Quite right, Mitch; 'they' have nothing better to do, and they surely don't tell us anything useful - just give us somethings to agonize about.

Have to keep his name out there, and respond rapidly to the B.S.

Many "media pundits" will pick candidates as "front-runners" in the "polls" who they like and who will give them the most media "access."  They will also go for candidates with a lot of name recognition and who have the perceived ability to raise money!

That is why "big names" like Hillary, McCain, and Obama are getting so much attention now from "pundits" in the media with "front-runner" poll status in my opinion!

It is Chris Matthews, Donna Brazile, and people like them who are pronouncing the "big name" 2008 potential candidates like Hillary, McCain, and Obama as "front-runners" in the "polls" but it is NOT the activist people on each side who are most involved in the nominating process who are saying that!

It is far too early to be making these kind of "front-runner pronouncements" now in any serious way in my opinion! 

But journalists like Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer have to fill their shows with something and "pundits" like Donna Brazile and others like her on both sides have to go on these shows and say something so that they can all stay in business!

Many of these "pundits" were surprised that Jim Webb defeated George Allen and were talking before the election about George Allen's 2008 run for the White House (which they are NOT talking about now).  I remember very clearly Chris Matthews saying in early fall that Jim Webb did not have what it takes to run against and beat George Allen!

How quickly that changed and how quickly many other things will also change by 2008!

I am glad that Craig Crawford understands this about "polls:" "I‘m actually not even reading them. I don‘t think they tell us much."

Hi Stan:

The AP article was great news to me. I am trying to talk about important things that I think we will all need to do once the announcement happens!

I did NOT imply that NewsMax swiftboated Gen. Clark!

I only pointed out that "The extreme right wing NewsMax.com has also noticed this and has this link posted on their website."

That is not swiftboating in my opinion!

What Gen. Clark was saying was deemed as worthwhile for them to report to their extremist base of followers.

I do not think that NewsMax reports on every political event or announcement, they mostly report on what they consider to be most important for their activist readers to see.

As for Rush Limbaugh, I was mainly focusing on my two posts from early 2006 which deal specifically with his direct attacks on Gen. Clark and they have NOT been posted since early 2006!

I also focused on how to best defend Gen. Clark from other Democrats in the primary along with Limbaugh and the extreme right wing media.

I consider this to be a comprehensive post specifically focusing on defending Gen. Clark from different kinds of attacks!

I will add that I have seen a clear lack of interest from many people in the Democratic grassroots about dealing with Limbaugh and the very powerful extreme right wing media.

I will keep posting about that because once Gen. Clark announces, the media issue will have to be seriously dealt with whether people like it or not if Gen. Clark is going to have the best chances of defining his own message instead of having it defined for him by Limbaugh and company like what happened to Kerry in 2004!

And believe me the Clark World has the goods and knows the angles they will likely come at General Clark from. Just be careful about dwelling on these things here because it runs the reverse risk of doing their work for them if the posts aren't diligently prepared.
So careful how you frame the countersmear posts. This one was just noisy so probably won't have much impact past the first three graphs. Keep it tight and on point and let there be no doubt that someone reading the message understand from the beginning to the end that the smear is a smear and the nonsense is nonsense no matter how long they've known of General Clark. :)
For the most part defense allows more invinciblity but General Clark has been phenomenal in introducing some of the things that have been levelled against him (malfunctioning cluster munition at Niche) as examples of his own firsthand knowledge and experience of unintended consequences of using force.

I appreciate your well thought out comments and I also think that this is good for us to be talking about now among ourselves before the announcement and before any serious attacks start to happen once Gen. Clark announces!

MSM creates an anti-Clark narrative ( and if it goes unansered ) it will stick because they repeat narratives ad-infinitum (sp?)

so yes be prepared for rapid response in blogsphere... because it works very well to stop the MSM narratives

I learned many things this year but I think one of the most important things I learned about the perception campaign of elections was:

separate the campaign tactics ( GOP tactics - attack ads )

from the media narratives

and then you won't be confused quite as much by the information warfare of election cycles

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME

because I find it a measurable phenomena as an astrologer ( I have mentioned this before )

and polling outfits track this too - they use different methods to test if a campaigns

message or attack is being imprinted - repeated by the public

one way is to ask for a one or two word description of a candiate and the candidates campaign... that is the verbal roshack (sp?) test polling groups use but it is only one type of feedback poll\

what I am saying and my point is

tactics

narratives

are two different tracks that feed into the PERCEPTION ELECTION ( VIRTUAL ELECTION)

this is an all important source for understanding how to

get ones message accross ... because perception has mass momentum -

so when measuring momentum have to track

tactics

narratives

against REALITY

I find these are good tools to analyze campaign: I have never been on the inside of a campaign to know what tools they use but I have been analyzing elections as an astrologer for over a decade - it has been a focus of mine

WKC used the phrase ' freak show ' in his Brown University interview

I would like to point out that he knows his media entertainment markets

MSM 'Heros' with super powers most popular of 2006 fall season

Oct 2006 Comedy Central 'Freak Show'  animations with super powers

 the young voters.......  

“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark

In reference to the media, and especially the political media, was completely new to me when I read that Q&A from the Brown University paper.

Then last night, I sat down after dinner, opened our local paper, and read that Al Hunt is warning Pelosi that she must "find her equivalent of Jim Baker soon, lest she be devoured by 'the freak show'."

So I'm guessing this is a term we'll be hearing more frequently as we get closer to Nov 2008? Would it be too much to conclude that if General Clark is using the term now, he's spending a fair share of time talking to people in the business? ;)

"Never underestimate what a determined soldier can accomplish when he's fighting for his country." -- General Wesley Clark

eye hf jai - 'freak show'  a term used inside pundit-ocracy and the DC beltway .... so would that be what the MSM journalists are calling  the MSM tv/radio spin machine?  or do they mean the neocon radio - Fox teevee?

“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9886#comment-159321

If you have not read this new book yet about how powerful that the extreme right wing talk radio “freak show” is, then I highly recommend getting this book (this link contains all of chapter 1 which goes into the "freak show" very well in my opinion):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301030_pf.html

The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008

By Mark Halperin and John F. Harris

I agree with the CONCEPT that they are talking about even though some of the specific conclusions that they come to about the "freak show" are their own opinions!

Sounds like a book to read as we train for the big show.

I'll get it read today or tonight... looks like great source..

“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark

"...it runs the reverse risk of doing their work for them..."

...and right out front, here on the General's very own board.  Thank you for pointing it out.

"Some of us are still eating hotdogs......and that's an astonishing thing." -- Wes Clark

"Just be careful about dwelling on these things here because it runs the reverse risk of doing their work for them if the posts aren't diligently prepared."

That was my first thought as I began reading this blog.  We must be careful for the reason you stated.  ,)

inventing the wheel, the tactics, the strategy here at CCN... we are educating ourselves or as WKC says 'we are getting read into' the situation.... we are trying to get up to speed so we can take action that is based on understanding what is already being done... we aren't ahead of the curve on this stuff

and by no means does anyone serious think that our CCN sort of think tank is going to be the source of strategy for WKC... CCN is the netroots grassroots... hopefully we are making ourselves capable of doing what the netroots does best - activism and 'being the media'

“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark

Hiya eb,

I agree that we're not a think tank, nor are we a focus group or source for Wes' policy proposals.  As for whether we're "being the media" ... I'm not sure.  I suppose we do as well as a lot of what passes for "the media" nowadays, but if ever there was a case of "damned with faint praise," that would be it.

The reason I say that is simply that we don't do a lot of original reporting here.  That's not a criticism.  We're not reporters, and most of us have jobs and lives and we don't have the resources or time to go witness newsmaking events first-hand.  That's why the press evolved, in fact; so that reporters could get that first-hand experience and report back to a public which was too busy doing other stuff to witness the events themselves.

On the other hand, CCN isn't purely opinion-mongering either.  We do a fair bit of what I call "news analysis."  That is, taking information from several primary sources (news reports, history, academia, etc.) and "connecting the dots."  This includes fact-checking news stories -- especially officials' statements -- as well as placing the facts into a broader perspective.

That "news analysis" function is something the MSM doesn't do very well.  Partly it's that the MSM too often relies on reporters to do it, on the theory that the person who saw X happen, or saw Y talk about X at a press conference, is best-situated to fact-check X and put it into perspective.  But often that's not the case, and what we get is more "hothouse gossip" than real analysis.  When the MSM do consult experts, too often it's done in a "from the left ... from the right" framework, focusing on where the experts disagree and leaving the audience with the sense that it's all just opinion anyway.

Which gives rise to the "chattering class," the pundocracy, folks like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc., who present opinion-as-analysis, where "fact-checking" means testing it against one's ideology, and "analysis" means giving your side credit for what went right and blaming the other side for what went wrong.

What the average reader/listener/viewer is left with is a mass of unconnected data, of dubious reliability, too often selected and presented more to advance an ideological agenda than to yield a coherent, reliable, useful body of knowledge.

It's that gap in our media -- the "news analysis gap" -- that sites like CCN can help to fill.  But as with all things internet, there's a caveat lector:  lacking an editor per se, we have to fact- and reality-check each other.  And since we here tend to share a lot of common assumptions (e.g.: that Wes should be our next President), it's very easy to commit a foile a deux, assuming that what we read is "right" because we agree with it.

Crissie

Hi Crissie:

Excellent comments in my opinion!

We have to "do a fair bit of what I call "news analysis" in order to help cut through a lot of the spin and rhetoric that comes from some people in the media and from our political opponents!

I think that we have a very bright and intelligent group of people here to do that with!

Hi Mitch,

I think that we have a very bright and intelligent group of people here to do that with!

We do indeed.

Crissie

the spun bs and bit by bit it brings facts to the story; I disagree with you collectively blogs actually complete the story with collective input and you have to really read this site and that because it doesn't all happen at one URL..... so collective the internet netroots is way way better than the media because we filter the goo the MSM calls the news netroots bring the facts to the table... that is being the media... collectively... if you only visit one site well that is one dimension but readers on the net here and everywhere surf read many places on a regular basis... and comment where we feel comfortable.. like many people I read many sites but only comment on a few

“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark

Hiya eb,

I concede that the blogosphere tests what the MSM puts out.  But by what standard do we test it?  Simply by how many times a given factoid gets repeated or how many people agree with it?  I don't think that's what you mean.  Unless I've misunderstood you, what you're suggesting is that the blogosphere does a lot of the fact-checking and perspectivizing (neologism or just bad grammar; you be the judge) that the MSM doesn't.

If so, we're agreeing.

Crissie

I seem to remember that journalists in the distance past had researchers and editors and they themselves carefully cautiously fact checked; we live in a different time you may not think the netroots does it well enough or the scale of fact checking may not be significant to you but the netroots has discovered and uncovered and held the media's feet to the fire for some years  now and collectively we do a good job and are getting better at it all the time...... people stepped up and volunteered and did the work and are still doing the work... I am not going to editorialize or op-ed opinion or make a beauty contest of it ... who did better than whom.... netroots got'gets a grip on historic events and incidents and doesn't let them go until the truth is extracted... either by discovery or by going so far beyond the newsinfoentertainment that makes all the noise..... it is collectively being the media  

“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark

Nevertheless, CCN is a very public board. For example, in campaign '04 we had lots of lurkers of ill-intent (trolls), and even had press go so far as to pick up a few ill-conceived comments made by Wes's supporters here on the General's board and re-print them in a highly-read daily political network media source. It was assuredly NOT helpful to the campaign - an incident of shooting ourselves in the foot.

We're at a critical point now, waiting to hear whether Wes will or won't launch with more and more readers here each day. And while I don't certainly believe in censorship, I would hope that some consideration would be given by Wes's true supporters before posting a headlined blog under a misleading title...

So while they may serve your interests eb, I don't personally see how these 'alarmist' postings, (hashing and re-hashing full transcripts from the archives, of all that the likes of Rush fercripessake, has ever said about Wes in the past) necessarily serve Wes's best interests in the present.

...some of us here are just going to have a difference of opinion about the wisdom of doing this in a featured blog rather than a "call to action alert" on a case-by-case basis when a smear rears its ugly head (as has been our practice in the past) - because while you're informing each other you're also providing source material for the rest of the lurking political junkies (of all stripes) about whatever concerns *you personally* about a run. Being a bit of an alarmist in my own right THIS, (more than just about anything else), is what concerns me personally, about a run. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

...my two pennies

okay, flame away

This is Clark Country! Now more than ever...

Having been one who had the misfortune of having my remarks reprinted on Slate (re: who).......I am very wary of what we should and should not say here.

Number one criteria for me is......."will this hurt WKC?" If I'm not sure, I try to keep my mouth shut....not always successfully.;p......but even more so, we need to watch the titles to blogs.

I agree with Stan. Why do their work for them?

Run Wes Run!

holy chit!

This is Clark Country! Now more than ever...

Nice little "who" rant.....meant every word....but was mortified as it reflected badly on WKC.

blush

Run Wes Run!

so, how many incidents might there have actually been???

...there's food for some serious thought

This is Clark Country! Now more than ever...

...it might have been The Note........CRS

But yes, there was more than one incident.....only one with me tho' ;)

Either way, it is important to understand that what we say here can be googled by anyone....including those who DO NOT have the General's best interests at heart.

Bottom line.....It's not about us, it's about Wes Clark!

Run Wes Run!

We oldies have learned some lessons since 2004. Hopefully, we won't have to re-learn the same lessons over again? This site belongs to Wes and we should represent him well. I believe CCN Clarksters need to be more thoughtful about why and what we are posting about Wesley Clark. If we need to debunk an issue that is brought up by a new visitor, it seems that's the time to address it. I don't see any reason to list the "troll" issues for a discussion if we don't need to. I also agree that the titles to our blogs should be well thought out and we should leave the negative tone or words out.

Your word "wisdom" is the keyword, as far as posting is concerned.   And yes, this is a "critical" period from now until 2008, if our favorite guy decides to run for office.  :D

Hi msbe,

I agree with you, and that's why I suggested some sort of anti-Karma/de-recommend option.  Perhaps with the votes weighted by the time people have been here, or some such, so that folks like you and maddy and Sybil and Ruth and Stan would be able to, as leaders of this community, weed out trolls, disruptive people, and basically the people whose words reflect negatively on Wes.

This is, after all, Wes' forum, and everything here should show him and his followers in the best possible light.

Crissie

Yup. It was good that even NewsMax found the story worthwhile, and even better that they didn't editorialize about it.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

I appreciate your comments!

I think that this is good information to know and I am glad that we are talking about this now before the announcement while we can think it over these kind of things!

THINK ABOUT how many people each of us was able to bring into the fold in 04, how many folks joined WesPAC, etc. we can do this in all the conventional ways, etc, and we can get this done one voter at a time.

just yesterday I emailed a KOS poster who was not especially happy that we are not bringing troops home now. after a very nice exchange, the poster said he would ck out securingamerica.com and give GC a fair chance.

ok, my 2 cents.

Bill (from RI)

to carry water for them anymore" as far as who he will support BUT that does not change the fact that he will attack and negatively define without mercy those who disagree with him:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9837#comment-157975

Those attacks even include Republicans like Chuck Hagel who he does not like:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112706/content/limbaugh_plan.guest.html

No One Is Focusing on Winning in Iraq;
It's "Get Out, and Turn It Over to Our Enemies"

November 27, 2006

RUSH: Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, potential presidential contender," Ha-ha! Don't make me laugh, "in 2008 said, 'It's not too late for the United States to extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq, and as for Bush some of the harshest criticism is coming from his own party, we have misunderstood we have misread we have mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,' said Hagel."

Limbaugh also has his audience of over 20 million people and all of extreme right wing talk radio (who Limbaugh is considered to be the leader of) still has an audience of about 30 million people as I documented in the post above!

I am not concerned about their base (which is a waste of time in my opinion) but I am very concerned about the many moderate and independent voters who they win over and convert (which is one reason why extreme right wing talk radio has grown so much)!

I do not want Limbaugh and company to win over any of those people for the GOP candidate of their choice who they will "carry their water" as they trash Gen. Clark if they consider him to be a serious candidate to become President!

Elections are won and lost in the center (that is how we won in 2006) and I do not want to lose any of those center voters to Limbaugh and company when we could have prevented that from happening by effectively fighting back against them!

Limbaugh has had audience fall off similar to Fox?

that his Arbitron ratings of audience share have been on the decline since 2005, but can't find any hard data yet. The numbers for 2006 are not out yet.

“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark

n/t

Long-term Clark-supporter "Ice" set up that excellent website some time ago (for those who aren't aware)

This is Clark Country! Now more than ever...

I completely agree with you "that the General is not one to take it lieing down."

Gen. Clark does NOT take any crap on FOX News from Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, or from anyone else!

Alao, what other serious candidate for President has actually called in to Sean Hannity's radio program to defend Democrats and their patriotism like how Gen. Clark did? This is an inspiration to me and is why I include this link on all of my posts:

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

However as much of a real fighter that Gen. Clark is, he will need our help in order to be able to effectively fight back against all of the massive swiftboat attacks that will be coming once he announces!

He will be attacked by other Democratic candidates in the primary and from some media pundits who do not like him as well as being attacked by far right extremists like Rush Limbaugh and his pals!

The purpose of my original post was to get that specific point across and to try and prepare for those attacks as best as we can!