NY Times:
Clark claims Oklahoma. General Clark can’t catch any breaks, from the print media or the broadcast media. Why go to SC, when the avalanche of media was focused on pushing Edwards to the win? Can you compete against the media’s main story for the last week: “Home boy makes good?” Not on campaign cash, you can’t. Anyone remember it was Clark who was third (by a slim margin) ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire? I guess the Iowa bump continued to carry Edwards forward, the “home boy” publicity fired up the media ratings ... and hurt Clark overall.
Watching returns last night on CNN, all of Clark’s performances were characterized by how far he was trailing Edwards, even the graphics on screen. Blitzer acted as if Clark was a usurper, for claiming victory in OK. Language matters, Wolf. You’re a commentator. Keep your personal feelings for the editorials, not the straight news reporting. The NY Times wasn’t much better, last night, publishing a news analysis before the final counts were in and Clark’s victory in Oklahoma was obvious. It’s been amended this morning. Overzealous.
Did you realize? Clark overtopped Dean in 5 out of 7 states . Clark overtopped Edwards in 4. You’d never know it from the news media. I will concede, however, that in addition to 13 more electoral votes, Edwards won more raw votes [343,935 to 215,329]. Clark stands 23 electoral votes behind Edwards, and Edwards stands 19 behind Dean. This is not a wide spread, given that just over 10% of delegates have been awarded ... and that Clark didn’t compete in Iowa. Strategic placement of campaign resources in these next contests can potentially throw this whole race into a different order.
To those in the media: At least give the appearance of objectivity ... give the General a fair shake, please. Tennessee sits right next to Arkansas, you know.
Again, just over 10% of delegates have been awarded. If Kerry can go from 8% in NM a month ago to winning yesterday ... this horse race ain’t over yet, no matter how much ‘objective’ editorials and commentators want it to be. Who knows what dirt might show up, who else might drop out, who might overspend and lose, whose followers and endorsers might jump ship. Lieberman must gift his faithful to one of the candidates, too, possibly offering a boost for some lucky individual.
I cannot end this, without mentioning that Kerry is doing what I hoped Clark would do, in my “Why Clark” document (seems I wrote that years ago now). He’s got the support of the left, and the center. Covering a wide demographic. If he can hold that line, esp. against the Rove election machine, he can win easily in November. However, I remain deeply skeptical about Kerry and Edwards, concerned that their Congressional records will be fodder for the Right. I see them as largely untested elements. My support remains with Clark.
Don’t let the news media do your thinking for you. Keep in mind, this is the same media who applauds Bush and Cheney when they announce policy decisions at The Heritage Foundation. Don’t take me at face value, either. Play with the raw information, the numbers, on your own. And VOTE. No matter who it’s for ... it’s important. Let’s keep those turnout numbers in the stratosphere.
And that’s all I’ll say about this, today. I promise. Politics is bad for the digestion.
Later: AP, via the SF New Mexican, gave a much more balanced view of Clark’s performance, though still missing some high points. Compare to the NY Times article, leading this section.
