I'll ask-Why haven't I heard Wes Clark's name mentioned?

[underpants]

I see and read updates on Clark making appearances all over here on DU. I see local articles on him for every appearance. He clearly is staying visible for some reason but in all the "Who will it be?" talk that I have seen recently no mention is made of Wes Clark.

I know that Hillary sucks most of the oxygen out of the room but usually everyone at least is mentioned.

What gives?

Are they scared of mentioning Wes?
Could the Hillary not-so-official campaign putting the pressure on the media to not mention him?
Is he just going along grassroots style right now?

IS he really still in the mix?

[BOSSHOG]

1. Maybe because there is no

negative aura around the man or no hollywoodesque side the media can manipulate for their purposes. The General is my number one choice and I like that he is getting little attention now. Hang low General continue collecting and adding up those $10.00 checks and time your big announcement just right.

[underpants]

8. I like him too

see post #5 I think that you all have the reason in hand.

[msongs]

2. he is a private citizen not acting in an official capacity is most likely

why. the media are not going to promote him unless they have a compelling reason, as in, self serving reason.

that's my theory. the media don't talk about me much either but I keep trying LOL.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/democratsmugs.htm

[SmokingJacket]

3. Maybe because he failed to get the nomination before,

and people think he's bad luck.

I like him myself.

[BootinUp]

4. He was on ABC "This Week" just one week ago.

If you missed it you can see it or read the transcript here:

www.securingamerica.com

[underpants]

7. I missed that

thanks for the heads up

[Armstead]

5. It hasn;t been handed to them on a silver platter

These days, everyone ele hs to recognize something before the MSM even botehrs to mention it.

If it's not mentioned at a Beltway Cocktail Party, it doesn't exist, as far as they're concerned.

[capi888]

6. HE IS FLYING UNDER THE RADAR.....

Smart move in my opinion. He is going directly to the people, supporting the candidates for congress. The press, is so concerned about Hillary, taking her down, filling the 24 hr news that she is the leading candidate...as they are so convinced she is the one.
Wouldn't it be ironic.....IF....all the attention is on HC and the REAL candidate comes out after the Rovians have worked up all their negative ads for her.....she smiles broadly....hahaha IT WORKED!!

[MessiahRp]

9. Actually everyone else is not at least mentioned.

The Media has already selected Hillary to be the Democratic candidate in 2008. I never hear them mention anyone else. Republicans like Frist, Guiliani and McCain get all sorts of free candidate press but you never hear the press mention anyone OTHER than Hillary.

Now we might mention Feingold or Kerry but the press does not and that seems like an unfair advantage for the GOP especially since Hillary gets such negative reviews from liberal Dems and moderates alike.

Rp

[Totally Committed]

10. Excerpt from my post to another thread on this Board...

on another subject, but it fits here as well:

This Party votes as if it is in the throes of serious "Stockholm Syndrome". Most of the rank-and-file Democrats have been so traumatized and so have become so complacent about staying informed, they just vote for whomever the Republican-leaning media tells them to vote for. That is why Hillary wins polls out there and NEVER wins one here. Among informed voters, she wouldn't stand a chance.

And, the reason the media is shoving her down our thoats, aside from currying favor with the Repubs, is because they can't wait for the tsunami of mud and sh*t her candidacy will bring -- they want a filthy campaign for their ratings. It'll be like a 2-yr-long Jerry Springer Show. It will be long, it will be ugly, and it will be devastating to this Party. And, in the end, we will lose. Again.

The media isn't pushing Wes Clark, because (1) The Republicans don't want them to, (2) Because he could possibly win, and (3) His candidacy wouldn't give them the sh*tstorm to fuel their thirst for ratings.

I believe that sincerely.

TC

[underpants]

12. Just after the '04 election it was posted here

that the WH and Bush campaign feared Clark all along. They had nothing to throw at him other than that he didn't follow the good old boy network to get rank in the Army.

That was what was posted here. I am just relaying the information.

[bobthedrummer]

11. ACXIOM took him and others out of the mix imo.

[Totally Committed]

14. This old chestnut has been debunked a thousand times here already....

and still it persists with some. I find it both amazing and sad that there are some here who continue spreading these falsehoods time and time again because of their own prejudices.

Here is a great post by Tom Rinaldo on the subject:

Here's what Clark had to say himself about working with Axiom at that same event:

"...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you’ve mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this – and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People – companies like Axiom were told, “Look, you just can’t compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don’t know what the program is and we want to have – we want to be able to –“ this is – I’m speaking for the government – “We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don’t want to have to answer a million inquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we’ll run it through.

You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government’s, but I didn’t have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, “Please create a group that’s sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that – you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)” So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It’s fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it’s a very important public duty.

So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don’t know if it’s right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."

Clark's with the good guys on this one, not the good old boys network.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2502623#2502672

I hope that puts minds to rest once and for all over this subject. I fear it won't, but... I hope it does.

TC

[bobthedrummer]

15. It won't. eom

[Totally Committed]

16. There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see....

thanks for your honesty.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

26. If anything, the media would push someone who would be linked

to an information clearing house in the manner that you are attempting to allege .....

But instead....The media doesn't mention Wes Clark...

Your logic would follow that they'd be pushing him upon us instead.

So sorry....but your non substantial one sentence blurb doesn't truly make any sense....unless you think that the Corporate media is on our side (and you know damn well that they ain't!)

[skipos]

13. He is not a senator or governor so

it is harder for him to keep in the spotlight.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Because the media doesn't want the American people to know him....

Because to know him is to understand what a real leader looks and sound like;

Because someone calm, sane and intelligent from Arkansas.....who won the last war that we ever won....without a single U.S. Soldier dying....who warned us about the current war, is dangerous and uncontrollable! :sarcasm:

They don't want Wes Clark raising too much money either, so they don't want to promote any name recognition for him....Cause they have already selected the (non)Anti-Hillary Warner and they will be promoting Feingold as the "08 Dean", and for them that's enough for their horserace!

After all, when in the middle of a losing war, and trying to start another, a progressive Democratic General is the last person the Democrats should want to have mentioned by the media! :shrug:

They've been doing this for ever....refusing to say his name. Check out CNN reporting on Milosovic's death--They have yet to mention Clark's role in bringing him to justice.

Bottomline--They are trying to get him to fade away....

[underpants]

20. Good point about Milosevic

I hadn't even noticed that but then I haven't watched much news over the weekend.

[mattclearing]

22. They will fail.

I would be shocked if he doesn't run. And then they'll have to report it.

The grassroots will go for Clark instantly, given a second opportunity.

It'll be like Dean all over again, only they'll have a lot harder of a time assasinating Clark's character in broad daylight than they did with Dean.

[Doctor_J]

18. The MSM and the rest of right-wing America fear him gravely

They are desperate NOT to have him in the mix. In retrospect, it's a good thing he took the job at Faux News, or else he wouldn't get on the ari at all.

[wiggs]

19. I'll do it: Gore/Clark '08. nt

[blm]

21. You rarely hear or see what any good Dem is pursuing to block BushInc

because media won't give them the airtime. Did you hear about either Dean or Kerry's strong statements about Bush after his New Orleans photo op last week? Nope.

Wes was smart to take the analysis job at FOX in an effort to get any airtime from the corporate mediawhores.

[incapsulated]

23. In the NYT magazine Warner article

Clark and Feingold were mentioned as potential anti-Hillary's. In fact, the article makes a good point that an "insurgent" candidate needs to be an outsider, either literally or figuratively.

It's always more difficult to get noticed when you are not in office, you can't use your seat as a platform to draw attention to yourself.

But I will echo what others have said, also. There has always been, in my opinion, a bias when it comes to Clark in the media. Which is why I was happily surprised when he was mentioned several times in the NYT article.

Wait until after the next elections. He doesn't even want to talk about 2008 right now, it's all about 2006 to him. Because he believes that our chances in the next election hinge on doing well in 2006. And he is right.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Yep.....2006! Cause if we can't turn the tide considering Bush's

many fuck ups and how the Plantation "R" congress has supported him throughout....then 2008 is moot.

(ironic how the media is so concerned with 2008....but rarely reports on various 2006 races!...I realize that these are not national races, but it would be nice if they could fill us in--those media assholes!)

[incapsulated]

25. I can't imagine why...

Maybe because the tide is turning and the Democrats have a chance of taking a majority in 2006??

[CarolNYC]

27. He'll be on Jim Lehrer's News Hour tonight

and on the radio with Diane Rehm tomorrow at 10AM ET.

Lsten here: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

[election_2004]

28. Three words....

THEY WANT HILLARY!!!

("they" being the corporate mainstream media)