I think we're all proud that he a) tried and b) made it as far as he did, and continued to act with dignity and class all the way.

Yes, I love him, and I'm convinced he'd be the best opponent for Bush. But the voters have spoken, and I accept it.

Don't give up - I think there's a high likelihood that Clark will be the VP nominee, and if not, he will certainly have a position in a new Dem administration. He's too valuable a resource to leave behind.

[incapsulated]

9. Not only are you wrong

You've had your foot half out the door for weeks now itching to get on the Kerry bandwagon.

So why don't you just jump already and leave the Clark people alone.

Your timing for this sort of post sucks.

:grr:

[Dookus]

13. You're mistaken

I've been a staunch Clark supporter since long before he announced his run.

I have defended Kerry against what I thought were unfounded attacks, and I would hope anybody else would, too.

I'm as heart-broken as you over Clark's dropping out. I think you seriously mis-read the intent of my post.

[incapsulated]

16. I've defended Kerry as well

But you have been awfully quick to accept his "momentum", imho, and are quite happy to go along.

NO, you are not as heartbroken as some Clark supporters are, or you would not be starting threads like this, not tonight.

I wouldn't care if they all blamed me, personally, for this tonight. It's their time to vent and grieve, and telling them, basically, to get over it, sucks, coming from a Clark supporter.

[Dookus]

20. I'm venting and grieving along with you

despite what you may think.

I'm not telling anyone to get over anything. I'm not telling you to support anybody else, or to do anything other than grieve along with me.

You can go search all my posts and see what a strong Clark supporter I've been since at least early last summer. I have never waivered in my belief that he was the best candidate for President in my lifetime, and could've beaten Bush handily.

The point I was making was that Clark is a class act. He's not going to blame others for his loss, and that's one of the reasons I admire him so much. He takes responsibility for himself and his actions and love him for that.

I'm sorry I inadvertently offended you. It really wasn't my intention. I was trying to highlight what a class act Clark is. I apologize if I didn't do it well.

[Old and In the Way]

50. I'll vouch for you Dookus....I think you've made your preference

for Clark well known and did it in a positive and constructive manner. My gut tells me that Clark may well have been a leading contender for the nomination, if Kerry was not in this race.

And we need him to be a player in the next administration.

[Dookus]

57. thank you OAITW...

yes, I did make it pretty well-known, didn't I? :)

I fell in love with the man last spring. I rooted for him, then the draft movement started, I joined in, we got him to run, and I was thrilled. I believed he would walk away with the nomination.

I was mistaken. That hurts, but it doesn't kill me. I've never supported a primary candidate who won - maybe I'm a jinx, but I guess I'm getting used to it.

Now we need to beat Bush. I feel really good about our chances of doing that.

[Leilani]

36. I'm amazed at how quickly you can turn

Maybe we're not as philosophical as you.

Why don't you give it a rest for 24 hours?

[Dookus]

39. I haven't "turned" on anything

and I'll give your advice on giving it a rest all the attention it deserves.

I'm heart-broken, too. Seriously, I am.

The point I was trying to make is that blaming all sorts of outside factors for why a candidate does well or not is childish. Clark is above that, and I think his supporters should be, too.

And I will apologize to you, too, if I was unclear. Believe me, I've been a staunch Clark supporter since last Spring. I was beside myself when he got in the race. I'm deeply saddened that he's out.

But....

this is politics. I adore Clark because I believed firmly he could wallop Bush. I still want to beat Bush, and I will do what I can to ensure that.

Hang in there, Leilani. I believe Clark has a high likelihood of being the VP choice. We haven't seen the last of him.

[krkaufman]

15. And it is daytime because the sun is shining.

Vote count is a symptom, merely a measurement. What is the root cause of Clark's getting fewer votes?

> It wasn't the media. It wasn't voter fraud. It wasn't
> dirty tricks. It wasn't the DLC, the DNC, the FCC or
> the MTA.

You neglect to mention that the multi-billion dollar advertising business is a total sham, in that advertising has no effect on consumer product selection.

The media *is* at fault, in that Kerry, Dean & Edwards all received more free press than Clark, Sharpton & Kucinich once the voting phase of the campaign began. It's not even arguable that Kerry was placed on a pedestal immediately after Iowa and Dean thrown to the gutter, with Edwards receiving nearly all positive press as the "contender" to Kerry. Clark, Kucinich & Sharpton were hardly mentioned by the news media.

The FCC *is* at fault, as the loss of the Fairness Doctrine now allows massively disproportionate media coverage of candidates.

The DNC *is* at fault, as this "front-loaded" process -- further minimizing the voice of the people in an already establishment-favoring mechanism (can you say "superdelegates"?) -- has worked exactly as Terry McAuliffe and the DNC/DLC power-brokers designed it: to the advantage of establishment candidates.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

19. Kerry and Edwards got more media coverage after Iowa because they won

Winners get the news coverage. That's how it works.

[krkaufman]

34. Duh

Yes, thank you for reiterating exactly what my post said. They received much more media coverage, and, contrary to the thread-starter's post, the media *did* have an effect on the subsequent primaries and caucuses.

Very little coverage was dedicated to comparing the candidates and their experience and positions; nearly all was dedicated to poll numbers, wins/losses, and result/drop-out forecasting.

As Wes Clark Jr. said, this is no way to pick a President.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

17. Thank you for being a voice of reason.

In every primary there can only be one winner. It takes votes. Happens that way every time. That's politics.

[Dookus]

29. thanks...

that's the point I'm trying to make.

And I would hope supporters of other candidates would take it to heart, too.

I'm very disappointed that so many people here blame the media, or the "sheeple" or the DLC or DNC for their candidates shortcomings.

The fact is, I'm a hopeless romantic when it comes to democracy. People have voted, and as long as the voting is fair, then we should at least respect (even if we can't agree with) that choice.

[glarius]

18. Do you think if he had been in the race longer (like the others) he would

have had a better chance?....He was only in 5 months...Not very long to build support??? :shrug:

[Dookus]

23. Probably...

I think he might've done better given more time, but it's impossible to know for sure. In retrospect, a lot of things could've been different - knowing what we know now, he should've contested Iowa. Knowing what we know now, he should've declared earlier. But he didn't, and we've lost an incredible candidate.

[glarius]

27. I agree....I really feel sad....I think the WORLD needs him...n/t

nt

[incapsulated]

21. And I'll say something else

If Kerry gets the nod, and the media start tearing him up and kissing Bush's ass, I don't want to hear a fucking word of complaint about it.

If it's all Clark's fault, then it's all Kerry's fault, and the media aren't whores and enablers, they are just telling it like it is, right?

[Dookus]

26. I have already apologized

for offending you. I take full responsibility for not making my point more clearly.

But I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

[incapsulated]

37. This wasn't so much directed at you

But at anyone who suddenly decided that the media plays no role in these elections, when they have been killing these same "media whores" for propping up Bush on DU for years.

Anyone watching this race objectively could see that the media was ignoring Clark in favor of Edwards in particular, and this was after Clark beat him in a State he had been campaigning in for over a year.

His face was plastered all over the news and not a glove was laid on him and his obvious liabilities, his lack of any real experience. Because they liked the idea of him being Kerry's running mate.

Even tonight, before voting even started, under Clark's name on CNN as they ran through the candidates was: "Clark only won one State". And nobody else fits that description? C'mon. It got to the point of absurdity.

But if anyone wants to play that game, I can play it too. No media influence in politics, period.

[Dookus]

38. and this is where we disagree

I don't think Clark was treated unfairly by the media. The media are what the media are - an avenue to sell advertisements.

If Clark had won some more primaries or done something else to get attention, he would've gotten it.

I just don't like the "blame the media" game - it's too facile, too simplistic, too easy.

The reason I feel this way is because I see EVERY candidate's supporters complain about how the media treat their guy. The fact is, the media don't owe any candidate coverage. Do something newsworthy and you get covered, good or bad.

[glarius]

42. I don't know how you can say the media gave Clark equal treatment

He was marginalized by the media from the time he got into the race...It was very obvious....It may be "facile, simplistic and easy", but it's TRUE!

[Dookus]

45. it's OK for us to disagree

really, it is.

Kerry was marginalized, too, and then he started winning. Then he got some attention. If Clark had won, he would've gotten some attention.

I think we ascribe too much power to the media when we do stuff like this. They report whatever it is that will sell advertisements, whether it's Kerry's wins or Dean's scream. Any candidate worth his salt will need to figure out how to deal with the media.

[incapsulated]

48. Fine

At least you are consistant, even if I couldn't disagree with you more.

However, there are plenty here on DU who where whining about Dean being anionted by the media only to tell everyone else to suck it up when their candidate got the lapdance treatment.

I'm taking names and I'll remember.

If Bush is elected or Kerry is trashed they had better suck it up good and proper.

[shindig]

56. sorry, i disagree

Of course media outlets are an avenue to sell advertisements. You are absolutely correct. You learn that in Broadcasting 101. However, once upon a time, there was a thing called journalism. Journalism was practiced from a number of rooms set aside within the media outlet. Those rooms were known as the "news department." Media outlets sacrificed a rather large portion of the bottom line in order to provide "news" to the country. News departments were notorious for running in the red, but high journalistic standards lent credibility to the media outlet. News departments ran independent from the station's bottom line. And if that isn't completely true, we know they certainly were not the long-arm extension of a corrupt administration/congress that they are today. This didn't happen overnight. The trend has been going in the direction of phasing out "news" for many years. While there is still the same sign up on the door reading "news department," we have reached the point where "news" is now just one notch from Joseph Goebbels style facist propoganda. A more optimistic view of course would be to simply call what passes for "news" these days some sort of form of entertainment.

[Dookus]

35. oh... And I'll say something else

you won't find me complaining about the media. I think blaming the media for your problems is the last refuge of a scoundrel. If you can't work the media, you have no business running for President.

I'm in the very small minority of people here who really think the media (Fox excepted) don't really have much of an agenda to push other than selling advertisements.

[Rowdyboy]

22. Thank you....No excuses, no accusations...we lost...God bless Wes

and all of us who tried.

What did he accomplish? Tonight's subject on Nightline: "George Bush: AWOL Chickenhawk" (okay, my headlines but it was their topic). And who do we have to thank?

Michael Moore, author, filmmaker and social commentator
Senator Bob Graham, national security expert and
General Wesley Clark, one of the finest presidents America never had.

[Dookus]

25. exactly, Rowdyboy

thanks.

No excuses, no blame, no accusations, no finger-pointing. Clark's way too good a man for that game, and we should emulate him.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Dookus]

32. well it was pointed out in the lounge

that GravelButt doesn't have a star next to HIS name. How's THAT for hypocrisy!?

[HoosierClarkie]

44. In a perfect world

that would be true. It is just plain false. While Kerry and Dean were battling it out in Iowa, the media started to go after Dean. Almost like a "oh sh*t" kind of reaction. Then, played up Edwards after Iowa (rightfully so because he competed there), but TRASHED Clark!!!!!! Before the numbers dropped 1 percentage point. They went for the jugular! They had an agenda to keep. As if watching what the media did wasn't frightening enough, watching the people vote on it was even more disturbing. THAT is politics. Frankly, IMHO General Clark should write a book about it and not take another bullet for this country.

Don't worry I am not "crying in my teacups" or anything. I am ABB, but what you said is just not true. :)

[Dookus]

46. it's ok for us to disagree on this

I don't blame the media for anything. They do whatever they have to do to sell advertisements. Clark didn't do much that was newsworthy on the micro-level, which is where it counts. Historians deal with the macro-level, not the media.

[HoosierClarkie]

47. What?

"Clark didn't do much that was newsworthy on the micro-level,"

I guess we were supporting two different candidates. :)

[Dookus]

49. heheh..

no, not at all. We both supported a singularly qualified man. The best candidate in my lifetime, imho.

I meant in the day-to-day stuff, he did his best, but it wasn't enough. I'd give almost anything for that not to be the case, but it is, and we should gracefully accept it. The media don't "owe" coverage to anyone - they have to earn it. The best way to do that is to win.

[HoosierClarkie]

52. Oh you mean

like winning OK. Right after, pundits like Judy Woodruff said things like "I just don't know if his big donors are going to give now" WTF? The problem with your earning it theory is he earned a win! IT DID NOT MATTER! They still ignored and marginalized. Never mind.

[Dookus]

54. sarah...

:hug:

We're on the same side. I had no intention of offending anybody with this thread, and I apologize if I did so.

We both agree that Clark's a helluva man, and now we need to make sure the Dem candidate wins so Clark can continue to play a role.

Can you spell V-P? :)

[HoosierClarkie]

58. I know.

It is a sad day for America. :hug:

[incapsulated]

51. Yeah, except to compete

well enough to be breathing down the neck of a guy who had been campaigning for years to his 5 months. And receiving constant wet kisses from the media. And the Iowa second place bump. All he did was beat him right after that and win Oklahoma. And place second in many other states.

Where is the story in that? :shrug: He was "disappointing".


Fuck this, what's the point.

[Dookus]

53. hey, incapsulated

:hug:


We're on the same side. He ran an extremely honorable campaign, and it just didn't take off. We still have every reason to be extremely proud of our candidate and the race he ran.

We haven't seen the last of Clark. He's going to make us proud to be his supporters, one way or another.

[HoosierClarkie]

55. I should have

went to bed hours ago. :)

[Dookus]

59. nah...

stay up with me, have a drink and let's drown our sorrows

:toast:

[shindig]

61. dude, you are so right!

I don't post so much on this board. But I read everything. Your posts over the last few months have been an inspiration to me. I have gotten a little tearied eyed a few times tonight. Hell, I am holding back some tears right this moment as I reflect on how General actually "EARNED" every vote he got, and nobody cared. And I wanted to puke as I listened to whore Woodruff saying nice things for the first time about General, now that he looks to have ended the campaign. Everyone keeps saying, hey that's politics. I expect dirty tricks from the opposing camps. But I have never seen the media this programmed in my lifetime. It really is amazing how well he did considering the obvious and blatant bias against his campaign from the mainstream media outlets.

But we can't give up now. Clark appears to be out of the race, but he won't be giving up the fight to change presidents. Let's stay committed!

[incapsulated]

62. Dude(ette)!

Heh.

Jeez, thanks, I can't imagine anyone being inspired by my crazy rants! :)

Clark will stay visable and work for the Party to take back the White House, no fear. He is a stand up guy with all the right intentions, that's why I support him. They had better give him the respect he deserves, too, God knows he's earned it.

:toast:

[shindig]

60. Fairness Doctrine/Free Media for the Candidates

I think the pendulum has swung far enough so that it is time to look at reinstituting some workable version of the fairness doctrine. Also, I would support a proposal to mandate free and equal time to the candidates. Naturally, the scheme would have to define "viable" candidates for the free air time, and work out the details, etc.,etc. This has been proposed in the past. It is time to take another look at regulating elections with regard to the media.

The above is not based on sour grapes. Something is very wrong with the voting process.

Well now, life goes on! I will try to get excited about Kerry. Maybe he will become more exciting at the same time. I sure hope so. Not withstanding everyone jumping on his badwagon, his stump speech stinks. I will hold my nose and give him the benefit of the doubt on that terrible, terrible, atrocious war he authorized.

Kerry is no dummy, that's for sure. I believe he realize more and more, day by day what is at stake in this election, I want to believe he will work to win, and not become complacent after receiving this freebie democratic nomination. O, wait a minute, he hasn't won yet, has he? UM?!?!I think our party is energized that is the one extremely good sign, if true. Kerry should stay energized by the party's energy.

As the good general said tonight, the mission is still the same. Nothing has changed. There's no denying, Bush has to go! That is what must motivate us for this election. Unless Bush goes, we might not get any of OUR AGENDA pushed through for 50 years.

Anyone thinking of protest vote, (which I have to admit I have considered myself for the first time in my life) I think should calm down and vote based on trying to make sure SMIRKY isn't the one to nominate the next Supreme Court Justices.

[andino]

63. You know,

You know, I think that he just got started too late. Iowa hurt him but the reason he wasn't in that race was due to him starting late.