Help me out with this argument about Clark.

[PeaceProgProsp]

At the risk of starting a big fight, I've got a question about something I don't understand. I guess I should make it clear that I don't think this is all that relevant to the issue of the day (who should be VP) but I think it's important that we're all honest about what happened in the primaries so that we're all smarter voters and smarter amateur political strategists.

So here goes:

A lot of people here argue that Clark got the shaft from the media and that's why he didn't do well in the primaries. I agree that the media shafted him. However, I'm not sure that it's true that Clark could have done better had the media been different. Incidentally, I don't think any candidate got good media except Dean up to the point when it became clear that he wasn't going to win Iowa.

Isn't it the case that Clark was doing great in national polls in December and January? I just did a quick search and found a Gallup poll from Jan 2-5 which had him closing in on Dean 24-20 nationally and there was another one with him at 18% in NH at about the same time (he ended up with around 12%).

I might understand an argument that the press was so bad he didn't get a chance to catch fire. But I get the impression that he, like Dean, got a chance to shine. The worst coverage of Clark that I remember was just after he announced. Regardless of that coverage, Clark built support strongly over the following months. He raised money, and there was something about him to which many people responded passionately before the serious campaigning started.

So what happened in the last three weeks before NH? Can you blame bad press? I'm not sure. If I had to guess, I'd say that a lot of the things people found appealing about Clark, they decided that Kerry satisfied. Kerry had the military record, but he also had the long track record in politics, which people might have decided formed an identity which was easier to grasp. Maybe they just decided that Kerry was more rounded: he was "Clark, plus."

I think the mantra for people was "I just want to beat Bush" and Kerry's win in IA was transferred into "winnability" vs Bush, and there was nothing in any of the other candidates that was better than what Kerry offered them.

So, I'd understand arguments about, perhaps, the General having bad strategy (ignoring IA, focusing too much on taking Dean out). But I don't understand the argument that people didn't know enough about him because of bad press. The bad press didn't stop him from building support up through the time when the campaign started in earnest in January.

All things considered, I think Democratic voters in the early primaries did a remarkable job of discounting the pressure on them by the media to nominate a candidate Bush could easily defeat. I think Clark was battling on a relatively level playing field with the other candidates and probably finished where he would have finished if you had rerun the primaries over and over again, even if you changed various factors in his favor. (Eg, what if he did go to Iowa? He probably would have either finished roughly the same as in NH, and/or, if he did worse than the expectations set by national polls, he might have ended up going to NH even weaker than he had for not going to IA.)

Any thoughts?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Clark's mistake, imho

was not competing in Iowa. It seemed that the media just kept pushing the idea that Kerry won there, and would continue the momentum. When Clark didn't win NH, the media called him 'dead'. I think this pushing ahead of all the primaries made it too difficult for anyone who didn't win IA to really have much of a chance.

[PeaceProgProsp]

2. But he didn't go to IA because he probably correctly assumed:

that he'd do poorly.

I think one thing you want to do in a primary is never underperform. You want to beat expectations. You have to start low and go up, or start high and stay high.

Clark WAS a favorite by late December and early January and closing in on Dean.

Anything less than meeting expectations was going to hurt him. Had he gone to Iowa and done poorly, he might have have done even worse than 12% in NH (and might have made an Edwards third place in NH more valuable for Edwards and more problematic for himself).

Furthermore, this idea about the media being to blame ... I think people need to let go of that. It's not just the media that made Kerry look good after IA. Kerry deserved to look good. He came back and beat expectations. He laid it all on the line for IA and came up big. He deserved attention from voters.

My personal opinion is that the media, after not being able to deliver up Dean for Bush stopped carring about pushing or destroying any candidates. Why bother. They knew as well as the voters that Kerry was going to be the very likely nominee after IA. There was nothing more to do, except try not to let Kerry get too much of a head of steam heading into the general election.

[JI7]

3. Edwards didn't do well in new hampshire either

but he made some gains later on. especially oklahoma.

[PeaceProgProsp]

5. Key is meeting and exceeding expectations.

I think leading all night and then only loosing third place by .3% was good enough to keep him going much longer than others (but obvioulsy not enough to win).

[Claire Beth]

62. that's what I think, too.

[stellanoir]

4. I agree that it was a mistake to skip Iowa but once

he was called to the Hague to testify extensively in December, an event that had an administration enforced media blackout, campaigning in Iowa wasn't at all feasible.

He was finally getting his momentum after N.H., really connecting well with the crowds and giving amazingly informed policy speeches. One weekend when he was really hitting his stride before Super Tuesday, the only thing the media reported was that his campaign bus got a speeding ticket. Arghhhhh.

In truth, I think the moral of this story that a former decorated soldier should never initiate an inital run for elected office under the influence of a Mars retrograde. The whole fiasco in September was totally reflective of that (alleged waffling on the war) and was really hard to watch.

I think the RW's success in derailing Clark from the get go with the meme of inconsistancy has inspired the whole waffling label against Kerry. I don't get it. Isn't the mark of great leaders inclusive of the ability to change their minds in the face of ever changing circumstances. . .?

[PeaceProgProsp]

6. He had closed to 24:20 vs Dean nationally the first week of January

So he couldn't have been hurting too much from the tetstimony.

How many days was that? Perhaps going there drew contrasts with Dean that helped Clark.

[salonghorn70]

7. Clark Was To Be The Anti-Dean

Clark set up his campaign to confront Dean in NH assuming that Dean would win in Iowa. Not a bad strategy based on the way things were looking in the fall of 2003 and into January. The Kerry Express got rolling and it just sucked the air out of Clark's campaign. By NH, Kerry was the anti-Dean.

[PeaceProgProsp]

8. Of the candidates who finished above him, Clark never

aimed his sights at Kerry, did he?

[JI7]

20. NOBODY really did other than Kerry and many of his supporters

besides kerry and his supporters many saw kerry's campaign as over. he had no chance. you can do a search on du and you will see many thinking kerry's campaign was over. even some of kerry's own supporters thought it was over. i thought he didn't have much of a chance either at some points but never gave up. i saw it as a primary and if he loses, he loses. but as long as he is in i will continue to support him.

[sandnsea]

9. Would Kerry sell in the midwest

That was why America didn't get behind Kerry and when Iowa said "yes", America let out a sigh of relief and said "that's our guy". It's really about as simple as that.

Well, maybe a little more complicated strategy-wise, but for the Democratic voter in general, that simple.

[Jai4WKC08]

21. Yep, that was about it

I dunno if America let out a sigh, but NH sure did. Two in a row, that close together, was good enough for the rest.

NH wanted to vote for Kerry. He was practically a home-town boy. But until he caught fire in Iowa, they didn't think he was electable, and Dean had solid support there already. Iowa gave NH'ers "permission" to vote for Kerry.

As noted in the original message up thread, Clark was gaining on Dean in NH all thru Dec and Jan. Clark never hoped to win in NH--I remember how THRILLED we were when he moved into 4th behind Dean, Kerry and Lieberman (all the New Englanders). We thought Clark could beat the NE'ers in the South and Southeast, and if Kerry had finished in Iowa as expected, he would have. In fact, except for Kerry, he did. Pretty big "except"--lol. Gephardt was barely running outside of Iowa and Missouri--we weren't working in Missouri at all. Edwards wasn't even on the radar. That was the strategy anyway, but Iowa blew it all away. Shit happens.

As for the media question raised in the original... well, I won't speak for all of us, but I think most Clarkies see it the way I do. Clark's coverage wasn't fair from the beginning, but at least he got some. The Newsweek issue for example--cover was hideous, and there was all that crap about other generals inside, most it later disproved. But our biggest complaint was that the mistakes he made, no matter how minor, were played over an over again, in a way the mistakes of other candidates (and there were plenty) were not.

It's the old media meme thing. They decide what a candidate is about, and then broadcast whatever they get that reinforces the image. It gives 'em something to say in front of the camera and makes the talking heads look smart. With Al Gore, it was the wooden liar image (even tho he did not lie, and is really a funny energetic guy). With Carter it was the decent guy who wasn't tough enough to lead a world power (even tho he was a former professional military officer who was in fact very tough). Those of us old enough to remember, with Gerald Ford it was the accident-prone stumbler (even tho he was possibly our most athletic president, at least up to that time). After the scream, Dean became the wild-eyed liberal lunatic (even tho he's not that liberal and certainly is not a lunatic). Clark was the "green" political rookie who was not "ready for prime-time." Those very words were used over and over, with of course the film clip to prove it--usually just one or two, but played repeatedly, not unlike Dean's scream.

But for all the negative media, at least Clark got media before Iowa, and so he was climbing anyway. After Iowa and NH, there was essentially a media blackout. He was relegated to the status of Kucinich, Sharpton and Lieberman (Gephardt and Mosely Braun were gone by then), who didn't get a fair share of coverage either. Now, you can argue they didn't deserve it, but Clark had come in 3rd in NH, better than Edwards even if not by much, and did about as well as Edwards on mini-Super Tuesday. If logic had anything to do with it, which I'll grant you it never does, he should have gotten at least as much coverage as Edwards, but it wasn't even close. Fwiw, Dean stopped getting coverage too, except for the scream, and the "will he drop out or will he stay in" death-watch.

Not that it matters. Once Kerry had won Iowa and NH, there was no one going to beat him. I think the media decided they needed a horserace to keep people watching, and the only way that was gonna happen was to narrow the race to two. They picked Edwards--it didn't hurt that he was popular with the 18-35 demographic that advertisers love--and then did everything they could to make it a Kerry vs. Edwards race. And they suceeded, giving Edwards a LOT more coverage than Kerry, to keep him viable for as long as possible. Bet it pisses 'em off they couldn't make it last longer, but at least they got their Super Tuesday contest, which may have been all they hoped for.

[sandnsea]

24. Kerry & the media

He never had ANY decent press until the Des Moines poll came out with him in the lead. His good press came mostly after Iowa, very little before. Iowa was won on the ground and had very little to do with press. The national polls and press are a different matter, but not Iowa. That was won the old-fashioned way, grassroots, organization, good strategy and a good candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

26. Yeah, I'd agree with that

I didn't discuss Kerry's media coverage at all, mostly because I guess I didn't hear much until right before the Iowa caucus. I remember hearing about his firing his campaign manager and starting over. I think a lot of us thought he was dead at that point, or close to it.

I do recall him getting a LOT of coverage when he brought out his "Band of Brothers." Not to denigrate the hard work he put in on the ground in Iowa, but that may have been the turning point in the national media.

[sandnsea]

28. They were always there

Working hard, organizing on the ground, and yep, brought out in the media at the exact right moment. Grassroots and strategy. But, Jim Rassmann, I have to say that was totally unexpected and an immeasurable boost. He lives in my town, one of these days he might be home long enough for me to get to meet him!

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. General Shelton slander...we can't forget that.

Every time Wes did get a chance for a TV interview all they asked about was the Shelton slanderous remark. THAT went on for months. Then we had Bob Dole calling Kerry a General and Wes a Lieutenant...on purpose...Wes corrected him and THAT turned into a month long bruhaha over Clark thinking he was superior to "Lieutenant" Kerry. Total Bullshit. Then we had the Michael Moore comment about the chimp being AWOL....THAT went on for a month. My g-d...he didn't have a chance against the media's bullshit.

[AP]

35. Yet, as noted, he closed to within 4% (MoE?) of Dean by 1st week in Jan.

So, the media couldn't have been hurting him too much. And it didn't really seem to influence Democratic primary voters because they ended going with the person the media thought they had destroyed in November, and didn't go with the person whom the media inflated all summer long.

[aquanut]

37. You say he got to within 4% because of the media coverage but

others might say he got to within 4% despite the media coverage.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. Exactly, aquanut.

Think of what the man could have accomplished had he had Edwards' positive news coverage.

[AP]

39. Regardless of the rate, the slope was positive, and he was closing on

Dean who was still getting good press, and was declining -- which all suggests that primary voters seemed to have been ignoring the media.

I think the national media can whore all they want, but when the primaries show up in your state, the candidates are able to put out messages that are more powerful than whatever Fox, CNN and NPR are saying about you. I think all the candidates were, more or less, able to supplant in people minds whatever the rest of the media was saying (at least the ones with enough money, like Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Dean) with the message they wanted to get accross.

I think if you weren't in the state on primary day you'd think people were voting on what national media was saying. If you were in the state, you were willing to vote on what you saw from the candidates in the last three days.

[mrgorth]

65. This is incorrect.

The media had turned on Dean. About 2-3 weeks away from the primary it was all negative. They still covered him a lot but now it was "Can Dean Hold it Together".

[AP]

68. they saw the polling and he wasn't doing well. But the fact is, they

weren't that bad to Dean.

Do you have an example of what you consider negative press on Dean druing that time?

[Jai4WKC08]

51. Never forget Shelton

How could any of us? That one was the worst, to be sure, of all the negative press that repeated over and over, and accepted at face value without question or investigation. They kept asking Clark what it was about, like he's supposed to know? And of course, it was expanded into a theme that none of his military collegues liked or respected him, which was totally false. But for all the many generals and other officers and enlisted people who had served with Clark and spoke on his behalf, none of that got the air time.

I got an e-mail just two days ago from a columnist at the Boston Globe, an alleged "media consultant" who worked for Kerry's senate campaign, who said, "While 2 generals publicly questioned his fitness for office, he never found one to stand up for him." This from a guy who makes his living following politics? I assume by the second, he means Schwartzkopf, who of course backpedaled like mad when he found out the story behind Shelton.

The good news is, I suppose, that it is Shelton's reputation that is irreparably harmed. Maybe not among the voting public, but with those in the know. It was absolutely one of the dirtiest things done to any of the candidates, as anyone with military experience (like Kerry for example) would understand. I don't think it helped Shelton's "sponsor" too much either.

You'll notice in that article on Kerry's foreign policy "poo-bahs" that Shelton's name is conspicuously missing. And it ain't because he hasn't been trying to get a foothold on the Kerry team.

Anyway, the only reason I didn't bring up Shelton is because I was focused on the alleged "gaffs" and the "bad campaigner" meme that is used so often now to rationalize why Clark shouldn't be Kerry's VP. But certainly it was just the tip of the iceberg where the negative media was concerned.

[faithfulcitizen]

58. Yep, my thoughts exactly!

I've always felt that a Governor's wife from Iowa essentially chose our nominee...

[sandnsea]

59. That and several hundred vets

And an amazing ground organization. But Christie Vilsack was very important, because she was a native Iowan and because of her work as much as her husband's.

Regardless of Christie, the rest of the country wanted to vote for Kerry if they could be assured he'd appeal to rural voters, so it's wrong to think she chose our nominee. They were waiting to see if he'd sell in Iowa. Christie Vilsack endorsed him on Jan 12 and polling that entire week had Kerry ahead. She couldn't have made that big a difference in that short of time.

[Mz Pip]

10. I think people

really liked Clark but were concerned about his lack of political experience. He had tons of foreign policy experience but had never been elected to anything which made people question where or not he really was ready for prime time.

People really liked Dean but were concerned about his lack of foreign policy experience which was going to be a major factor in this election.

So they went with the guy who had some of both. I think people really didn't want to risk this election on a relatively unknown candidate.

Kerry has been around for 30 years, had name recognition and experience. We'll see if he's the one to do it for us in Nov. I'm certainly hopeful, though I do wish Kerry had some of Clark or Dean's charisma.

MzPip
:dem:

[PeaceProgProsp]

14. I agree with that. Kerry definitely came out as well-rounded.

And I don't think there was anything that could have happened for Clark that would have made it less apparent to voters that Kerry was the most well rounded candidate. Everything that Clark had was already in Kerry, and Kerry had more.

[monkeymind]

11. Clark's purpose was to destroy Dean

by orders of the DLC.

[PeaceProgProsp]

16. Clark never did attack Kerry. But he went after the other two.

He did target the other two candidates who beat him (without being able to beat those two candidates, interestingly, except insofar that he stayed in longer than Dean, but perhaps only to make sure that Edwards didn't surge in TN and then again in WI and on super Tuesday).

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Dean stayed in longer than Clark

Clark completely withdrew the morning after coming in third in TN (not just "suspended his campaign" which is what Dean did a week later). Dean had previously announced that he was putting almost all of his eggs into the Wisconsin basket, and Dean did compete in Wisconsin, which was the week AFTER the TN and Virginia votes. Dean withdrew after that.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Actually, Clark DID suspend his campaign

I think it had to do with money--he could still collect his matching funds.

[JI7]

29. Clark and Kerry did "attack" each other

clark criticized kerry for patriot act vote and on being a "washington insider". kerry went after clark for only recently becoming a democrat and some lobbying work.there were some others things also but not much was made of it since after a while the debate seemed more about who will be the one to challenge kerry. it was assumed after a certain point that kerry will be one of those last remaining since he had won many contests. the only question was who would emerge as the major challenger. kucinich and sharpton stayed in but they were not seen as major candidates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Clark's purpose was to make sure Bush doesn't get reelected

Clark believed that in order for the Democrats to win this year we needed a candidate who had strong national security credentials. I don't doubt that Clark thought at the time he entered, rightly or wrongly we will never know, that Dean could not ultimately defeat Bush. The grass roots of our Party, not just some "leadership circle", was divided on that point. I initially backed Clark over Dean primarily for that reason, and I am no friend of the DLC.

Clark entering the race does not explain why Dean came in a distant third in Iowa, before "the scream". Clark did NOT run a dirty campaign against Dean, though others may have. It is very plausible that Clark's opinion of what we needed in a candidate this year was generally in tune with the actual Primary voters, a larger circle than the grass roots activists. Kerry came in first in Iowa, not Gephardt, not Dean, not Edwards.

I would rather have Dean as President than Kerry. I would rather have Kerry President than Bush. I thought Clark was our best bet to defeat Bush. Now we will find out if Kerry, with all of our help, will beat Bush.

[Darkamber]

52. Dean's fall in Iowa...

I think the reason why Dean fell in Iowa was partly because of his economic plans. He wanted to remove all the tax cuts that Bush had done. In Iowa, economy was big. Note that both Dean and Gephartd wanted to repeal ALL of the tax cuts. Both Edwards and Kerry only wanted to repeal those for those who made 200,000 or above. Not that Kerry's figure was higher, but later he changed to be exactly the same as Edwards. Probably figured he wouldn't raise enough money for his health care program if he didn't lower that figure.

I know that there would be no way that anyone who went up against Bush with the message that I will repeal all of the Bush tax cuts would win. But the compromise that both Edwards and Kerry offered protected the middle class and the vast amount of voters.

I think that is understated, but I believe that is one of the main reasons that Dean failed. It was the main reason why I could never support him or Gephardt, but I looked to Kerry after Edwards as an option.

[Adelante]

41. You don't know the first thing about Wes Clark

If you think he takes orders from the DLC. He entered the race to provide a national security candidate when Kerry was doing poorly and Bob Graham had dropped out. There was nothing more to it than that. Dean happened not to have those credentials and that's why Dean lost to Kerry in Iowa, along with Kerry's superior GOTV. If Dean had won Iowa, Clark would have beaten him in New Hampshire on that issue alone. That's the battle that was set to take place, but it was between national security experience and no national security experience. If Kerry and Dean had tanked in Iowa and Edwards had come out the winner there, the battle would have been the same and Clark would have won it. Kerry's winning Iowa threw out the game plan. But Clark was not sent out to destroy Dean. He went out to give the country a national security candidate, because he saw no alternative at that time. Wes Clark was always for John Kerry and would not have accepted the draft and entered the race at all if Kerry hadn't been tanking in the fall.

Take off your :tinfoilhat:

And welcome to DU :hi:

[Leprechan29]

12. Once Kerry won Iowa

No one was going to challenge him for the nomination - especially someone who hadn't campaigned there

[OHdem10]

13. I do not wish to sound

conspiratorial here but.....in as much as the Media controls which
candidates get facetime and the amount of TV Coverage there is one factor to be considered.
The Media Perceived for whatever reason that Clark was "Clinton's Candidate" and there was some kind of deal which would leave the doors open for Hilary. Being the Clinton Candidate was a millstone.
The so called Liberal Media are the primary Clinton Haters. This is
What motivated them to push Edwards(Stay cool , Edwards supporters)I
monitor TV and these observations came out of the mouths of TV Journalist particularly.

Considering the strikes against him Clark did well.

[PeaceProgProsp]

15. I think that every candidate had their moment of being Clinton's candidate

I don't think Clark had it much worse, and, although that might have hurt him in the general electioin, that would have been (and probably was) a huge boon for him in the primary. Clark definitely would have wanted that rumor to spread.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Clark's closing in on Dean was due to the perception during that time that Clinton liked him the most.

[JI7]

30. Clark WAS seen as Clinton's candidate and their way to "bring down" dean

when clark first got into the race there was a lot of conspiracy talk on du about this.

[mia]

17. Media admits that coverage of Clark was unfair

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2media2.htm#top

Boston Globe, Washington Post Comment On The Bashing

by Betsy R. Vasquez

JANUARY 26, 2003 – Just in case you were wondering how news people could be a part of something so clearly biased and out-of-whack and not notice, the answer is that they did notice.

Check out these excerpts, first from today’s Boston Globe (article: Clark Takes Lumps While Honing Media Savvy):

“NASHUA -- He may have expected the frenzied pace and the competition for voters' attention. But perhaps the most difficult challenge retired Army General Wesley K. Clark has faced in New Hampshire in recent days is the way every statement he makes gets repeated and magnified in the media.

“That fact has been particularly tough for Clark. If Howard Dean has not been able to escape the videotape of his Iowa whoop, Clark has been dogged almost as much by his refusal to denounce filmmaker Michael Moore for calling President Bush a "deserter" at a Clark-for-president rally Jan. 17, and by his quick retort on CNN as Senator John F. Kerry's win in Iowa was being reported: "He's a lieutenant, and I'm a general."

Another article (No Win In Battle For Vets) in the Globe today explains that they know the Bush/Limbaughians are involved in the hit on Clark:

“In fact, the persistent attacks on Clark for having once spoken of Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States are coming from Republicans as much as Democrats. By insinuating that Clark changed his views for political reasons, they are planting the idea that he's worse than a hypocrite: They are hinting that he has betrayed the military”

The Washington Post’s media correspondent, Howard Kurtz, is onto the game as well (article: Dean Fights Back):

“The other campaigns, especially the Dean folks, are starting to complain that the Massachusetts senator isn't getting the kind of media scrutiny that had previously been applied to, say, front-runners named Howard. And they're right.”

However, Kurtz doesn’t really look into why this is, but just throws a couple possibilities meant to make light of the situation:

more>

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. For the most part I think you have it right

Starting when he did, Clark couldn't compete in both NH and Iowa. All the rest of the field had already criss crossed both states numerous times, over many months. Clark was playing catch up big time. Yes he got a big splash of media when he entered, but it only got his name and short resume out there, it didn't get him KNOWN to voters. That's why even now John Kerry still has to invest so much TV advertising on familiarizing the voters with his life story, character, and record even AFTER he locked up the Democratic nomination. It's a rule of politics that the details about yourself that you don't fill in for yourself will be filled in by your opposition. Both New Hampshire and Iowa are very small and very retail politics states. Voters there are "spoiled" so to speak. There are no short cuts to "reaching" them. If you didn't bother sitting down with many of them over a cup of coffee to explain why you want their support, they won't give it to you, period. Clark did not have enough time available to cover the ground adequately, starting late as he did, in both states. This doesn't even factor in that Clark also had to make time to build a campaign staff from the ground up, and work through all the kinks that the other campaigns got to iron out in Spring training.

The compressed primary schedule this year had something to do with Clark opting out of Iowa as well. Because a slew of primaries were bunched up on the heels of NH and Iowa this time, unlike prior years, Clark could not spend almost all of his little time available in one or both of those states. He also had to make time to get out and grease the wheels in North Carolina and Wisconsin, and Oklahoma and Arizona etc. etc. All of the other candidates had had some time to lay down basic groundwork in the February and March contest states over the preceding year. It it had been set up like 1992, Clark would have had a month after Iowa and NH to get out to those follow up states. Clark HAD to chose between Iowa and New Hampshire to have any chance of doing well in either state while preparing for later contests.

Since Iowa has generally been given less respect as a proving ground than NH (only a small fraction of voters there actually participate compared to in NH which has traditionally been seen as the first major election), and since the caucus system in Iowa made it essential for candidates to have lined up key local supporters well in advance of Clark's September entry, it made sense that Clark made his stand in New Hampshire under the circumstances. That left Clark vulnerable to how much hype and spin the media decided to give the Iowa results this year. No one thought both Dean AND Gephardt would crater in Iowa the way BOTH did, so it was unexpected that enough votes were left for two "non Dean" candidates to emerge strong from Iowa. Gep was always weak in NH and expected to do well in Iowa, so he would not have gotten anywhere near the bounce out of coming in first or second there as did Kerry and Edwards.

Clark did do a good job of introducing himself to NH voters, and he proved popular there. Unfortunately he appealed strongly to many of the same voters who liked John Kerry, who was very well known and respected by New Hampshire Democrats who lived "next door" to him. Of course Dean, another neighbor, had locked up many of the anti war votes in NH early that might have gone to Clark. When Kerry seemed to falter nationally, many of his supporters in NH swung naturally to Clark. When Kerry was "reborn" in Iowa (where he didn't have to compete with Clark), a lot of his old supporters felt free to return to Kerry. It didn't hurt that Kerry now had the mark of a "winner" on him either. That of course cost Clark, who still edged out Edwards for third in NH.

Though Clark did show National poll numbers climbing in early December, and though his numbers even in October November were consistently in the top ranks of candidates, media during that period did not treat him as someone who was a leading candidate. They instead focused on how he had tumbled from the top of the polls where he was for two weeks after he announced. Clark was treated like a failed candidate until two things happened. One; he began to move up in the polls in New Hampshire and Two; He showed a strong ability to raise money when the numbers from the reporting period that closed at the end of December began to leak out. Clark then began to get another look in the media, which was a very positive period that lasted about three weeks. That story then was eclipsed by the approach of the Iowa caucus where the media all went, but Clark didn't. (Side note; Edwards had been the victim of getting no media coverage, period, until the week before Iowa, when his increasing popularity there began to be apparent).

After the Iowa vote, media coverage centered on Dean's collapse, and on Kerry and Edward's strong showings. Clark was virtually shut out, his third place finish in NH, even without the benefit of any Iowa wind in his sails, was treated as a near failure, and that became the predominant script therein out. Unfortunately therein out is the time period when most Americans actually tune into the primary contests, and when most media air time covering them occurs. It also ushers in the "wholesale" portion of the primary season, when candidates are dependent on free news coverage along with their own media buys to get their message out to millions of voters in a dozen or more states simultaneously. The critical lack of free and/or positive air time given to Clark relative to Dean, Kerry and Edwards in this period (most pronounced in the two weeks prior to Clark winning Oklahoma but continuing to a slightly lesser extent after that win), coupled with a media assisted impression that Clark was fading while Edwards was rising, hurt Clark's chances badly. It also helped Edwards that the week following NH had the North Carolina primary in it, a state where he was strongly positioned to further build momentum, and ultimately the only State Edwards won.

Maybe the only thing that really mattered though is that Democratic primary voters were desperate to pick a winner who could take out Bush in November. Once Kerry got that "scent" about him in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe nothing could have stopped him. The media made an effort to make it a horse race with Edwards, to keep the race interesting, but Edwards faded rather than gained strength after it became a two man race. His vote totals went up of course, but he rarely mounted a serious challenge to Kerry, by the end Kerry even won the deep South State of Georgia. Had Kerry not moved his operations lock stock and barrel to Iowa and out of NH when he did, I think Clark would have ended up as our nominee, but that of course is pure speculation.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. One P.S. about the media

I stated above that Clark got three positive weeks of Press in early January. All things considered he did, in the PRINT media. I remember one positive article about Clark surging that was published in USA Today specifically. However the same can NOT be said for the electronic media, which is under tighter corporate control. They never let up on Clark. Pundits kept dismissing his chances every chance they got. Judy Woodruff on Inside Politics refused to even mention Clark's name day after day after day. Wilder and wilder scenarios kept getting spun about how Gephardt was the man the Republicans really feared. They talked like Lieberman had just as much of a chance to rise from NH as Clark did. There continued to be the non stop focus on Clark campaign "mistakes" that was noted above by another poster, and of course there was the blatant ambush that FOX news sprung on Clark at the last New Hampshire debate.

[Darkamber]

19. Iowa, Dean scream and condensed primary schedule

I think these are the three things that really effected Clark and all of them. Leading up to Iowa, all you heard about was Dean. And maybe Clark. The rest of them were just a mass of names and no one was doing really good. You had to do your own research to find out who to support because all the media was talking about was Dean.

I think Clark came in as the anti-Dean. Everyone thought that Dean would win Iowa and then he would be the steam train that they would have to stop. Clark was the first road block in NH and he was in position there to stop Dean. Kerry, I think was hoping for at least a 3rd place out of Iowa and Edwards had always planned to make SC his stand and most likely didn't even have plans to campaign in NH at all.
Gephardt certainly expected to come out at least 2nd or 3rd in Iowa.

Then the people of Iowa, picked Kerry and Edwards with Dean in a distant 3rd and Gephardt bowed out. It changed all expectations. One week...they had one week to take advantage of the situation. But at the night of the speeches the press grabbed onto the 'Dean scream'. It was played over and over and over and over again. The two stories that came out of Iowa became the rise of Kerry and the fall of Dean. Somewhere in there both Clark and Edwards were left out.
NH voted with Kerry getting a good lead over Dean and Clark and Edwards in a life and death fight with each other in 3rd/4th place. There was something like a 1,000 votes between the two of them and a large amount of write-in VP votes for Edwards.

The next problem again was the condensed schedule. There was never a chance for anyone to get back on their feet and actually stop Kerry. The momentum went with Kerry. Both Edwards and Clark might have been able to stop him given time, but they were fighting for the same groups of voters and Kerry had the money, press and momentum behind him. Edwards skill through years of being a Trial lawyer helped him at being stronger on the stump then Clark and Clark's mistakes with his changing of positions and correcting himself hurt him.

But in the end, what really hurt Clark was not going to Iowa, the Press's attention to the Dean Scream and the condensed schedule that made it impossible for anyone to really stop Kerry after he won Iowa and NH.

[mot78]

27. Clark would be the nominee right now if he hadn't skipped Iowa

He was LEADING Kerry in NH right before Iowa, but because of Kerry's post-Iowa bounce, Clark got swept up, and many of his supporters switched to Kerry en masse (especially since a lot of them were former Kerry and Dean supporters).

[robbedvoter]

32. 3 candidates got nothing but good media: W, Lieberman and Edwards

Dean enjoyed the privilege to a max up to a point, then he was abandoned, then used as a target. Clark had a short attention spurt when he entered the race - mixed with venom from right and left. Once he raised more money that ALL candidates - the money amounts stopped being reported alltogether, and Clark entered in the full "ignore mode". His draft movement/internet campaign is still a secret for most.
To quote his own comments: "The media considered themselves the gatekeepers of the race and I think you (drafters) undercut them and they never forgave that" He said that it was his biggest regret - that we never got recognition.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. In fairness to Edwards

The media gave him virtually no media attention until near the Iowa vote, and he was languishing near the bottom of most state and national polls partially as a result of that. I say partially because Edwards had spent a lot of time directly meeting people in NH and Iowa without much to show for it. Edwards was rarely mentioned by pundits except when they wanted to talk about someone other than Clark as a long shot to pull votes in the South.

But when that changed, it changed big time. Edwards with his sunny outlook and populist appeal became a staple of media coverage from shortly before the actual Iowa vote through the last Super Tuesday. Edwards first was ignored, and later given positive press. He got by far the least actual negative press of any of the major candidates, in my opinion

[Darkamber]

34. I agree about Edwards...

Your prior post, Tom, also is just about the same as mine for what happened. It's nice to see a Clark supporter seeing what really happened the same as an Edwards supporter.

Edwards did get no media attention before his placement in Iowa. Clark did get media and his rise in the charts supported this. If I recall he was second in National polling for some time. Edwards was at the bottom in the 'also run' group.

When Edwards came out second in Iowa from his own hard work and face to face campaigning. He didn't have the money or the grassroots to support him. I know all about that...his few supporters became his grassroots and his local organizers and we knew nothing and had no time to organize.

Clark's mistake was skipping Iowa, but at the time with Dean way ahead and Kerry dropped down in the polls, it was the most logical move. Officially Dean should have won and everyone else would have come out Iowa wounded with Kerry fighting for his survival in NH and Edwards running as fast as he could to SC.

But it didn't work that way. Kerry won..he had the experience and the military background. Clark was untested on the political field and it showed in a few of the mistakes that he made. Edwards failed because he lacked organization and money to take advantage of his position out of Iowa.

The media did admit that they overplayed the Dean scream though. If Clark or Edwards had been given those minutes that were lost in the replay over and over and the commentary that was said over and over about Dean's scream, there might have been a different race.

[AP]

36. I agree with that. However, more and more I think I agree

(as noted above) that if you did run this election over and over again, even if you change one or two things for any candidate, it still would have come out exactly as it did.

I really think that informed voter study says everything you need to know. Sure Edwards had the best return on his investment, and the steepest slope in the last few days of all the early primaries, but Kerry would always have been Mr slow-and-steady, well-rounded, with almost limitless resources and the shrewdest campaign staff, and a ton of the kind of experience that's necessary to win (ie, biography+actual political savy).

I guess I'm surprised that more people didn't realize early that Edwards was going to be the second last man standing, but I'm not suprised that Kerry won, and if the primaries were groundhog's day, I think, yes, they would come out just like they did every time, even with minor changes.

[robbedvoter]

57. Sunny, scmunny. Edwards had vicious slanders against all his Iowa

rivals, and Shelton against Clark. It was Clark running a positive campaign while Edwards was only declaring it and getting the acolades. And NO ONE said one word about his disgraceful bowing out BEFORE THE POLLS WERE CLOSED - so as not to miss prime time. The meddia gushed over his wonderful campaigning lobbying for his VP-iness even while he was still in the race attacking Kerry. His farts never stank, and NYT kept attrinuting him Clark's 3rd place in New Hampshire and only corrected it when bombarded with letters from us. Geez, why would that be?

[serryjw]

40. Kerry's OUR nominee for ONE reason!

Campaign Finance Reform.........Regardless of whom did well we would have had our nominee early March after CA & NY.........We would have been dead in the water if $45 million had to last us until August 1st...You could have nominated mother Teresa and the Bushit campaign would have eatten her for breakfast...and we would never have recovered.

[Justice]

42. Clark Skipping Iowa and Decision To Get In Race and Drop Out

Clark skipping Iowa is mentioned here as if Clark had a choice- given that he got into the campaign so late, Clark really could not effectively compete in Iowa and in NH. So he didn't really "skip" Iowa in the way that Lieberman did, Clark had to make a tough choice. Everyone thought Iowa was Gephardts, and that Gep wouldn't be a factor in NH anyway.

I agree with Tom and WesDem, Clark entered the race to beat Bush (not to be the antiDean). Clark supported Kerry, because he thought Kerry had the credentials to beat Bush. When Kerry fell in the polls, and Graham dropped out, Clark felt he had to enter - to beat Bush.

Clark himself said that when Kerry won Iowa, he (Clark) knew his campaign was essentially over.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Clark thought he was the best man running, just like everyone else

Clark really did believe he was the right man for the job, though he also believes John Kerry will make a great President. Clark may not have entered had Kerry been doing better earlier, but once Clark entered he was in it to win. Clark did not fold up his tent after Kerry won in Iowa, nor after Kerry won in New Hampshire. After Dean finished a fairly distant second in NH after a distant third in Iowa, Dean no longer had a realistic chance of winning the nomination. Dean was out of money, and he had no strength in the upcoming races, as events soon proved. So Clark didn't stay in the race to "get" Dean. Clark kept campaigning hard, including campaigning AGAINST Kerry. He ran as an "outsider", contrasting himself with the Washington "insiders" which specifically included Kerry. By staying in the race, Clark helped split the veteran vote for a couple of weeks, which actually HELPED Edwards since it drained support from Kerry and not Edwards, and gave Edwards a better chance to pull off a win or two in the South as a result. So Clark didn't stay in the race to hurt Edwards either. After Clark pulled out, THAT hurt Edwards, since the National Security concerned voters were then able to get behind a single candidate, Kerry.

[Justice]

45. I agree, Clark was the best man running

I agree that Clark did not fold up his tent after NH - just that Clark himself acknowledged that when Kerry won Iowa, Clark knew his race was essentially over.

That is won of Clark's attributes - honesty.

[Pepperbelly]

43. Clark made no mistakes of substance...

he heard a call to duty, answered it as best he could, said things that needed saying and conceded graciously when the electorate chose Kerry.

For Wesley, it was not about winning. It was about the nation.

[Adelante]

67. Bingo!!

"It was about the nation" and that's what Clark's critics never quite understand about the man and about his candidacy and, I might add, about his supporters.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Clark did relatively well....

despite the media. Please see the following proof. Clark was "fading" from the onset of his entrance into the primaries.

Here's some quotes from Zogby polster John Zogby over time....

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/41887.htm
Here's an article talking about Clark's slowing momentum, titled .DEM DEAN'S ROCK SOLID IN GRANITE STATE Dated October 25, 2003....using Zogby poll as reference.

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has zoomed into a "juggernaut" lead in the key presidential primary state of New Hampshire while retired Gen. Wesley Clark's support has sagged into single digits, a new poll shows. Dean is at 40 percent - more than double Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) who is second at 17, followed by Clark and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) tied for third at 6 percent each in the Zogby International poll.

Several prior polls put Clark at 10 or 11 percent and clearly in third in New Hampshire, but this survey suggests "The General" has fizzled in the wake of Iraq flip-flops and the revelation that he praised President Bush and voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

"Clark's fizzle is the key to these numbers. Clark was hurting Dean. Now Clark has just collapsed and the direct beneficiary is Dean," said pollster John Zogby.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1091321,00.html Here's another attempt....1 month later! Smear piece Titled "Democrats' general on the retreat" - In another valiant attempt to squelch Clark's momentum - Dated November 23, 2003 - Story uses Zogby quotes on what's wrong with the Clark Campaign.

As President George W. Bush arrives home from his state visit to Britain, he will have the satisfaction of seeing Clark's campaign in crisis. It is low on funds, has lost key staff and is fizzling out in key battleground states. Meanwhile, the campaign of Vermont governor Howard Dean has captured the public imagination, securing his place as the frontrunner in the still crowded field of nine Democrat candidates.

'There was tremendous potential in Clark as a candidate, but there have been major problems in the execution,' said John Zogby, head of polling organization Zogby International which conducted research for Clark supporters before the general's announcement that he was joining the race.

That caused dismay among many supporters. 'People know that if Clark wins the Democrat nomination, those quotes are just a Republican attack ad waiting to happen,' Zogby said.

Now, here is a quote from the MSNBC story on December 5th. Notice who's doing the talking. http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001091.asp?0cv=CB20," Pollster John Zogby said Dean is strong in all regions and among all voter groups. The poll of 503 Democratic and independent voters was taken Dec. 1-3 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points."

[PeaceProgProsp]

48. Jan 8: "Polls: Dean Losing Ground, Clark Gaining"

The Granite State's primary takes place on Jan. 27. Recent poll numbers show that Dean, the former Vermont governor, remains on top there, but new developments have emerged in the battle for second place. Whereas Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (search) had been in the lead for second and was once a favorite to win that state, Clark has surpassed him for that position, according to American Research Group polls.

The polls show Clark steadily gaining ground. One taken Jan. 5-7 shows Dean with 35 percent of the vote, Clark with 18 percent and Kerry with 12 percent. One taken Jan. 4-6 gave Dean 36 percent of the vote, Clark 16 percent and Kerry 13 percent. In that poll, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., got 7 percent, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., got 6 percent and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., got 3 percent.

...

A Dec. 18 New Hampshire poll, conducted by ARG and released Dec. 18, showed that Dean led then with 45 percent of the Democratic vote, Kerry had 20 percent and Clark was tied with Lieberman for third.

A new national CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll released Wednesday also shows Dean's lead for the Democratic nomination narrowing. Twenty-four percent of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said they would choose him, while Clark came in second with 20 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107684,00.html

(I know it's fox -- but it's the first thing that comes up when you google, and the polls aren't fox polls)

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. This is consistent

Clark WAS gaining momentum. Clark's campaign HAD NOT fizzled despite the media drone of October through most of December. Clark got unavoidable good press for his fund raising abilities at the end of the December quarter. The media had built the "money race" up into a huge indicator of candidate popularity while they were covering Deans ability to raise money over the internet and the inability of other candidates to keep pace. Then the money numbers came in and Clark did great. It scrambled the medias ongoing message, but after playing that story so heavily all along they had to go with the results. Zogby, in my opinion, had been doing everything in his power to pull Clark down prior to that.

As I noted above, the talking heads and electronic media kept dismissing Clark anyway. They were eager to abandon him after his third place showing in New Hampshire, unfairly characterizing his 3rd place finish as a poor showing while claiming that Edwards 4th place finish sustained his momentum. Clark had to split the anti war vote in NH with Dean, an anti war neighbor to the west, and the veteran vote with Kerry, the war hero neighbor to the south. Edwards had a relatively clear field to push his well honed economic message in NH, and he did benefit from momentum going into New Hampshire.

I give credit to Edwards for his break through in Iowa, it was not stage managed. Prior to the returns from Iowa, the media most certainly was not propping up Edwards, they virtually ignored him. But they frequently pushed down Clark. I in particular fault the media for not being more even handed in their coverage after the New Hampshire vote. I think that showed in their obsession about talking about Dean's "scream" and collapse, and their uneven coverage of Edwards relative to Clark. I certainly don't fault Edwards for that. He had an effective message, and he finally started getting a chance to get it out. Clark was denied that precisely when campaigns had to increasingly rely on mass media to get their message heard in numerous populous states simultaneously.

After Iowa, I think almost nothing could have stopped John Kerry from getting the nomination. However the characterization that Clark never caught on with voters was a fabrication furthered by the manner in which his campaign was quickly ushered to the media sidelines.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Also see these statements on media coverage for Clark....

this article appeared THE DAY before mini Tuesday.....

Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004

THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one - an AP piece in USA Today about Clark's bungling of the abortion issue.

AND

January 30, 2004 primary analysis.....Clark apparently does not exist in the world of the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/campaign/30MEMO.html?pagewanted=1

AND
Analysis of Coverage by NBC on January 31, 2004
NBC's Today Show Saturday morning, this is the coverage score for candidates that I did:

Discussing the So Carolina Debate this was how many times Tim Russert mentioned candidates names:

Kerry 7 times
Dean 7 times
Edwards 1 time
Clark 0 times

This even even though one of the topics disc in this segment was national defense and other was the economy.
Pictured:

Kerry 2 times
Dean 2 times
Clark 0 times

This on backdrop of the fact that Dean is on a 'downslide' also so if Clark is dismissed for this reason, so would Dean. Also Dean is not running first or second place in any state in upcoming primaries Tuesday Feb 3rd.

In following segment on 'looking ahead to Tuesday', Tim Russert mentioned these candidates:

Kerry 6 times
Dean 0 times
Edwards 4 times
Sharpton 4 times
Clark 3 times

Sharpton is not running in first or second place anywhere and Clark is running in first place in OK and second place AZ.

AND

Example: NBC's Today Show Sunday morning, handled today's coverage (2/1/04) of the contest for Tuesday's primaries.

NBC reported that Kerry was edging out Clark in OK, 25%/23%, even though it was not mentioned on the prior Saturday or Friday that Clark was way ahead (43%). Prior, only South Carolina and Missouri were being reported.....while Clark had a big lead in Oklahoma and Arizona. However, now that Kerry has 'edged out' Clark, NBC decides it's a good item to lead in with. Obvious illustration of only reporting on Kerry's successes and Clark's failures. This has been documented over and over again in details for later action. The 25%/23% was a Reuters/Zogby poll. Zogby has been shown to be an opportunistic polling company by ABC (who refuses to use them), The Washington Post, American Prospect, etc... and admitted to by Zogby himself on a recent radio talk show (tape transcript archived - articles and studies as well). The file on Zogby is growing by the day.

Then, Today's NBC Show reported again that Kerry still holds a commanding lead in MO of 43%, only curiously enough, NBC did not show the score on MO, they showed instead the score of the Newsweek poll that they have reported on now several times of Kerry beating Bush 48%/46%. This is subliminal suggestion that only a giant media company could pull off. Commentator didn't even say anything about the Newsweek poll, probably because they have reported this so much already.

So Kerry is mentioned 3 times and Clark 1 time and then on negative factor only (Kerry edged him out in OK was his mention, a win he had which they previously did not report on when he was way ahead in first, 43%, just a few days ago.)

AND
The gist of today's Clark bash on Hardball today: they were discussing Clinton's appearance on the Hill last week. Matthews said (paraphrasing) that Clinton was backing away from Clark so fast it would make your head spin. Then he and the rest of the panel (including Bow-Tie Boy Tucker) laughed as Matthews said, "Clinton has fired Clark twice."

CARLSON: You see, that would be a strategy, because he's got
something to apologize for, the single creepiest presidential campaign since Ross Perot. Wes Clark--that's a creation of Clinton and the people around him.

MATTHEWS: Oh. Oh, I tell you one thing, they are stumping away...

CARLSON: And he ought to apologize for it.

MATTHEWS: But Tucker, they are stumping away from that so fast, like
rats from a ship.

CARLSON: It's a total out...

MATTHEWS: It claims to deny any connection to the Clark campaign.

Mr. FINEMAN: What Clark campaign?

BROWN: Who, Wesley Clark?

Mr. FINEMAN: What Clark campaign?

CARLSON: As you know, that's a lie.

MATTHEWS: He'll be the only man in history to fire Wesley Clark
twice.

CARLSON: Amen...........................................
AND

Last night's ABC evening news program featured Kerry, Dean and
Edwards. Clark was not mentioned.

CNN's Late Edition transcript for today. Discussion of the Dems today, they didn't even mention OK and Clark's strength there.--AW

AND

Here is the story that ignores Clark's existence in the debate dated January 29th:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/democrats

statement by Judy Woodruff on 2/3 AFTER Clark's Oklahoma win
"and we're not trying to take anything away from general clark by
saying this (about his finish in oklahoma)..." but then she began to
discuss why people might reconsider giving clark any more money.

THERE ARE SO MANY MORE EXAMPLES OF CLARK BEING SHUT OUT OF THE PRIMARIES BEFORE AND AFTER IOWA. IF YOU WANT MORE, JUST ASK ME!

[Jai4WKC08]

53. No no please, it's too depressing to revisit...

What PPP keeps missing, by choice I'm guessing, it that the negative press of the fall 03 initially brought Clark down off the top of the polls. But he began to climb again precisely because national media is NOT key to the NH primary. It's a factor, but not as significant as it becomes in the later primaries.

It is a testament to just how good Clark is on the stump, working crowds, doing the townhall thing (that last is my own personal favorite--no one beats Clark in a Q&A session--he's so open, honest and obviously informed and intelligent--he always connects). So he was gaining on Dean DESPITE the brutally negative media--it's completely conceivable that, with more even-handed coverage, Clark would have blown on by and it would have come down to him and Kerry in the end. Or not--no way to know what might have been. But it helped tremendously that people in NH don't care as much about the national campaign--they expect to meet and greet their candidates personally. And a lot of them did meet Clark, and they liked what they saw. Still do. But people in the later states mostly just know what they see on the 6 o'clock news, and after Jan 29th, about when voters start paying attention, they weren't seeing Clark at all.

It doesn't much matter now, of course. Pundits continue to babble about what a poor campaigner Clark is, but the folks who matter seem to know better. It's one thing for Kerry to put Clark's face on TV, but how can anyone think he'd be sending him to all these state party functions (which invariably involve a Kerry high-dollar fundraiser as well) if Clark wasn't knocking 'em dead? Kerry's staff gets the direct feedback--money raised, attendance, impressions of the local professionals. No one has to take our word for it--the fact that Clark is sent time and again is proof enough.

[TexasSissy]

54. Clark's debate performances were poor.

Don't flame me. I LOVE Clark. I was a Clark supporter AND contributor. I really thought he was the best person for the job.

But objectively speaking, he just bit off more than he could chew by running for President of the U.S. as his first political bid. It takes a while to learn how to dance the dance at debates. He was a fast learner, but there wasn't time to complete the learning process.

I have a couple of friends who were also Clark supporters. We all thought he did poorly at the debates.

He's really sort of, well, almost too distinguished for the political process, if you know what I mean. He'd do best in a cabinet position...where he doesn't have to grovel for votes or compromise his statements.

[LandOLincoln]

55. I agree with you about his being too distinguished for the

political process. It killed me to see a man of his stature reduced to flipping pancakes and whoring for votes.

But the thing is, NOW he's campaigning for Kerry, and it's a whole new ballgame. Surely you've noticed the difference--once again he's free to be himself. He's clearly much more comfortable stumping for someone else--and that someone else is clearly very happy to have Wes as his official surrogate--and de facto VP.

[Justice]

60. Actually Overall Did Great At Debates, Considering

he only was asked questions about Kosovo, and whether he was a republican or agreed with Moore about Bush being a deserter -- and not asked questions about the economy, Iraq and other things - as the other candidates were.

[GOPBasher]

56. That may be true, but as for the future,

I think Clark has a lot of potential to shine as a politician. He made some novice mistakes, because he was, after all, a novice. But with more seasoning I think he can be a star in our party. If he's not VP, I still hope he stays in politics; perhaps he can run for senate from Arkansas?

[LandOLincoln]

61. If he's not VP he'll be in Kerry's cabinet somewhere (except

as Secretary of Defense, for which he's not eligible because he hasn't been out of the military long enough).

[democratreformed]

63. I have always felt that the momentum created by a win in Iowa by

Kerry was just too much to overcome. John Edwards' was fortunate to gain the same type of momentum there. By the time we got to Tennessee, we even had people telling us "Well, everyone wants Kerry, so that's who I'll vote for."

Also, I am not experienced enough in campaigning to know the WHY of this one, but I know that Wes Clark's message was just NOT getting out there.

I don't think it can all be blamed on the media. There were many factors. I think one of the main ones was BAD campaign people. One source very close to the campaign told me "Not everyone was in this for Wes Clark". She was heartbroken and crying uncontrollably when she told me this.

[Skwmom]

64. You must not have watched very much of the primary

media coverage (or listened to it on the radio). I don't see how you can make this statement "The worst coverage of Clark that I remember was just after he announced."

It was either smear Clark or ignore Clark. The corporate media (and right wing nuts on the radio) had their marching orders - get rid of General Clark at all costs. The sad fact is that even Democratic operatives like Carville jumped on the bandwagon. Clark's poll numbers started out good and the corporate and right wing media worked overtime to beat them down.

In regards to Iowa, someone from Clark's campaign leaked that he was not going to participate in Iowa before Clark made his decision. I've always felt that Clark had people on his staff who didn't have his best interests at heart (surprise, surprise in the slimy, self serving world of politics). Plus lets not forget Vilsack urging the General to bypass Iowa (hmmm I guess he was hoping Kerry would pay him back by putting him on the ticket). Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you seems to be the golden rule in the self serving political world. This is why Clark as a non-politician is so appealing to many (he actually did it for the good of the country not to further his own self serving desires for power).

In regards to NH, Kerry had momentum coming out of Iowa and there was a lot of very dirty tricks played against Clark in the NH campaign. After this primary, I've come to realize that the Republicans hardly corner the market on sleazy political tactics. I really thought the Democrats were better than this. The whole primary process was a real eye opener to say the least.

[democratreformed]

66. Your words mirror my thoughts.

When Wes first dropped out, I couldn't figure out which group to be angrier with - the media, the scums in his and other campaigns, or the Democratic voters themselves.