|
I'm watching Charlie Rose now. The panelists are discussing only whether Edwards can beat Kerry.
Everywhere on tv tonight, Clark is mentioned as a basically meaningless afterthought, and even that is only occasionally.
And just now the female commentator has declared the end of the Clark candidacy.
I want to believe that none of the commentators are dileberately ignoring the fact that Edwards and Clark have gone up against each other in 8 states, with Clark beating Edwards in 5 of them.
That would include New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Cark has already beaten Edwards in all of those states.
If Clark had gotten some good coverage, he would have won three more states tonight. North Dakota, Arizona, and New Mexico were for Clark until only recently. It seems like the people just "fell in line" and went against their original judgment, suddenly switching to Kerry. Clark, even though he did ok in New Hampshire, was sneered at or ignored all week, as usual, and yet still came in second in three states to go with his narrow win in Oklahoma.
With something even resembling a modicum of fair coverage, he would have came in first in the states where he had been leading, instead of second. Second is feeling sweet, however. Clark came in second three times tonight, despite the obvious biased coverage against him, and having noone anywhere in the media with the courage to defend his viability in this election and give some credit for his accomplishments, which are many.
For a man who gets zero coverage, except for the occasional dismissive sneer or comment, look how far he has come. If the media is forced to write a new script for the 2004 general election, one that includes General Clark in it, goodbye Bush! Thankfully, in our country, so far anyway, the people still get to have the final word on it. So far, they are doing pretty well.
Will someone please explain to me why it is that Edwards can be considered by the media as still in the running, while Clark is spoken of as done. I don't mean to say Clark doesn't have an uphill battle against both Edwards and Kerry. But, keeping in mind the results of the primaries through tonight, is it not disingenious of the press to keep Edwards alive versus Kerry, but declare Clark dead? What is the rationale for this type of "reporting?" There is none.
I find Wesley Clark as having earned every vote he's gotten. He receives three types of coverage: 1) smearing; 2) declarations that he is dead; 3) or no coverage at all. Despite all of this, he has beaten media golden boy John Edwards five out of eight times. Please don't misunderstand me. I like John Edwards. I like him alot. Watching him, I am even starting to love the way this guy is campaigning. He is my second choice. He is an impressive man. He's a warrior. That's what lawyers are you know.
I am very skeptical, however, that the country will put him in charge during a time when foreign relations is paramount. And I remain concerned about his lack of experience. What is his approach to foreign policy? He appears able to put political concerns in front of matters of life and death. I am extremely unhappy with his Iraq vote and what appears to me as a somewhat cavalier attitutde about the whole Iraq thing. I trust Clark much more in charge of our military and in our foreign relations. I agree with the 55 ambassadors and dignitaries from all seven continents, who want to see him as commander-in-chief.
IMHO only Clark and possibly Edwards have the potential to move Bush out of the White House. Remember, the Bush brigade is in moderate and compassionate mode now. Everything is relevant. This won't last. Things will change, big time, as soon as we have chosen our nominee. Can you say terror alert?
I still believe we will need a warrior type this time around in order to remove the unelected fraud from office. I see the right type of men in lawyer Edwards and general Clark. (And of course, Dr. Dean has the right idea!) Sharpton and Kucinich fight well too. But there just doesn't seem to be enough support to keep those guys in the running.
In Kerry, I see a man who will be severely impeded from putting up the necessary fight. I predict the same results we got with Dukakis and Mondale, if we go with Kerry. I would gladly be wrong in my prediction. Kerry over Bush is, to me, a great great victory, of course. I just don't it see it happening. Where will the crossover votes from anywhere south of New England come from? Will moderates and independents remove the incumbent president after the right wing mean machine finishes with Kerry? Is Kerry really up to the fight that lies ahead? I don't know.
But I think these establishment figures, including every commentator on the democratic side I've seen on television tonight, are doing our country a disservice by dismissing Wes Clark's first place finish in Oklahoma, and totally ignoring as irrelevant his seconds in ND,NM and AZ. It's very condescending to the many in several states who have supported and yes, even had the guts to vote for him. Poor, poor Wes! He should be feeling pretty good tonight. His wife rocks too!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
