The Carpetbagger Report isn’t a shill for anyone, but I can’t help but wonder why Wesley Clark keeps getting the short end of the media stick.
Salon, for example, ran a major feature this morning, taking a look at the race for the nomination. The headline: “And then there were two.” A big picture accompanied the article with Kerry and Edwards. The article said Clark “posted disappointing numbers in the seven-state primary” and “may not be long for the game.”
Likewise the New York Times ran a lengthy “news analysis” today explaining that Edwards “and perhaps Howard Dean” have a small chance to challenge Kerry from here on out.
Bouncing between the networks last night, when the talking heads weren’t offering well-deserved praise for Kerry’s multi-state victories, they were touting Edwards’ strong performances.
As Kurtz noted last night, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, appearing on MSNBC, characterized the race as: “Kerry in the lead and Edwards challenging him.” CNN’s Judy Woodruff called Edwards “the chief challenger to John Kerry for the nomination.” Donna Brazile said, “John Edwards is now credible.” Bob Woodward told Larry King that Edwards has a shot at the nomination as people continue to get to know him.
The chattering class has obviously made up its mind, but I have no idea why they’re short-changing Clark. Looking at the results, it looks like Clark had just as good a day as Edwards did, if not better.
To state the obvious, Kerry had a better night than both of them put together. He had more wins that Clark and Edwards combined and won more delegates than the two combined.
And don’t get me wrong, I like Edwards a lot. If he’s the nominee, he’s got my full and enthusiastic support. He’s run a tremendous campaign and deserves the attention and support he’s received. My beef is that Clark has done just as well so far, but is being largely ignored.
To hear the talking heads, Edwards did well enough to characterize the fight as a “two-man race” between him and Kerry. Clark, at a minimum, deserves to be in the mix, at least as much as Edwards.
In the last week, Edwards and Clark have faced each other in eight primaries — seven yesterday plus New Hampshire last Monday. Among those contests, Clark has earned more support than Edwards in five of the eight (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards has bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you wanted to include Iowa in there, even though Clark didn’t compete in the caucuses, it’s still five to four in Clark’s favor.
In fact, yesterday’s results tilt towards Clark over all in the race to challenge Kerry. Clark had four top-two finishes (1st in OK, 2nd in AZ, ND, and NM) while Edwards had three top-two finishes (1st in SC, 2nd in MO, and OK). The pundits seem to think Edwards’ results qualify him as a serious contender, while Clark’s success relegates him to the status of spunky loser. Indeed, Salon compares these results and elevates Edwards to the top tier while calling Clark’s performance “disappointing.”
I don’t get it. If Clark was floundering and the press was pressuring him to withdraw, I’d understand. But if Clark is doing just as well as Edwards, why won’t the pundits give him his due?