Why Is Clark Now Shunned in Favor of Edwards? Doesn't Make Sense.

[WiseMen]

Help me here. Why is it that Wesley Clark is being ignored in favor of Edwards? I don’t see how Edward’s readiness for the role of Head-Of-State and Commander-In-Chief compares with Wes Clark's.

Clark has diplomatic experience. Clark’s major posts as Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command and then as Nato Supreme Allied Commander were essentially senior diplomatic positions negotiating and implementing U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Clark has Policy Experience. Clark’s stints at Washington assignments (White House Fellow and as Special Assistant at OMB) as well as his stints in economics and Wall Street finance should provide him with some grasp of domestic policy issues.

Of Course, his record of military command is stellar. In Vietnam he left the battlefield severely wounded and received the Silver Star and a Purple Heart. His post-Vietnam awards include numerous medals and commendations including honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments, commander of the French Legion of Honor. In August 2000, President Clinton awarded General Clark with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.

What about John Edwards? As far as I can see his experience is principally as a great liability trial lawyer who amassed a huge fortune ($50 mill) suing huge corporations. He made a ton of money an then decided to use some of it to run for the senate. Now, before completing his 1st term, he decides to run for the presidency.

What is the substantial basis of the Edward’s candidacy? It appears that his success is based mainly on his skills as a litigator – great argumentation, great presentation, great closing arguments.

This is not insignificant. But why is he being compared favorably with Wes Clark I just can’t understand.

[ShaneGR]

1. EXPECTATIONS

Clark needed a big win in Oklahoma, that was the expectation. Instead it ended in a virtual tie, with a guy who didn't campaign in the state.

Edwards needed a big win in SC, which he got... and he exceeded expectations in OK and finished second in Missouri.

Expectations are all that matters.

[tameszu]

11. Spin spreads easily: OK was the state Edwards campaigned the 2nd hardest

He spent the 2nd most time there, after Clark and ran ads there.

And if you're going to talk about "expectations," what about the utter lack of media coverage that Clark got compared to Edwards? After that, for him to win anything--not to mention 3 strong 2nds, include a very strong 2nd for 22 delegates in AZ and a strong 2nd in NM (not to mention ND)--itself seriously beat expectations. But instead, the media reported a "slim win" in OK and "a handful of delegates in a couple other states" (Judy Woodruff, on Clark's 34 non-OK delegates in 3 staets).

Nope--in this case, it's the inertia of media narrative. To the media, Clark isn't, as Will Saletan puts it, a "plausible candidate," because he failed to answer their gotcha questions to their satisfaction in the week before NH. That's why. It's utter laziness and groupthink.

[ShaneGR]

43. You asked why the media is focusing on Edwards

I told you.

[OKNancy]

53. Your analysis is incorrect

Edwards campaigned hard in Oklahoma.

[WiseMen]

49. Story could have been "Clark Defeats Edwards in Hard Contest"

[jmaier]

15. Edwards outcampaigned Clark in OK

and had been running there heavily for some time and this was a state he targeted to WIN:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/DailyNews/fieldedwards-16.html

"A note from campaign events pre- and post-Thanksgiving: Edwards finished up a two-day bus trip through Oklahoma, his tenth visit to the state, where his endorsement tally is at 29 out of a total of 81 Democratic state officials. "

Bush, Edwards lead in Oklahoma contributions (1/18/04)

http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=1160956&TP=getarticle
<registration required>

Edwards back in Oklahoma for 11th time (12/8/2003)

http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=1133612&TP=getarticle
<registration required>

http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=1071714&TP=getarticle
John Edwards TV ads begin airing on Oklahoma stations (9/22/2003)
<registration required>

[tameszu]

28. Side note (example of spin):

On Daily Kos, possibly the most incredible moment was when an Edwards supporter rationalized that it made sense that Edwards got more coverage about his win and his 2nd place finishes was because "SC, MO, and OK are big states, and NM, AZ, and ND are little states."

Comparative population of AZ (where Clark got 27% of the vote) among the states in the Feb. 3 contests anyone? (Winner gets a free electronic Clark Bar)

[OKNancy]

52. You are wrong.....and you keep repeating the same falsehood

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=271846#272927

On edit...here is the post above:

I wonder if, when you post, you go back and read the responses.
I live in Oklahoma and I have followed this race closely.

About a year ago I sent John Edwards picture to all my family members in Oklahoma because he was starting to make a run here. Then I also noticed that a state senator, Kenneth Corn, down in LeFlore county endorsed Edwards. I sent a little note to my sister
in LeFlore county because I thought she would be interested. This was about six months ago.

Edwards visited Oklahoma more than any other candidate. His ads started running very early. Edwards also picked up more donations than any other candidate here. He was running hard in Oklahoma.

He didn't spend as much time here in the last week....but he was here a lot.

Your continued assertion that Edwards barely campaigned here is false. You don't know about Oklahoma politics just like you didn't know about Kucinich in Ohio. I remember that.

[Jerseycoa]

2. Thank you for your kindness

Your post has to stand way out of the pack today.

:yourock:

[angryinoville]

3. I totally agree....

What is this obsession w/a f**ing trial lawyer from the south? Doesn't anyone see that Wes is the real deal? Don't fret, they will. He picked up a win last night and 2 or 3 second place finishes.

[kanrok]

7. Trial alwyer bashing alert!

What's wrong with trial lawyers? Be specific.

[angryinoville]

8. It's not so much a bash...

I'm just saying that Wes has better credentials. Every time I hear Edwards talk, I'm waiting to hear him say, " Now what's it gonna take for me to get you in this bran' new Isuzu Rodeo?"

[kanrok]

30. I'm an Edwards guy

and a trial lawyer. I also happen to love Clark. Hard to criticize a 4-star General, Rhodes Scholar, Silver-Star and Purple Heart possessing, first-in-his-class-at-West Point kinda guy. I don't feel the car salesman in Edwards, in fact, I think he's a great stump speaker. I'm realistic enough to realize that Edwards lacks in experience, and it looks as though he's odds-on favorite, right now for VP. If Clark gets the nod, he has my vote. So does Kerry. In the future, kindly refrain from the lawyer bashing. It doesn't help your position, and it alienates those of us who do it for a living. Cheers.

[Tansy_Gold]

33. strategy of strengths

I'm a bit off topic, I think, but what the heck.

And please, this is only my opinion, based on nothing more than gut instinct and the way the polls are running at the moment.

Look at these various scenarii --

1. If Clark gets the presidential nomination, Kerry would be a bad choice for VP. First of all, Kerry would have to start losing big time and Clark start winning, and the downfall of a front-runner doesn't make him good vp material. Second, however, a Clark/Terry ticket is a bit too heavy on the military side and might provoke some backlash, i.e. a fear of a quasi military coup, esp. from the more lefty/peacenik wing of the Democratic party. The logical choice from the current crop would be for Clark to pick Edwards, even though that would make the ticket very strong on the southern demographic. I doubt it would play badly in the north, midwest, east, or far west, because Clark doesn't come across as a southerner the way Edwards does.

2. If Edwards gets the presidential nomination, Clark would balance the ticket with military experience and age (along the lines of Kennedy and Johnson), but that leaves the party vulnerable in 8 years. Could Clark step in as presidential contender in 2012, or would he be seen as too old? It's something think about. The same is true of an Edwards/Kerry ticket, as well as the same problem with the fallen front-runner as a Clark/Kerry ticket. Edwards/Clark would probably have just about a lock on the South, but what about the rest of the country?

3. If Kerry gets the nomination, a Kerry/Clark ticket would be heavy on the military angle, as would a Clark/Kerry ticket, but would Kerry want to sit in the wings for eight years as vp? Would he be electable as vp? On the other hand, a Kerry/Edwards ticket has the perfect (IMHO) fit -- balance of military and civilian experience, demographic balance, and the perfect opportunity for the younger Edwards to get the political experience needed to step up to the plate in 2008. . . .. .with a female VP nominee.

But of course, I've been saying this for months and months and months and no one listened to me. . . . . . . . .

[NV1962]

4. Issues? We need to steenkin' issues!

Good points for debate, perhaps - but that's not what the Sports & Entertainment section running the media have in mind!

[iamjoy]

5. Clark vs. Edwards

I like Clark, I think he is intelligent and has an impressive resume.

So, why is he being shunned in favor of Edwards?

It doesn't hurt that Edwards knows how the Senate works, although Clark has more well rounded experience. Intelligence is more important than experience (have you ever been turned down for a job and told it was because you didn't have enough experience? Didn't you want to scream that you would never get experience if nobody gave it to you and you could do the job?)

It could be the media playing games and choosing our candidate for us.

Or, it could be three things: charisma, charisma, charisma.

[Bonobo]

22. Intelligence?! Clark is a Rhodes scholar and graduated 1st at West Point!

Clark is far more intelligent than Edwards IMHO. Are you sure you want to go THERE?

[iamjoy]

38. Clark

Sorry, I didn't articulate that well.
I am conceding the point that Clark is highly intelligent. Intelligent enough to possibly make up for "lack of experience."

[Rooktoven]

51. I'll take the bait. Let's see them debate. nt

[donjo]

6. VOice

Not only that, but apparently he has the ability to "hear voices from the dead" when making a closing argument. Someone, I'm sure
has the exact quote on hand. (Something like, "she's talking to me right now.") Would appreciate it if someone could clear this up. Thanks.

[ShaneGR]

9. I'll clear it up for you

He was trying a case in which a little girl had been killed do to malpractice at a hospital. He took the case on behalf of a poor family from rural NC. During his closing, he said "I can hear her now, wanting for you to make things right with her family."

BTW, not a very nice first post.

[newyawker99]

50. Hi donjo!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MrSlayer]

10. Because the media wants Bush to win.

Seems pretty simple to me. They know Clark will destroy Dumbya in the GE once everyone gets to know him. Kerry or Edwards will be shredded by the Republican mean machine which is how they are setting it up.

Kerry will be set up as waffler who votes for whatever benefits him or he will be set up as a guy who voted for everything BushCo wanted so why not vote for the man he backed and has been there for 4 years already.

Edwards will be easier to kill, he has no foreign policy experience and less than a full term in congress. Also voted for everything BushCo wanted.

We're being set up for a Bush victory.

[henslee]

20. Exactly....... Bush'll eat him up like catfish and spit out the bones.

[MIMStigator]

12. Edwards can't win

no experience or cred on national security.

[ShaneGR]

13. Other than being on the Foreign Intelligence committee

So your statement is false.

[WiseMen]

19. Look, even Hilary see that one should serve you term first.

The way he voted for IWR without even the caveats and clarifying
speech that Kerry gave really raises questions.

I saw no substantial arguement for his positions on foreign policy
matters in the Senate.

[windansea]

26. errrrrrrrrrr......no such thing

it's called the US Senate Select Committe on Intelligence....

:hi:

[tameszu]

29. Don't forget:

2 whole years on the Select Committee on Intel!

[BootinUp]

14. Quite right

[ngGale]

16. National Security was fine when Clinton was in and...

Bush dropped the ball or ignored the ball in play. I would like hope and a positive attitude for a change.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. Why Edwards and not Clark?

Simple. Edwards is a Washington insider who will continue to play the same Washington Insider games.....Clark won't and the OTHER Washington Insiders KNOW it. Wes will expose the corruption....Edwards won't.

Go Wes!

[KnucklesBuchanan]

21. Well...

if Edwards showed up more frequently to cast his vote in the Senate, or offered up any original legislation, then he could be considered an 'insider.' So in a sense, he's correct.

[mmonk]

18. From the beginning

Clark has been underhandedly ignored or bashed. Edwards has the looks people like and can really snow people. He hasn't been under any serious scrutiny and probably won't. Not bashing Edwards, he just doesn't hold some of his new supporters' views in my opinion and I don't think they are totally aware (I know there isn't a candidate that is perfect with someone's every view). His line about being "the son of a millworker" is really working with some. He knows how to play 'em. Plus Edwards is going "positive" though it hasn't worked with Clark concerning his positive campaign with his rivals (another press double standard). Glad to see Clark finally is going to fight back.

[KnucklesBuchanan]

23. It's Tony Robbins...

versus the General. Given the short attention span of many in the electorate (and this is NOT a slam at you Edwards supporters. I'm sure your reasons for supporting your candidate are just as solid as mine), they voters are going to go for Tony Robbins. And it's our job to attempt to get the voter past the title 'General'.

[Bread and Circus]

24. God knows.

:argh:

[MilesColtrane]

25. Clark/Edwards Theory

As an occasional TV viewer without cable, I am only just now beginning to see ANY footage from previous Dem debates. Most all of the information I've seen on candidates has been through the net, newspaper, or 2.8 second blips played on network news programs. But as candidates drop out and the primaries really start rolling I'm actually beginning to see more of these guys as they stump.
I like Wes Clark a lot but, his resume is better than his presence on the podium, and vice versa for Edwards.
I believe someone above raised the question, "Why vote for Edwards when you can vote for Clark?" (the southern thing) I would add, "Why vote for Kerry when you can vote for Clark?" (the veteran thing)
Of the four serious contenders left at this point, I like Kerry the least. He's always seemed to me to be an empty suit, lifer politician who reads poll results before deciding what color tie to wear in the morning. It would be a shame if most Dems are voting for Kerry in the primaries just because they think he's 'electable'.
I recommend sending your man a check now, especially if he's on the bubble, and especially if he's not Kerry. I just don't want these primary fights to be over so quickly. (except for Joe {mentum}Lieberman)

[WiseMen]

27. I am with Kerry, But no prob with sending Clark a check

[BootinUp]

31. Hi MilesColtrane

and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[OHdem10]

32. Clark is beingn ig nored---

primarily, because unfairly he is viewed as "Clinton"s Candidate".
Is this fair. Heck no--but what can a person do? By now everyone in America should know the real Clinton Haters are the media.especially TVMedia. From the beginning there has been an effort to ignore him.--Miminize his time on debates--you know how "cliques" work. Furthermore, the WH did not want to run against him so some Meia (most TV Media are Bush supporters and they have two goals here. Their personaldislike and need to be sure nothing clinton gets near the WH again and need to support Bush.

[ShadowCabinet]

35. Clark is being ignored because he's another outsider.

The General is now being subjected to the same dismissive punditry that is doing in the Dean campaign. He's being dismissed because of his campaign, because of the "Draft Clark" movement, his "lack of political experience", etc.

What's going on is that the media wants this to get down to a 2 man race to play-up the mano-a-mano aspect of things and turn the primaries into a boxing match.

If I hear one more "pundit" talk about delivering a "knock-out blow" by Kerry to another candidate, I'm going to puke.

[mmonk]

57. He's an outsider

even though some want to talk about "Clinton" campaign connections. Edwards is a DLC candidate.

[SangamonTaylor]

34. Edwards has made a statement.

Edwards made a statement last night. He said he HAD to win SC. He stepped to the plate, pointed his bat towards the outfield stands, and hit a homerun.

Meanwhile, Clark played it safe, never stated that anything was a 'must win', and so the media has been less impressed. His 'win' in OK was not the dominant performance that many DUers here seem to think it was. His many second place finishes showed little in the way of actually being competitive with Kerry. Arizona is a great 2nd place finish for Clark, but it did not show that he could beat Kerry.

Plus, if you want to say that a second place performance in Delaware, and North Dakota is as impressive as Edwards' showing in Missouri, then you had better take a look at the population of those states. In Missouri, which everyone knows is a bell weather state, Clark performed horribly.

Clark was 'shunned' because he got off to such a bad start politically. Pundits pointed out that his early stance on the war waffled. They said his stance on abortion waffled (allowing abortion until delivery?...) This all occurred early on, and the early mistakes were costly.

Clark has a fine resume. I would happily support him as the nominee. However, I think his weakness is in his ability to connect with people and explain himself persuasively. His rhetorical skills lack polish, and he doesn't impress me when it comes to being a public speaker. However, he can improve on this, and should he win the nomination I hope that he improves on this.

The media reported OK as it was. A tossup between two candidates that are on the verge of falling completely out of the race. The media is not going to make Clark's win into something that it is not. It was not a commanding showing, and it left many
questioning where Clark would go next (including his own son).

Clark skipped Iowa to focus on NH. His polling dropped, rapidly, and just prior to the primary from the twenties into the low teens in NH. They saw Edwards move from the single digits into a virtual tie for 3rd. That continued the media focus on Edwards that he deserved after impressing in Iowa.

Edwards has been inspiring people. He hasn't been attacking candidates in his stump speach and the people have responded with their votes. He has a comprehensive message that is more than a bunch of issues tied together with twine. It's more than a bundle of sticks. His message of Two Americas resonates with people and it presents what he wishes to accomplish as President.

[Edwards4President]

37. Nicely said

I love the homerun metaphor!

[jenk]

40. bravo!

that's a nice edwards family photo in your sig!

[BootinUp]

41. Mind if I challenge some of that?

All the talk about Clarks campaign from insiders as reported, admitted he had to win at least one state so I don't know what you mean.

Kerry and Edwards were greatly pumped by the media. Clark had to campaign on the ground in AZ, OK, and NM and thru ad buys just to stay close. The proof of the media's power is Missouri, a state nobody campaigned much in, nor had big ad buys, but low and behold it basically comes out just as the national media played it.

If the media showed the candidates themselves half as much as they performed their spin games, we would all be better off. Clark has done quite well for a novice campaigner, thank you.

Lastly, you are questioning Clark's ability to connect to people (inspire) etc. I think his grass roots support (me and others like me for example) is proof he can connect to people on the stump just fine.

[Edwards4President]

45. While Edwards is getting good media play now, let's not forget

that he was virtually ignored for months until Iowa.

Remember back in September when the Clark stepped all over Edwards' announcement by leaking his intention to announce later in the week? The press allowed him to stomp all over Edwards' prime moment.

Until about two weeks ago, Edwards was consistently shunted aside for Dean and Clark. So, yes, he's getting some play now, but it's certainly not based on any favoritism or media plots. They just focus on the flavor of the moment and the flavor of the moment is John Edwards. That will change. Just wait a week or two.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. You are right about past attention to Edwards

But this is a great time to be flavor of the week.

[Kat45]

59. Clark did NOT say abortion until delivery; those were reporter's words

I read that article, which was in the Manchester Union-Leader--an extremely right-wing newspaper. Clark's quotes in the article did NOT say 'abortion until delivery,' nor did they allude to it. The reporter for this conservative paper used those words in describing what Clark said. Those were the reporter's words, and it pisses me off that they've been repeated as if they were what Clark actually said; anybody who did not read the original article (which is probably most people) would think that's what he said because of the way this has been presented. Good job by the RW NH reporter: his words--his spin-- have seeped into the conventional wisdom about this candidate.

[David Zephyr]

36. Collective Guilt in Washington, D.C. About Iraq.

The Repubicans, the News Media, PNAC, the Petoleum Corporations and a substantial percentage of Democrats in Washington created this meltdown in Iraq.

The collective guilt prohibits any "solution" that does not whitewash that fact.

[DrFunkenstein]

39. Clark Couldn't Win NH With A Week Alone & Couldn't Take Missouri

Which also borders Arkansas. Plus he barely won Oklahoma.

Despite this, it must definitely be a conspiracy by the media to keep him down.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Regarding Clark and NH

He did exactly what he set out to do all along, come in third ahead of all the non New Englanders. Sure some candidates cleared out of NH for awhile to concentrate on Iowa. But they had all previously been campaigning hard in NH for over a year. I would trade a couple of weeks being "alone" in NH (at the cost of getting no Iowa buzz or momentum) for being able to spend over a year introducing myself to voters there, any day of the week.

If I remember correctly, Edwards made his first trip to New Hampshire, to lay the ground work for his NH campaign, in the Summer of 2002. Heard that recently on the radio from a reporter who attended Edward's first NH event. At the same time that pundits were talking about how Wes Clark "had NH to himself" for a couple of weeks weeks (ignoring Lieberman of course who was there also and attacking Clark) I heard some of the same pundits mention that Edwards had already held over 100 NH Town Hall Meetings.

As for Clark's fall from 25% to 13% in NH, well I would say that all Kerry and Edwards fans owe a debt of gratitude to Clark. For almost a month Clark was the only candidate able to show increasing strength against what was then being viewed as an invincible Dean candidacy. Kerry always had a strong reservoir of support in NH, he was the early favorite, but he couldn't find a way to compete against Dean. Clark did (he didn't go negative on Dean). You may recall that Clark did not start his rise to 25% in NH from 13%, he started out at 7% or 8% at best. Clark gained a lot of supporters in NH, even with two New England favorite sons, and he kept many of them. A good deal of Clark's support when he shot to 25% were voters "borrowed" from Kerry. Those were voters who always liked Kerry but who had given up hope on him as Kerry kept plunging in the National and local polls. It got so bad that Kerry picked up his tent and moved to Iowa where, among other things, he could avoid Clark.

Clark was the first candidate to show that Dean was vulnerable, even in his native New England. What that did was open up the Iowa race. And the candidates who were best positioned to benefit were Kerry and Edwards, since Clark wasn't running there. When Kerry picked up momentum in Iowa, that gave Kerry's natural base of supporters in NH a reason to regain hope, and that allowed them to go back to their original man. And Edwards, of course got the non stop full "golden boy" treatment heading into NH. Hey, they both waged good campaigns in NH, to their credit, but Clark firmed up his support in the last few days and still came in first among the non New Englanders.

[mikehiggins]

48. Clark had a little more than four months to overcome candidates

who had been running since 2002. He started with no money, no staff and no organisation except a bunch of internet volunteers connected with the Draft Clark group.

In five months he put together an effort that was beaten by two candidates who had been well known in New Hampshire for DECADES, and managed to beat off the second "King of the Iowa Momentum" for third place. So a complete newcomer to politics managed to come in third behind a governor and a senator, and beat out two more U.S. senators, a Representative and a well known minority minister and activist.

If you were writing about Tom Harkin or some other well known political figure you might have a valid point, but you aren't and your point is invalid.

The Clark campaign is THE story of this election cycle and there is a deliberate effort among the fifty or so pollsters and pundits to keep it from being presented fairly and honestly. Denying the obvious is no way to establish crediblity. There exists a "gentleman's agreement" among the media whores to decide who is and who isn't a real candidate, thereby allowing fifty or so empty suits to decide for us who our candidate will be.

Senator Treebeard will be much preferable to the Invisible Airman but the impact of his election on the way things are done by the Beltway establishment in Washington will be negligible. We deserve better and the media is trying to deny us that.

[krkaufman]

54. Wow, a whole week alone in NH...

... and he wasn't able to get an entire state into lockstep with his campaign. What a failure.

Maybe he should've blown off heading over to The Hague to testify against Milosevic; that would have given him more time. He really *should* get his priorities straight, like Edwards & Kerry. I mean they've really kept their focus on the campaign -- conserving precious time and resources by skipping critical Senate votes like the one freeing companies to exempt more workers from overtime pay.

Kudos, boys..! No better way to insure Two America's than continuing to vote with the Republicans. :)

[dawn]

42. Clark has foreign policy experience but no political experience.

I see both Edwards and Clark as inexperienced. Edwards lacks military experience, and has only been in office since '98 and Clark lacks political and domestic policy experience.

But I actually see that as a plus for both of them. I'm tired of career politicians. It may be a gamble but I place a higher priority on integrity, driveand and a desire to change the status quo in Washington. Not to mention charisma, and the fact that both of them seem to actually care about regular, working Americans.

Edwards is my #1 choice and Clark is #2. It's a hard position for me to be in because the Clark camp is now attacking Edwards while the media is ignoring Clark.

They can both beat Bush, though.

[juajen]

47. This Clarkie is not snubbing Edwards

I like him a lot. I do think Clark has been mostly ignored by the media, though. However, Edwards was being ignored by the media for a long time and at the time Clark's candidacy was being touted.

[WiseMen]

55. Anyone hoping for Clark to win in VA and TN?

[BootinUp]

56. NO

CLARK WILL WIN TN!

VA will be tough.

[aquanut]

58. Yes!

Of course! I'll settle for just Tenn. but VA would be great too! :-)