Reply #110: I have my fingers crossed

[Jai4WKC08]

I honestly hope that the tactic will begin to fail, that people will begin to see thru it, and learn to ignore it or, even better, that it will create that backlash. If it does, it will be an advantage to Clark, but also to Kerry and pretty much all of the rest of 'em.

But I'm not optimistic. I would have thought what they did to Gore in 2000 would have taught people, but it didn't.

I do admit that Clark has the advantage of having seen what was done to Kerry's military record, and the time to try to come up with a plan to combat it. And yes, that's why he's backing IAVA, and helped Eric Massa put together the Fighting Dems (which the DNC has now taken under their wing, and that can only be for the good). Not for his 2008 chances as much as to get those Fighting Dems elected, but it will of course help him (and Kerry etc) in 2008.

But I know you would agree that it's a bigger problem than swiftboating vets, which is what those groups are designed to combat. It's the whole media control of our message and our messengers. Clark sees that. I assume Kerry does too, or at least I hope so. Clark tried to make that very point on Bill Maher Friday nite (altho it seems to have gone over Maher's head) and also on Franken's show. I know Clark spoke out during his campaign against corporate media consolidation, and for the reinstatement of some sort of Fair Practices legislation. So he must have seen it then too. He has spoken to us in his base on a number of occasions of the need to support what little liberal media there is (AAR specifically), and to not be afraid to challenge the right-wing media, to call in to their talk shows, to speak out on the facts. And last time I heard him talk in person (in OK, where it's very hard for Democrats to get good media), he was telling the assemblage that we need to get around the media by taking our case to the people one-to-one, to our neighbors and co-workers, and thru our local activism.

Clark has said, repeatedly, that we need a Democratic House to provide checks and balances. He means on the White House, of course, but I think he also means in the voting booths and in the media. I think that's part of what he meant about how controlling the House is necessary to finding the facts and getting them out to the American people. And I don't believe he thinks it's gonna happen magically. He's looking for investigations, with subpoena power, but he also wants some sort of legislative action. How much he can influence that process remains to be seen, but he hasn't been working closely with Pelosi because he likes her smile.