Wesley Clark is a sellout!

[socalover]

Lost all respect for Clark.

Faux is protecting themselves from their critics and will use Clark as their pawn when Democrats start going after hate radio and Faux with the "Fair Reporting Act".

It must have been some good money, no other way to describe him other than a sellout. We all know that Hate radio and Faux are brainwashing America, it's a 24/7 ad for the Republicans, they must be stopped. If not, sooner or later, we would have a one party system style dictatorship.

[Botany]

1. Fox is bad but Wes Clark is good .....

...... We got a good person on fox to counter their bull shit and you
complain?

[Texas_Kat]

35. Clark as always been an advocate for telling the truth.

HE was one of the few to encourage Richard Clarke to come forward with his book about 9-11. HE encourage Sy Hersh to tell the 'whole story' about incidents that even Hersh was unsure he should publish.

What make anybody think he can't handle the idiots on Fox with one hand tied behind his back is living in a fantasy world.

(Some people complain about anything that challenges their narrow world-view)

[Kahuna]

81. Here here, Texas Kat. I couldn't have said it better myself..

Some people need to grow up and stop having a knee jerk reaction to anything that challenges them to think outside the box.

[LifeDuringWartime]

2. oh stop it

sheesh. wesley clark strikes me as a decent man who actually cares about his country. perhaps he thinks he can raise the tone on Fox and offer real opposition and info. withhold judgement for a little OK?

[demosincebirth]

27. I agree wit you.

Any time a Dem does one thing we don't agree with we call him a sell out. Sometime we act like the those denizens of the right. He is a decent man, for sure.

[bullimiami]

3. fox news are cowards, when the worm turns so will they.

when the neocons fall from grace, fox will kick them and laugh.
they are just starting to hedge their bet a little with clark. just like clear channel is starting to hedge with aar and liberal shows.

[Conker]

13. That might not happen.

Remember, Rupert Murdoch is a conservative.I highly doubt he will get rid of his neocons on faux news.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

19. As the education of the average American bumpkin proceeds

forth, (witness the Downing Street site being innundated with hits) and the truth seeps into their little heads..... the tide will turn, and the spin at Faux will turn to... cuz they eat their own, and whatever it takes to get viewership they will do. They will turn 180 for survivals sake... they owe allegience to the almight dollar, and not some squatters in the wh.

[NMDemDist2]

63. don't forget it was a Murdoch paper that broke the DSM in London

Murdoch will follow the $$$ IMO

[maddezmom]

65. right you are AZ...thanks for the reminder

:hi:

[Edgewater_Joe]

4. OR ... He's Looking For Faux Listeners For '08

I want to see what he says while he's there, but he's got ambitions and has been pretty solidly progressive since he started running. He's earned enough respect from me to give him a little leeway.

[Hav]

5. .

Could you be a little bit more precise with accusations like that?
I admit that I didn't pay much attention to these kind of things the last weeks...

[socalover]

7. What more do you need? Who the hell would work for Faux?

We all know what they do and I am sure Clark knows as well!

[Hav]

21. .

See, that he is going to work there was the news I missed. As I said, I didn't have much time to spend here the last weeks...

[johnaries]

6. What makes you think he won't be able to hold his own?

He's certainly no wimp like Alan Colmes! Ever since I've been on DU, people have been screaming that we need a REAL progressive on Faux instead of the roll-over-and-submit Colmes.

Now we've got one!

[socalover]

10. When has Faux ever allowed a liberal viewpoint? Colmes?

Colmes from Hannity's show, do you think he represents us well? Give me a break! Faux intentionally cuts him off and he's weak, wasn't Geraldo a liberal before going to Faux?

[johnaries]

25. That's my point. Colmes WAS weak and didn't represent us.

Wes is not weak. He will do a much better job of representing us than Colmes.

[socalover]

29. They will cut to an ad when he is making a point, his mic will be turned

down a notch, I see it all the time. I guarantee you, those SOBs would never let a liberal take over the airwaves at Faux!

[Texas_Kat]

32. Contracts are wonderful things

If Clark's contract prevents Fox talking heads from 'cutting his mike' (and you know he's smart enough, and experienced enough to get that added as a provision) then t ain't gonna happen.

It's one advantage to having a contract vs. appearing as a 'guest'. With a contract, you get to set the 'terms of engagement'. Contracts are not always (or necessarily usually) about money. Sometimes they are about working conditions.....

Whether you get 'terms' that are to your benefit depends on whether you have a strong negotiating position. Apparently Clark did.

[socalover]

38. So you really belive Clark is there to make Faux more liberal?

Even if that is the case, and they introduce one liberal show, the other 99% will still be ridiculously biased to the far right and my original point was that Clark in enabling the enemy, when Democrats go after hate radio and Faux, they will use Clark and shout "or but we have a former Democratic Presidential candidate with his own show, even CNN does not do that, how can we be biased, we are "fair and balanced""!

[Sparkly]

41. He doesn't have "his own show."

He's there to comment on foreign policy.

[socalover]

53. So they are going to set him up like Geraldo! nt

[Sparkly]

54. Geraldo is a Democratic foreign policy analyst?

Who knew? :shrug:

[maddezmom]

56. first I've heard of it

:evilgrin:

[socalover]

57. No but they will set him up for a similar fall!

It seems you guys have a lot of faith in Faux...

[maddezmom]

59. no, just a lot of faith in Wes

:hi:

[Sparkly]

61. "It seems you guys have a lot of faith in Faux" -- We have faith in Clark.

And I'm sure there's nothing said here that he hasn't already thought through.

[Texas_Kat]

70. No, I don't think Fox is going to become more liberal.

Fox's motives are unclear. Maybe it's about ratings share and money. That would be my guess.

Clark's motives are crystal clear. He's decided 'enough is enough'. He's always advocated challenging the right(wrong) wing on their own turf and encourages others to do so.

Colmes actually got to have a couple of 'real comments' during that segment, and this morning I woke up to see this on Newshounds.

"Will Wonders Never Cease? NPR's Juan Williams Finds His Voice, Argues with O'Reilly"

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/will_wonders_never_cease_nprs_juan_williams_finds_his_voice_argues_with_oreilly.php#more

I don't know if one relates to the other, but I suspect that it might. If Clark has enough courage to go into the Liar's Den to defend Democrats, why should anyone complain.

BTW, while Clark was defending Durbin on H&C, Tucker ('I have a bow-tie and I'm not afraid to use it') Carlson was trashing Durbin on MSNBC. Was anyone there to defend him?

[Sparkly]

42. Nice crystal ball you've got there.

I'm sure the General never thought of any of that. :eyes:

[TorchTheWitch]

28. When has Clark EVER backed down?

Show me ONE, just ONE, instance where Clark EVER let a talking head overwhelm him and not let him get his message out? Clearly, you've never seen Clark in action.

Check out that Asman clip where he bangs that suck-up Asman right over his empty head... obviously you've never seen him angrily proclaim "DON'T YOU TWIST MY WORDS!" and Asman practically crawled under his desk.

Clark has already stood up to most of the rightwing talking heads several times over, got his message out while making said pundits look like the asshats they are and come out smelling like a rose. WHERE'VE YOU BEEN? :eyes:

[Texas_Kat]

37. I thought you didn't (wouldn't) watch FOX.... so how do you know?

Maybe you're one of those Fox-watching regulars.... You seem to know what they do intimately well.

Hmmmmm, something to think about.

[socalover]

50. I like to know what the enemy is thinking nt

[Texas_Kat]

51. Really......? aren't you afraid your mind will be polluted?

And you might suddenly start spouting right wing talking points?

[Kahuna]

86. Errr.,..Maybe the General likes to know too...

Just saying... :eyes:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kahuna]

83. The difference is, Clark doesn't..

NEED Fox. They will no more be able to control his speech than CNN was. If they don't like where Clark is coming from and want to fire him, I don't think it would rock Clark's world.

[Massacure]

8. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.

[vickie]

15. The Godfather was right about keeping your enemies closer than

your friends.

Wesley Clark is sharp as a tack and isn't going to be pushed around by the chicken hawks on Faux. He is a brilliant scholar, a patriot and he takes no prisoners. I think it is a high compliment and a shrewd political move for one of ours to go into the belly of the Faux beast.

[maddezmom]

9. Is there a MSM outlet you wouldn't consider him a sell-out on?

:shrug:

[socalover]

11. Any other MSM outlet!

I know many, including CNN are in bed with the Repugs, but none are as blatantly a 24/7 Republican ad!

[maddezmom]

14. ah, when is was on CNN....folks said the same thing

Guess you don't have to watch. :)

[Rowdyboy]

23. self-delete....Why bother

[OneTwentyoNine]

12. I rarely watch but I guess I will to see Clark,which is what FOX wants

With viewership in the toliet their trying to increase ratings. I'm still not sure that Clark should have made that move but I'll watch and see how much leeway he gets.

If it just turns into another "talk over the Liberal" scheme then Clark should move on to a different Network. If they actaully let him speak his mind then it will be a good thing for Dems.

[dkofos]

16. I will have to depend on other sources to let me know if he is a sellout

BECAUSE I REFUSE TO WATCH FAUX NEWS/PROPAGANDA

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Of course not.

Two things are going on here: One is that Murdoch, for whom money always trumps ideology, has noticed that Pox's BS isn't selling so well any more. Their ratings are down, along with Bush's popularity, and if he senses a shift in the country's attitude, he'll go where that shift takes him. That's how Fox got popular in the first place: by synching up with the mood expressed by the Angry White Guy and hiring a bunch of spittle-flecked ranters like O'Reilly and Hannity. But Pox went overboard; its bias became blatant; and now that the war and Bush are becoming more and more unpopular, Pox is looking more and more foolish and its ratings are falling, too. What to do? Stop being the propaganda arm of the White House and get some balance -- or lose market share.

The second thing Clark will reach people who would otherwise ignore him or blow him off. Not everyone who watches Pox is a wingnut; many are people who don't follow the news or politics closely and they just watch it because it's there, often on in all kinds of public places where you can't avoid it. Far from selling out, he'll bring another opinion to people who would never hear that opinion otherwise. From the very beginning he's been extremely critical of the war and the Bush administration (why do you think CNN sacked him?). Pox's audience will finally get to hear something besides the party line. And Clark will get his name out there -- if he's thinking of running in '08, that's a smart move. It's all good, IMO.

[socalover]

22. Do you have a link to the latest ratings showing a decline for Pox? nt

[Jane Austin]

24. Fox News is on at my gym, doctors' waiting rooms, and other

public places where people watch whatever is on.

Last night I took company to one of the best barbeque places in Elgin, TX, and there was Fox News, up on the wall, grinding away.

I hope some of those farmers and ranchers who were there will get to hear what Clark has to say.

[patricia92243]

18. How was he on his second night? I don't get Fox, and am interested if he

continues to stand up to Hannity. Actually, is he going to be on Hannity exclusively, and is he going to be on each evening regularly or just a sporasdic commentator on a "as needed basis?"

[Texas_Kat]

43. He doesn't appear on H&C exclusively or even every night.

Here's his media schedule for next week:

• Fox News Live at 6:10pm EDT : Sunday, June 19, 2005



• CSPAN program "On the Road to the White House" :Sunday, June 19, 2005



• Fox News Live at 2:00pm EDT: Tuesday, June 21, 2005

His contract also allows him to appear on other networks and programs.

[Rowdyboy]

20. Right, he's always gone for the big bucks hasn't he?

:sarcasm: Typical cheap rhetoric backed up by no substance. Maybe if you tried listening but I suppose that would require too much effort.

[Jane Austin]

26. You don't have to watch Fox much to see Clark.

You can subscibe to media alerts and they will tell you exactly when he's scheduled to be on.

[Texas_Kat]

30. Clark's famous for smackdowns on rght wing talking heads

Your comments are illogical.

Just how to you propose to 'stop them'? Either counter their arguments by publicly disagreeing with them, or buy the network from Murdock.

I doubt you've got the cash.... so what else is there to do.

Newhounds.... "we watch fox so you won't have to' was pleased with Clark's appearance.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php#more

Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity
Wesley Clark, new Fox News contributor, had a chance to test his debate strategies with Hannity last night on Hannity and Colmes. Clark was on to discuss Dick Durbin's comment about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and if Hannity expected Clark to apologize for Durbin's comment, he was in for a surprise.

The segment opened with a video clip of Durbin's statement on the Senate floor. Seeing the complete statement in context with Durbin's intonations and body language gave a very different impression to viewers. Durbin described a detainee chained hand to foot, naked, on the floor covered in feces and urine for 18 to 24 hours. Durbin's point was that this scenario seems more consistant with a Nazi camp or Soviet Gulag or some other mad regime.Durbin was clearly concerned and sad that this had become U.S. policy.

Of course, Hannity called for Wesley Clark to condemn Durbin calling it "over the top, repugnant propaganda". Clark's response to Hannity was very effective.
" I'm not going to condemn Durbin. How we are percieved at Guantanamo on top of the bad press from Abu Ghraib is important. I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis but we have a policy issue here. How do we deal with it?"

After Hannity made his usual veiled accusations of treason, Clark calmly responded refusing to get defensive.He told Hannity that this should not be a political issue at all and we should all pull together and focus on the issue so we can find a solution.We need to look at the situation and evaluate. "We need a process."

Colmes then showed a clip of Rick Santorum comparing Democrats to Nazis and wondered why there was no outrage expressed over Santorum's comment. Clark dismissing the whole controversy said " Whoever uses the Nazi word first, loses. We have a national security issue here"
Clearly, he considered the bickering counter productive.

Comment: Clark's refusal to play politics sapped Hannity's power completely. In essence, Clark was saying this problem is real so stop deflecting our attention. Let's look at it and solve the problem together because it's wrong and the orders are coming from the top.
When Hannity thanked Clark for his appearance,his expression was somber and slightly sour.

[izzybeans]

31. He's a general so I'd bet he's quite adept at walking into the

bee hive and slitting the queen's throat. (metaphorically speaking of course)

Is he getting paid and well. Sure. I bet he is. Some people run to like minded individuals for comfort. Others find comfort in taking it to the opponent head on. Having them pay you their money to do such a thing, now that's just genius.

Perhaps he'll force Faux news to change their business model, if he is successful. Murdoch loves his money. His ideology will change when the profits start churning in the other direction. He's probably only a rightwing zealot because his focus groups told him it would sell well. Never underestimate the extent to which an image is fabricated for public consumption.

Clark on the other hand. More power to him. He's a stronger person than myself. And if it gives him the opportunity to flip the floppers of the right wing crowd that hover around Faux News like vulchers eyeing a wounded doe than by all means do what you do Wesley... Allan Colmes really needs a hand.

[TorchTheWitch]

33. Sellout, my ASS!

What Clark is doing WE DO OURSELVES AND ARE PROUD OF! We start talking to sheeple and Bush-lovers, carefully and stratigically in order to sway them to our side. We give them more and more information, and discuss and argue until slowly but surely, they begin to see the light... and we LOVE it when we get someone to turn. If all we did was bitch and moan amongst ourselves and pat each other on the back for the rightness of our beliefs, we would accomplish nothing at all, and in fact, would deserve nothing at all for NOT getting out there educating the masses.

Are you actually saying that Clark's going on Faux to edjucate the sheeple, which without question they are in desperate need of, is somehow WORSE then singing to the choir? Are you actually saying that you should be congratulated for not "selling out" by NOT infiltrating a Repuke group to educate them and sway their views to our side?... That it is somehow BETTER to stay safely among only those who share your beliefs where you can discuss issues that won't result in swaying anyone's beliefs to our side because they're ALREADY in agreement with you? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING??? Because it sure as hell looks like that's exactly what you're saying.

[seabeyond]

34. wes clark has consistantly supported democrat and policy

clearly. to make the statement clark is a sellout is obsurd. i am not a clark supporter anymore than a dean kerry boxer conyer, they are all part of the whole. for someone to take a democrat that has been working ass off visually for the party and nation for such a while and diss him is outrageous.

clark is not a sellout
clark is a huge plus to the party
solidarity. dude/dudette

[stray cat]

36. How do you propose stopping FOX?

They have the highest ratings of any cable channel - you boycotting them doesn't make any impact. I am happy to see tough people who will speak the truth speaking out on FOX - it is the only bit of truth many Americans will ever hear.

[socalover]

39. "Fair Reporting Act".... nt

[Sparkly]

47. Yeah? How do you get that passed? n/t

[KittyWampus]

40. You Are So Transparent, It's Almost Not Worth Responding To This Thread

Tell us all, what's the difference between Fox and CNN?

The only real difference is Fox has MORE viewers, all of whom are NOT Freepers, and CNN is more insidious since all too many still believe it's actually liberal.

Was Candy Crowley calling Kerry an elitist for drinking Green Tea (gasp!) liberal?

Was CNN showing the photo shopped pix of Kerry in the hazmat suit Liberal?

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THEN? AT LEAST CLARK ISN'T A CHICKENSHIT DEMOCRAT TOO AFRAID OR INCOMPETENT TO TAKE ON THE WHORES AT FOX.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

46. Hey I know! Let's all preach to the CHOIR!!

Let's only talk to other Democrats and Liberals!! Let's get our leaders to only go on liberal radio. And since there is no liberal TV, stay off TV -- well, maybe Olbermann or Daily Show, but that's IT.

Otherwise, we're enabling the media ho's, and selling out.

This way, nobody who voted for Bush will ever hear us, and we can pretend they don't exist.

A wall between us and them will sure help us avoid a one-party dictatorship! It'll just stop the other side dead in their tracks, I tell you!!

What do we want? Isolation! When do we want it? Now!

:sarcasm:

[pstokely]

48. let's wait and see

[Clark2008]

49. Bullshit

Some people really don't know the first thing about strategy, do they?

Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity

Wesley Clark, new Fox News contributor, had a chance to test his debate strategies with Hannity last night on Hannity and Colmes. Clark was on to discuss Dick Durbin's comment about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and if Hannity expected Clark to apologize for Durbin's comment, he was in for a surprise.

The segment opened with a video clip of Durbin's statement on the Senate floor. Seeing the complete statement in context with Durbin's intonations and body language gave a very different impression to viewers. Durbin described a detainee chained hand to foot, naked, on the floor covered in feces and urine for 18 to 24 hours. Durbin's point was that this scenario seems more consistant with a Nazi camp or Soviet Gulag or some other mad regime.Durbin was clearly concerned and sad that this had become U.S. policy.

Of course, Hannity called for Wesley Clark to condemn Durbin calling it "over the top, repugnant propaganda". Clark's response to Hannity was very effective.
" I'm not going to condemn Durbin. How we are percieved at Guantanamo on top of the bad press from Abu Ghraib is important. I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis but we have a policy issue here. How do we deal with it?"

After Hannity made his usual veiled accusations of treason, Clark calmly responded refusing to get defensive.He told Hannity that this should not be a political issue at all and we should all pull together and focus on the issue so we can find a solution.We need to look at the situation and evaluate. "We need a process."

Colmes then showed a clip of Rick Santorum comparing Democrats to Nazis and wondered why there was no outrage expressed over Santorum's comment. Clark dismissing the whole controversy said " Whoever uses the Nazi word first, loses. We have a national security issue here"

Clearly, he considered the bickering counter productive.

Comment: Clark's refusal to play politics sapped Hannity's power completely. In essence, Clark was saying this problem is real so stop deflecting our attention. Let's look at it and solve the problem together because it's wrong and the orders are coming from the top.

When Hannity thanked Clark for his appearance,his expression was somber and slightly sour.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php#more

[Jade Fox]

52. Oh, knock it off!

Fox hired Clark cause their rating are in free-fall. In other words, their
right-wing crap isn't selling anymore.

I'm delighted loyal Fox watchers will be hearing Clark!

[Pepperbelly]

55. You aren't making a good impression.

Perhaps you should work on that.

:D

[Clark2008]

60. LOL

:hi: Pepper

[socalover]

62. Why am I not? Sorry if I ruffled some loyal Clark followers but

reporting for Faux is not a good thing IMHO.

[Pepperbelly]

64. poorly reasoned, poorly written and ...

poorly supported by any analysis.

I call 'em like I see them.

[socalover]

67. I was never good at english, sorry that you disagree with my take on it nt

[Pepperbelly]

73. When you make a claim like you made ...

the mere assertion of it is not sufficient. For example, when you assert that simply because Wesley took a gig as an analyst with Fox News, that makes him a sell-out, I think what you are doing is lazily depending upon guilt-by-association. You didn't point out anything specific that he has done nor have you shown him saying anything other than what he believes to be true.

If they want to pay him to make his case to the American people while they provide the vehicle, then I submit that he would be foolish not to. That is given, of course, that he maintains his perspective and fearlessly advocates his POV.

[Clark2008]

76. It's not that you "ruffled my feathers,"

it's that you didn't think the situation through.

Those of us who live in the South (or mid-West) know that Faux is on in every salon, restaurant, bar and barber shop and it will be good for the proles to see a true liberal stand up to the mental midgets over a the propaganda network.

It's great strategy for a couple of reasons: 1.) Clark gets the Dem message out to those who have never heard it (or have heard a Reich-wing's perverted version of it) and 2.) When Dems are looking for a Hillary-alternative after they realize she cannot turn any red states blue - a necessity for winning any election (barring Diebold) - then it will be Clark who they remember as being reasonable and able to stand up to the worst of the Reich-wing.

Sometimes you have to get in the mind of the enemy to stop the bloodshed.

[socalover]

77. I think you underestimate the evil behind Faux news! n/t

[kansasblue]

58. We can never abandoned any institution,

whether it be Fox, the Republican party, the military, the Red States! We need people inside, onboard, working, fighting from inside. You can't walk away. I know people hate like the Log Cabin Republicans but we need people fighting from the inside. So that applies to Clark. Let's see how he does! Let him kick some ass! From the inside of Fox.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

68. Democrats seem to be...

...hypocrites on this issue. They HATE FOX with a passion and claim that they're a mouthpiece for the Republican party...but suddenly it's okay if a 'democrat' joins their forces?

Have we joined the RWingers in the fantasy world that politians on OUR SIDE can do no wrong?

What a sorry state of affairs when a Democrat gets a pass for working with the propagandists trying to destroy our party.

[socalover]

72. Well said! Finally, someone who agrees with me..... n/t

[Adelante]

69. Haha

It's to laugh, it truly is.

I know!! Let's NOT go on Fox. We should let the right wing KEEP the playing field, KEEP the votes of moderate-minded Fox viewers, KEEP brainwashing the Fox viewing public on Bushco's foreign policy.

Yeah, that would be better :dunce:

By the way:

"The biggest threat to our national security is the one-party system." - Wesley Clark

[socalover]

74. Rupert Murdoch is still in control in case you forgot! n/t

[BamaLefty]

71. Putting A Liberal Voice On A Conservative Station Is

NOT A SELLOUT!

Would you like for Alan Colmes to leave too? No, Gen Clark isn't selling out... he's making sense!

[1932]

75. I think Alan Colmes should leave.

He creates the illusion of balance.

I think viewers would be less confused about Fox's mission if Colmes weren't there.

Furthemore, the only reason they keep him around is because he's useless.

[PresidentObama]

78. Clark isn't a sell out....

...just as long as he doesn't bow down to a fight when on Fox News, he's still one of us. Knowing General Clark, he's using this opportunity to fight back. I doubt Clark will do what everyone does at Fox News, and bow out and agree with everything the producer tells them to say on air. Wesley Clark is still a big face in our party!

I like Clark, but didn't support him in 2004. Nor will I in 2008, unless he gets the nomination. But I know he's a great fighter for our party. He is no Joe Lieberman. He is no traitor. And he is no sell out. And if he is a sell out, he's doing it for all the right reasons...TO FIGHT!!!

From a Kerrycrat to all the Wes Dem's, good luck guys. I know how it feels to have everyone attack, and hate on your candidate. IE what the Kerry bashers did to John on DU. Keep on fighting for Wes, and for what you believe in. :)

[Adelante]

84. Thank you, Kerry2008

Very kind of you to speak up :hi:

[Kahuna]

79. If FAUX thinks they will gain the upper hand by employing Clark..

they are in for a rude awakening. Clark will be their worst nightmare.

[ClarkUSA]

80. I disagree. Is AAR a sellout because they broadcast on Clear Channel?

The original post represents such simplistic drivel. How many votes do you think we can scrounge up in 2006 if Democrats keep preaching to the choir? Would you like more Diebold-thin margins at the polls?

Rupert Murdoch hired General Clark for the same reasons Clear Channel (which exclusively broadcasts Rush Limpballs, Sean Insanity, Bill "Loofah" O'Reilly) picked up AAR and The Jerry Springer Show. Fox and Clear Channel are moving into liberal programming because that's where the trend lies.

I can only hope that more liberal voices get hired at Fox to counter the forces of Orwell there.

By the way, welcome to DU! :eyes:

[NYCGirl]

82. Apples and oranges. Clear Channel buys AAR product like a bookstore

buys Al Franken's book (as I pointed out on the other locked thread). Clear Channel does not own or control AAR.

[ClarkUSA]

87. No, it's apples and apples, given the OP's accusations.

Doesn't AAR give Clear Channel credibility?

After all, with AAR and the Jerry Springer Show, now Clear Channel can claim to be be truly balanced, not just the exclusive broadcasters of hate radio hosts extraordinaire Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

AAR does inoculate Clear Channel against charges of media bias. So shall we all stop listening to AAR?

Without ClearChannel, AAR would not have nearly the range they have to broadcast their progressive message. Ditto with The Jerry Springer Show. So are they sellouts?

Interesting questions, eh?

For me, reaching out to a crossover audience is a great idea. It will help us in 2006 if Wes Clark can continue to defend Democrats and their policies while dissing
Bush/GOP's handling of the issues.

OT: Nice big banners you have there. I have always admired them. I'd love to do that with Wes Clark but haven't got the graphic talent you do. :hi:

[dajoki]

85. maybe he's using them

he's a smart man and seems to have integrity, maybe he has something up his sleeve. we'll just have to wait and see.:eyes:

[Moderator]

88. Locking

This thread (and the topic as a whole) has run it's course.