O'Reilly: Clark needs courage

Yesterday's "Talking Points" from that paragon of truth and political independence got me ticked.  While I hate to give any more attention to that right-wing phony, check this out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108235,00.html

I think Clark knows a little bit more about courage than O'Reilly.  Also, I'm sure Gore is losing sleep over not being on the All Spin Zone in 2000.

•  Well...

  ... Clark is too big of a chicken to debate anymore.  So he's not exactly a courage machine. (Not to agree with O'Reilly here, but I can't resist a chance to kick Clark for refusing to debate... that's something I'd expect from Shrub)

  Granted, I think ceasing debates has helped him quite a bit.  His previous debate performances were really hurting his campaign.

  Does anyone know if he plans to skip the NH debate, as well.  Probably will.  If he's the nominee, he'll probably try to figure out some way to avoid debating Bush.  It'll be Nixon in '68 all over again.

  by McDonald on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:47:26 PM PDT

  •  Debates

    The media would have ripped Dean apart if he did the same thing as Clark and skipped some of the Debates, hell if he skipped one of the debates. None of the canadates have brought up Clark not attending the debates nor has the media.

    by pcapone on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:49:40 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      The media has really gone soft on Clark.  Right from the start, he has been this media-created figure.  He's like some mutant hybrid of Perot/Forbes/Al Haig/Scoop Jackson.

      by McDonald on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:53:16 PM PDT

      •  ok....

        you've earned troll status with that one.

        by jdavidson on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:54:34 PM PDT

        •  huh?

          I've earned troll status for stating an opinion?

          OK, dude... if that makes you feel like a big man.

          (Boo hoo... I might never get trusted user status.  Like I give a crap.  This ratings system is malarkey.  I've only given one rating, and I regret that.  A guy has to have a microphallus to get off on rating people "troll" just because they don't like a certain candidate... but rate away, man).

          by McDonald on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:03:07 PM PDT

          •  nobody

            Nobody did rate you 'Troll' I rated your comment 'marginal' and honestly that's  true.

            I would love to have an open debate about Clark not participating in the Iowa debates, but not if I have to read  your neverending rants, about the coward Clark. Please just stop it or add some arguments, to make it at least more interesting to read.

            by florian on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:08:15 PM PDT

      •  I'm rating this up..

          I don't think it really deserves a three, but then again it certainly doesn't deserve a 2 or lower. It's an opinion, clearly stated as such. It's not a particularly flattering opinion, but doesn't deserve a "troll" rating.

        by Morat on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:49:56 PM PDT

        •  Scratch that..

            I'm rating it a 4. I notice someone rated it a 0.

            Look, guys, you don't have to like it. But that is by no means "Super troll" level, okay?

            I'd rate it marginal myself, but given that I've got to balance a damn "Super troll", I'm being forced to rate it a 4..and I'm not particularly happy about that.

          by Morat on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:54:12 PM PDT

          •  It's not the argument

            It's not the argument alone, it's the way he repeats it constantly without something new or any real argument, it's just a kind of smear.

            But you're right 'super-troll' goes too far.

            by florian on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:58:17 PM PDT

            •  I don't particularly care about that..

                Mainly because I'm pretty firm on rating what they say here as opposed to patterns, unless they're spamming the same comment multiple times in a thread.

                There are some people on this board who I heavily dislike, for exactly the reason you dislike this guy. I rarely, if ever, rate them, because I'm pretty sure I can't be fair because I'm all too familiar with the crap they spew on a regular basis.

              by Morat on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:18:33 PM PDT

    •  no

      No he won't skip the NH debates. Skipping the Iowa debates is a sound strategy if you skip the Caucus.
      Especially this kind of debate, it's a pure soundbite race, you need at least one whole day for every debate, add the travel time back to New Hampshire and the debates will cost you some days there.
      Clark has nothing to win in Iowa so every minute he spents preparing soundbites about hogfarming is wasted.

      by florian on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:00:25 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm.

      Dean skipped the debate in Washington, D.C., even though he is participating in that primary. I didn't see anyone ripping him or calling him a coward over that.

      by crayons on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:40:26 PM PDT

  •  give it a rest

    Does anyone know if he plans to skip the NH debate, as well.  Probably will

    -you've been on this no debate thing for a while and no one's bitten, but I'm a little silly so I will.  There is absolutely nothing out there to suggest that Clark won't participate in NH debates (hasn't he already in fact?) or other debates in states where he is running. I think Clark's surge in NH and elsewhere is bothering you more than him skipping the most recent Iowa debates.  Clark has participated in many, probably most debates, to date.
    

    by jdavidson on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:53:29 PM PDT

  •  Ok

    So when does Dean go on the Factor??

    by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:34:33 PM PDT

•  Ya know..

  I'd love both Dean and Clark to publicly come out and say that the reason they don't go on O'Riely is simple.. hes not relevant, and its a waste of time to talk to a man who can't even be straight with his listeners.
  

  by 1floridademocrat on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:48:34 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    What's to gain from going on O'Reilly and debating the propagandist in front of his rabidly conservative audience.  

    by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:36:56 PM PDT

•  Clark needs courage...

  ... and Bush needs a brain! And Angry Dean needs a Heart! And, O'Reilly, you've always been able to go back to Long Island where you came from. Just click your heels three times and say, "There's no place like home."

  by Constantine on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 01:53:03 PM PDT

•  Good Strategy

  Why waste time debating in a state where you aren't even competing for the nomination when you can get a lot of face time as the only candidate currently in NH? Sounds like a good strategy (though we still have to see how the whole "drop out of Iowa" thing pans out.)

  Anyway, I am wasting time by addressing MacDonalds bs.

  O'Reilly is simply looking for a fight to boost his ratings. He knows that the General will defend himself if his honor is seriously questioned. O'Reilly cannot seriously question his honor, because O'Reilly has no soul.

  by theoria on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:01:39 PM PDT

  •  Hey Thaoria...

    The last time I checked, they were nationally televised debates.  The last one he skipped was even sponsored by America's Spanish language network.  I don't think it is a stretch to call that an insult to latinos.

    And I NEVER said it was bad strategy.  Not debating has helped him obviously, based on the polling.  Not debating helped Arnold, and Nixon most certainly would not have been elected in '68 if he hadn't refused to debate.

    So it is definitely good strategy for Clark (he's a pretty lousy debator).  But that doesn't mean I have to like his "do anything to win" attitude.  And that doesn't mean I can't express my disgust for this politics as usual, try to be vague and spin, don't face the public-attitude.

    by McDonald on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:09:17 PM PDT

    •  Of course

      Of course you can express your disgust for it. Have at it. It makes no difference to me.

      I really didn't think Clark was bad in the debates. He said some great things, and I think he actually believes the things he says. He's not trying to put on an act. I don't think he's pandering. When he opens his mouth, I don't wince the way I do when Dean does.

      The point if the original post was that O'Reilly questions Clark's courage. Well, O'Reilly ran out of an interview with Terry Gross like some kind of a little pussy. Now, I don't know or care what your courage credentials are, but to point to the debates and say that Clark must be a coward is silly. Please note that I didn't try to crush your right to say so, and don't feel that your freedom of expression is in danger.

      by theoria on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:23:48 PM PDT

      •  Courage is not the question.....

        O'Reilly is an idiot.

        As a Dean supporter, I hate to admit it but I think it was a shrewd move for Clark to skip the debates (they suck for all the candidates).  I think the tactical mistake was for the other candidates not to nail Clark for taking a pass.  With all that said, my gut tells me that if Clark continues playing hookey, all the other candidates are going to start using this as a campaign issue. If Clark can hold a solid second in NH then it was a winning strategy.  I think it all comes down to what Dean does in Ia and the subsequent bounce.  So far, the general has avoided controversy, but this can't last forever (see todays smears in Slate, sorry no link).

        BTW, I don't think these debates do anyone (especially the voters) any service, too many candidates to be meaningful.

        by sbj in Va on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:56:14 PM PDT

    •  One more note

      Even a cursory glance through your diaries shows that you love Dean and hate Clark very strongly. Actually, it makes it look like you are quite frightened of Clark. Combine these facts with the fact that you've been here for months and still don't have trusted user status, and you should see that perhaps some self-examination is in order. Your posts are inflammatory and not very well though out. You even spend a good amount of time criticizing Clark for being too angry. If you're really a Dean guy, I'd consider knocking it off with the "too angry to be president" charges against Clark. That one will bite you in the ass.

      by theoria on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 02:36:34 PM PDT

      •  Actually,

        as I have stated earlier, I fear Edwards a hell of a lot more than Clark. (even though I was an Edwards backer until about 3 months ago, so I at least like the guy). I just don't like Clark.  I think he's an opportunist, and I think if Gore had won, he'd be running as a Republican now.

        I should also say that my dislike of Clark goes back long before his candidacy.  I found his commentary on CNN to be snarky and inconsistant.

        Clark's run too sloppy of a campaign for me to fear him.  Chris Lehane is King Midas in Reverse, to quote the Hollies.

        by McDonald on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:50:02 PM PDT

      •  Trusted user status

        And I don't really care if I have trusted user status.  Do I get a discount at 7/11 or something?

        In all honesty, I have no idea what trusted user status is.

        I just state my opinion.  I tend to do it in a controversial way, and often hyperbolic (everyone needs a style).  And when you dislike 6 of the 9 candidates, it's gonna be tough not to offend people. (And you Clark people are pretty quick with the "troll" ratings, so I won't be holding out much hope for "Trusted User" anytime soon.  But hey, I'm glad it brings a sense of happiness to your life to have it)

        by McDonald on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 03:54:33 PM PDT