With Genral Clark inching closer to throwing his hat into the ring, I figured some people might want to take a look at this article.
I know a lot's been said on this site already about frothing peace activists unfairly berating Dean for an anti-war stance he never had, but this brings up a good point on both candidates. The media is describing these guys as anti-war, despite what they have said themselves. The activists should probably redirect heir frustrations at the media directly rather than the candidates, but it should still be pointed out that neither Dean nor Clark or anti-war. They were just opposed to a a war in Iraq and not primarily for humanitarian reasons.
I'm still bummed that we're not gonna see the Dean/Clark ticket. I really think that would've been an almost unbeatable 2-punch combo that would've gotten "Smirk" out of the White House.
FAIR's take was surprising unfair, actually. if you read carefully, they string a bunch of out-of-context quotes together for the purpose of illustrating some pattern that matches their outlook - i thought that's what FAIR was against. general clark clearly says things like, "well i wouldn't have gotten us here in the first place, but since we're here now, here's what i would do or here's what i think". clearly a rational position to take, whether or not you agree with him. the only deception i see here is on the part of the media, trying to brand anyone as the "anti-war" candidate.
Samebeat said: I'm still bummed that we're not gonna see the Dean/Clark ticket. I really think that would've been an almost unbeatable 2-punch combo that would've gotten "Smirk" out of the White House.
Actually, there's now a better chance we will. The Presidential ticket is assembled at the time of the party convention, not now. Often the VP candidate is chosen from the runners-up in the primary race.
plonk said: Samebeat said:
I'm still bummed that we're not gonna see the Dean/Clark ticket. I really think that would've been an almost unbeatable 2-punch combo that would've gotten "Smirk" out of the White House.
Actually, there's now a better chance we will. The Presidential ticket is assembled at the time of the party convention, not now. Often the VP candidate is chosen from the runners-up in the primary race.
You are correct the race for vp is as hot as ever! Take a look at the second tier candidates and ask yourself if they have any chance of winning the primary? No. Edwards is a prime example. He knows he can't win, now that Clark is in the race, but he still gives up his senate re-election bid. Why? Because he knows the democrats will need someone from the south on the ticket and if Clark can't beat one of the candidates from New England then he's lined himself up to be the VP nominee.
s5 said: FAIR's take was surprising unfair, actually. if you read carefully, they string a bunch of out-of-context quotes together for the purpose of illustrating some pattern that matches their outlook - i thought that's what FAIR was against. general clark clearly says things like, "well i wouldn't have gotten us here in the first place, but since we're here now, here's what i would do or here's what i think". clearly a rational position to take, whether or not you agree with him. the only deception i see here is on the part of the media, trying to brand anyone as the "anti-war" candidate.
That's odd. I thought that was the whole gist of the article. A couple of quotes to back it up:
"But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate."
and
"Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless. "
I agree that his position is practical but is not anti-war. FAIR agrees on the last part at least and it seems to be the only part they're contesting. They're combatting an anti-war image manufactured by a zealous media lookg to polarize candidates before the gates have even opened. To my knowledge, FAIR has never directly attacked a politician, only the media's representations of them, and it seems this article (which opens and concludes with the quotes above) seems to be doing its usual job.
arrington1279
Orlando, FL
July 2003
SEP 17, 2003 09:49 AM