Reply #21: Yep, that was about it

[Jai4WKC08]

I dunno if America let out a sigh, but NH sure did. Two in a row, that close together, was good enough for the rest.

NH wanted to vote for Kerry. He was practically a home-town boy. But until he caught fire in Iowa, they didn't think he was electable, and Dean had solid support there already. Iowa gave NH'ers "permission" to vote for Kerry.

As noted in the original message up thread, Clark was gaining on Dean in NH all thru Dec and Jan. Clark never hoped to win in NH--I remember how THRILLED we were when he moved into 4th behind Dean, Kerry and Lieberman (all the New Englanders). We thought Clark could beat the NE'ers in the South and Southeast, and if Kerry had finished in Iowa as expected, he would have. In fact, except for Kerry, he did. Pretty big "except"--lol. Gephardt was barely running outside of Iowa and Missouri--we weren't working in Missouri at all. Edwards wasn't even on the radar. That was the strategy anyway, but Iowa blew it all away. Shit happens.

As for the media question raised in the original... well, I won't speak for all of us, but I think most Clarkies see it the way I do. Clark's coverage wasn't fair from the beginning, but at least he got some. The Newsweek issue for example--cover was hideous, and there was all that crap about other generals inside, most it later disproved. But our biggest complaint was that the mistakes he made, no matter how minor, were played over an over again, in a way the mistakes of other candidates (and there were plenty) were not.

It's the old media meme thing. They decide what a candidate is about, and then broadcast whatever they get that reinforces the image. It gives 'em something to say in front of the camera and makes the talking heads look smart. With Al Gore, it was the wooden liar image (even tho he did not lie, and is really a funny energetic guy). With Carter it was the decent guy who wasn't tough enough to lead a world power (even tho he was a former professional military officer who was in fact very tough). Those of us old enough to remember, with Gerald Ford it was the accident-prone stumbler (even tho he was possibly our most athletic president, at least up to that time). After the scream, Dean became the wild-eyed liberal lunatic (even tho he's not that liberal and certainly is not a lunatic). Clark was the "green" political rookie who was not "ready for prime-time." Those very words were used over and over, with of course the film clip to prove it--usually just one or two, but played repeatedly, not unlike Dean's scream.

But for all the negative media, at least Clark got media before Iowa, and so he was climbing anyway. After Iowa and NH, there was essentially a media blackout. He was relegated to the status of Kucinich, Sharpton and Lieberman (Gephardt and Mosely Braun were gone by then), who didn't get a fair share of coverage either. Now, you can argue they didn't deserve it, but Clark had come in 3rd in NH, better than Edwards even if not by much, and did about as well as Edwards on mini-Super Tuesday. If logic had anything to do with it, which I'll grant you it never does, he should have gotten at least as much coverage as Edwards, but it wasn't even close. Fwiw, Dean stopped getting coverage too, except for the scream, and the "will he drop out or will he stay in" death-watch.

Not that it matters. Once Kerry had won Iowa and NH, there was no one going to beat him. I think the media decided they needed a horserace to keep people watching, and the only way that was gonna happen was to narrow the race to two. They picked Edwards--it didn't hurt that he was popular with the 18-35 demographic that advertisers love--and then did everything they could to make it a Kerry vs. Edwards race. And they suceeded, giving Edwards a LOT more coverage than Kerry, to keep him viable for as long as possible. Bet it pisses 'em off they couldn't make it last longer, but at least they got their Super Tuesday contest, which may have been all they hoped for.