Those not giving Clark credit for his performance in 2004 in the Democratic Primaries are not being fair to Clark’s demonstrated campaign skills, and that’s a shame because he could and would do so much better in 2008, till it's not even funny!
The General entered the race in mid September (4 short months before the first primary vote) without a personal fortune....and by January '04 had raised the most money for that important quarter (beating out Dean). This was done while he had to hire left-over campaign strategist (since there were 9 other campaigns going on), had no experience running before, had to develop position papers in record time (was not a life time politician with a ready made senate staff)...and was attacked relentlessly by both parties, as he was everyone's nightmare if he did well.
Simply stated, because he chose not to contest Iowa (due to too short a time and too little resources)....he missed the big media blitz that blew Kerry and Edwards onto the finish line.
Still less than a week prior to Iowa and left out of the whole media blitz, Clark was polling 2nd in New Hampshire, 4 points behind Howard Dean, and 1st in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota and 2nd in South Carolina.
Regardless of the media slams and the media ignores, Clark still managed to come in third in New Hampshire (after the two favorite New England sons, Kerry and Dean) and beat out John Edwards, who would become Kerry’s last standing opponent in the primaries and later be chosen as Kerry's Vice Presidential running mate.
And with all of Edwards' Free press fresh from his Iowa 2nd place win, Clark not only beat Edwards in New Hamsphire, he also outdid Edwards on the Mini Tuesday primaries by first winning Oklahoma (a win that showed Clark as the only primary winner besides Kerry who won what wasn’t his home state), and then winning second place in New Mexico, Arizona and North Dakota, all without any free publicity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Tuesday
Of course, Wes Clark didn’t get any media frenzy or camera's in his face for his Oklahoma win, as CNN refused to call it till the next day. Meanwhile the big story that did get much coverage was that Edwards had won South Carolina, his birth state.
By the time Virginia and Tennessee ocurred the next week, Edwards had already been proclaimed Kerry's only competition still standing....which wasn't really the case, but the media made it so!
"AND THEN THERE WERE TWO"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/primaries/index.html
Kerry breaks into the open field, with Edwards still in pursuit -- while the Dean meteor continues to burn out.February 4, 2004 |
After a month of surprise, confusion and tumult, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is, suddenly, much more clear: The nomination is John Kerry's to lose.John Edwards won in South Carolina Tuesday, and he made a strong showing in an Oklahoma race that was too close to call even after all the votes were in. But Kerry, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, took the bellwether state of Missouri by a commanding margin over Edwards. In addition, he won in Delaware, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, placed a strong second in South Carolina and was running strong in Oklahoma.
snip
Edwards staffers tried to make the best of their one victory, casting the race from here on out as a two-man contest. But Kerry, already in Seattle, delivered a front-runner's speech aimed at the Republican incumbent.
snip
Make no mistake -- the race is not over. The weeks ahead may demonstrate again the deep cultural and political disagreements that define the nation, and the Democratic Party. It appears, for now, that Edwards and perhaps Dean will be able to exploit that. Edwards' best hope is to peel off the South; Dean, fighting a guerrilla action, might hope to lock up the Left Coast with wins in Washington on Saturday and in California on March 2. (Oregon doesn't vote until May 18.)
Read the whole two pages article which was written unbelievably BEFORE the Virginia and Tennessee races and after Oklahoma and see how Edwards was treated by most of the media....while Clark was barely mentioned, although at the time that the article was published, Clark had actually beaten Edwards more places than Edwards had beaten Clark.
(at the time of this article; Clark had beaten Edwards in New Hampshire, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arizona, and New Mexico - While Edwards had only beaten Clark in South Carolina, Delaware and Missouri - Clark was not in Iowa)
By the time Virginia and Tennessee voters went to vote on February 11th, Edwards media had inudated those two states, while Clark only got media for a speeding ticket his caravan was stopped for!
Here's was Clark's press on 2/4/06- Article titled, "Clark lives to fight another day" - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/04/politics/main597997.shtml
The article is slanted to portray Wes Clark as barely holding on....although again, I stress, Clark had actually outdone Edwards in reference to whom bested whom.
The media does what it wants, and in this case, they had already decided that it would be Edwards and Kerry, no matter what. Clark actually surprised the press.....who had to work hard to keep Clark invisible. It worked....and then Kerry and Edwards were promptly defeated in the GE.
Here's some media research done by a very reputable outfit directly after the Iowa primaries, and discusses media coverage of the contestants.
NETWORKS ANOINTED KERRY, EDWARDS BEFORE IOWA DID
Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage
WASHINGTON, DC—Prior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.
This is CMPA’s second ElectionWatch report of Campaign 2004. ElectionWatch will provide regular updates of how the broadcast networks are covering the candidates, the issues and the campaign. This report examines the 91 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from January 1st through January 18th, the night before the Iowa caucus.OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:
Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm
So, I'm of the opinion that Wes Clark did great with his campaign, if one considered the circumstances! Plus, he didn't wear out his welcome, and left the race gracefully and in a dignified manner.
Clark's problem was always winning the primary (with the RW inspired he's not a real Democrat; he voted for Reagan), not the general election, which is why Drudge and Gillespie worked overtime to slime him before it was too late. To think that 4 days prior to New Hampshire, Clark got slammed in the NH debate for respecting Michael Moore's right to call Bush AWOL demonstrate that it wasn't Clark's campaigning that was bad, but the way that the corporate media chose to report on it.
Always remember that the Corporate media is not your friend. Not Newsweek and its partners MSnbc, NBC, and CNBC, and the WAPO. Not Time Magazine and its wife CNN and cousing ABC/Disney. Not Fox and its Drudge alliance. Reading "not ready from primetime" really meant "let's bring him down, before anyone realizes that this could be the guy". Unless one actually attended his rallies or watch his town halls, most have no idea how effective Wes Clark actually was. He was the only one talking Values and slamming Bush on 9/11 time and time again. The media just didn't want him to be heard. He made too much sense, he was too charismatic, he was too southern, and carried himself like too much of a leader (he was after all a retired General, supreme Commander of Nato, and the most decorated since Eisenhower). To allow the Democrats that kind of firepower was not what BushCo and Corporate media anticipated. That kind of combination with reasonable media coverage would have spelled Bu-Bye to Bush). Couldn't have that.
History can only be rewritten if we allow it. But I'm on the job and facts don't lie!
Also see another excellent take on the Clark 2004 Campaign from the Carpetbagger Report!
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html
