Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman nails it, again! w/Poll (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, he said it on the campagn trail... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, Becky58

    ....in 2003.

    Before that he wasn't a public figure. No one knew who he was. He had no bully pulpit. Running for President gave him an outlet to be able to speak out and people listened.......well those who were paying attention did.

    •  Transcript and Linkie? (0+ / 0-)

      He appeared on cable "news" shows as a military analyst before he entered the POTUS race in 9/03; so, he was hardly an unknown before then.  Are you saying that the only way either party gets information out there is when someone runs for POTUS?  Wow, wonder what all those GOP mouthpieces are doing wasting their time on the TV if nobody is listening.

      What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

      by Marie on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:44:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  See my post below for T&L And... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Becky58, jen, jasmint53

        CNN was not all that happy with Clark as an analyst. He had boundaries about what he could talk about and he walked on this ice all the time he was there. Aaron Brown supported Clark, but CNN managed to get rid of Aaron Brown also and went on to give wingnut Glen Burke an hour of air time every night. CNN was brutal to Clark in their coverge (actually more their lack of coverage) of Clark when he ran. Judy Woodruff refused to even mention Clark's name for three weeks in January 2004 on her daily politics show; "Inside Washington". That was the critical time period before Iowa and New Hampshire.

        What percentage of Americans can rattle off the name of any military analyst on TV, other than Clark, now that he has already run for President? Any U.S. Senator was far better positioned than Clark to get a message out to the public BEFORE  Clark ran for President. Lots of Ex- Generals later called for Rumsfeld to resign (Clark by far was the earliest) and almost no one can remember any of their names now.

        Above I wrote a post about the problem with the media. To recap, they control the microphones, just like O'Reilly literally cuts off the mike of guests who he doesn't want the public to hear. The establishment would have torn into Clark exactly the way that they did tear into Clark after he announced for President, except prior to being a Presidential candidate Clark never would have gotten any air time or print space to defend himself, as a candidate he got a little and he needed all of it. The story about PNAC that I linked to here already shows how they started calling Clark a nutcase, there are many other examples. They pushed the story non stop when the former Head of the Joint Chiefs, Hugh Shelton, said that he could never support Wes Clark because of "questions of character" even though Shelton refused to support that assertion in any way or even said what he was talking about.

        Clark was briefing Democrats in Congress before the IWR vote, the fact that they did not share more of that with the public is a matter to bring up with them, not Clark.

        •  In 2002, there was only (0+ / 0-)

          one ex-military officer that had the necessary stature and credibility with the public to have quashed an invasion of Iraq.  That was Colin Powell.  He didn't and couldn't for a variety of reasons, including being a good soldier and followiing the orders of his superiors.  It is the rare individual that can suceed in the military and reach a high rank that would have done differently if he'd been in Powell's shoes in 2002.  

          Back in the days before the Pentagon became a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP, there would have been more officers that might have taken the risk to do the  right thing.  But even then they were in precious short supply.  The objections that have come from former officers regarding the issue of Iraq have more to do with how the occupation was managed and not that managing it at all was always guaranteed to fail.

          As for MSM coverage of any DEM candidate, can't say that Clark fared as badly as Gore and Dean did.  Maybe there wasn't as much breathless excitement about his possible and then actual entry into the race as there has been this year about Thompson's but that's just the way it is.  As far as I'm considered all of the 2004 candidates except Mosely-Braun and Sharpton were auditioning for the DEM Party institutional support.  Not sure if Dean and Kucinich fully appreciated it, but doubt that they were naive enough not to understand how the game is played.  Here's a good piece on that.  My take, which may be right or wrong, was that Dean had to be stopped because he was the only one with the potential to upset the apple cart.  The goal was to place not win in 2004.  

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 11:45:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the goal? (0+ / 0-)

            The goal was to place not win in 2004.

             

            That may have been Hillary's goal, but she wasn't the one with the media machine in 2004. Rove was. And he more than anyone sabotaged both Dean and Clark.

            You got no fear of the underdog. That's why you will not survive. - Spoon

            by brainiacamor on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:15:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Read the piece I linked to in (0+ / 0-)

              prior comment.  The Clintons controlled the DEM party and their good friend, now Hillary campaign manager, was running it in 2004.

              No question that Rove had a good GOP media machine or that the media favors the GOP (been true for a very long time; remember Hearst?  That's why media regulation was important enough that it was included in New Deal legislation - that was mostly repealed during Clinton's tenure.  No wonder Murdoch would host a fundraiser for Hillary.)  

              Rove had nothing to do with the Osama ad on OH TV before the caucus.  That was a creature of a DEM operation to take down Dean.  Clark didn't face anything like that from other Democrats.  Not sure why Democrats have come to believe that Rove was all powerful.  Anyone can be as good as Rove as long as they're willing to cheat, lie and manipulate the truth for voters.  And plenty of Democratic operatives aren't above using those tactics; they're just not as skilled at them.  iirc the Clinton team may have used some in 1992 against Jerry Brown.  

              What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

              by Marie on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:35:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site