Clark's True Colors - The Nation

[sfecap]

Clark's True Colors
by Matt Taibbi


You can see something in the eyes of most all the Democratic candidates: the pugnacity of Howard Dean, the idealism of Dennis Kucinich, even (surprisingly) the elaborate sense of humor just under the surface of Joe Lieberman.

Not Wesley Clark. His eyes are blank. Like a turtle resting on a rock in the middle of a pond, he simply seems never to move, no matter how long you stare. But then, just as you're about to pack up your picnic basket and go home, you catch him: His head pops out, and he slides off into the water...

(snip)

I went the extra mile to cover Clark, even parting with a significant amount of my valuable time on this earth to volunteer, under an assumed name, for his campaign. Desperate measures were required, because solving the Clark puzzle is a desperate problem. It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.

Now Clark is presenting himself as a White Knight to the modern version of that same demographic, and he is being welcomed with open arms. He appeals to roughly the same class of people as Howard Dean, with a subtle difference. The Dean crowd self-consciously sees itself as a political force. When Dean tells supporters, "You have the power!" they holler like banshees, creating a Mike-Dukakis-teach-in-meets-Who-Let-the-Dogs-Out? kind of effect. But the chief crowd ritual in the Clark campaign is that of a group of hushed, groveling supplicants staring dewy-eyed at their savior Caesar. The vibe is all about ceding power, not empowerment.

(more...)

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=taibbi

[JailBush]

1. Spooky!

I saw Wesley Clark on David Letterman recently, and that second paragraph - about the blank eyes - rings eerily true.

I haven't had much time to research the candidates, but I've been studying the 9/11 timeline, and I was truck by Wesley Clark's reactions. He joined Bush's cabinet in almost immediately announcing that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. That's a very bad sign.

The comments in this article are the last straw.

Kucinich remains my favorite, Dean my second favorite, but I can't even call Wesley Clark my third favorite any more.

[mikehiggins]

2. the eyes! the eyes!

Has anyone ever read the studies on blinking?

You can look them up on the net, I would imagine.

Basically, if I'm not remembering the results wrong, studies suggest that the more frequently you blink when talking in public, the more likely it is that you are lying.

[mikehiggins]

3. Oh, and Matt Tiabbi s**ks n/t

[FrenchieCat]

19. Here's what one Clark supporter found out about Matt Taibbi

Does the author of the recent vicious article in the Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=taibbi
have a ulterior motive against Clark? Matt Taibbi an American journalist who lived for a while in Russia where he basically published the Russian equivalent of the National Inquirer also co wrote this piece check it out:
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990509exilewalker.htm
His bizarre assertion that the Serbs may have been set-up to appear to be slaughtering the Albanians and the anti-NATO tone of the Website in General probably revels his bias.
"There is a widespread belief not only in Russia, but in other countries, that Walker's role in Racak was to assist the KLA in fabricating a Serb massacre that could be used as an excuse for military action."
anyway...food-for thought.
NCJoe

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. How many Americans that publish in Russia are NOT company?

BTW...SFECAP should read what he says about Dean :D

[papau]

4. announcing that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks is bad?????

Hart-Rudman, Clinton's weekly Osama bin Laden meetings, the Genoa anti plane as missle preparations in June 2001 - and Osama bin Laden's tape claiming to be behind 9/11 -

Like why is saying the obvious - or extremely likely - a bad thing?

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Osama did not claim to be behing 9/11

The GOP and the rest of the right wing keep insisting on that interpretation, but it's not at all clear that he's making such a claim on the tape.

Clark's eyes are another matter entirely. I've never been able to read anything into anyone's eyes, so I tend to dismiss such statements about someone's eyes as nonsense. Clark's recent attack on Dean because of the Vietnam-era draft and his saying that he was recovering from his war wounds while Dean was skiing are enough to disqualify Clark from office forever, to my mind. Forget the eyes crap.

[maha]

14. It's always something

"Clark's recent attack on Dean because of the Vietnam-era draft and his saying that he was recovering from his war wounds while Dean was skiing are enough to disqualify Clark from office forever, to my mind."

And exactly what politician might live who is blameless enough to be worthy of office, oh judgmental one?

[DavidDvorkin]

16. Who said that blamelessness is a requirement?

You might as well say that nothing disqualifies a politician -- no statement, no act.

[maha]

20. Let me be specific.

The episode you describe is so picayune, and fairly mild compared to the demogoguery and mudslinging engaged in by the other Dem candidates (with the possible exception of Mosely Braun -- I haven't caught her at it, anyway). So I ask again -- who is "pure" enough for you? Or, more specific, which candidate are so you besotted with that you overlook his acts of mudslinging?

[maha]

15. Of course Osama bin Laden is the most likely perp.

There are some flakes who've created an alternate fantasy universe in which Osama bin Laden is innocent. Just smile and nod and ignore them.

[gulliver]

5. Sure. Blank eyes. Right.

Balderdash. Clark's eyes show intelligence and compassion. If you can't see it, maybe you should get your own eyes checked.

This article is one of those stupid "I felt this about that" pieces. So you hear about the oh-so-discerning author "sensing" what is in someone's eyes and "learning" that they like napoleons for a snack. Gasp! Napoleons! My goodness, if Clark likes napoleons, doesn't that say something about him!?!?!?

I'm floored by the scintillating stupidity of this article. Any more drivel like this and I won't be renewing as a Nation Associate.

[maha]

6. My letter to The Nation about this article

Matt Taibbi's hatchet job on Wesley Clark reminds me of Peggy Noonan's writings on Hillary Clinton. Noonan has never written about the real Hillary Clinton. Rather, she writes about a fantasy Hillary Clinton who lives in Noonan's delusional brain.

By the same token, Taibbi hasn't written a word about Wesley Clark. He shows us a fantasy Clark of his own creation, revealing Taibbi's knee-jerk prejudices against the military.

I am bitterly disappointed that The Nation would publish this garbage. A follow-up story -- actual journalism, please -- about the real Wesley Clark would be much appreciated.

[Ardee]

38. Hasnt wriiten a word?

Do you simply blank out when reading something that opposes your own views? The article clearly mentions a voting record and career choices (speechwriter for who?) that should make a thinking voter take pause.

[maha]

48. You are referring to this sentence?

"Do you simply blank out when reading something that opposes your own views? The article clearly mentions a voting record and career choices (speechwriter for who?) that should make a thinking voter take pause."

You are referring to this sentence, I assume:

It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd.

I know a lot of people who voted for Reagan and Nixon and who have since seen the light of day and voted for Clinton and Gore, as Clark did. (Personally, I think those who keep harping on the Reagan and Nixon votes either have deep-seated psychological problems or are hopelessly immature. Take your pick.)

Regarding career choices -- not career choices, "assignments." His "career choice" was to be in the Army. The Army gives assignments. Here's the background on being Al Haig's "speech writer." The speaker is retired Lt. Gen. Sam Wetzel.

"I was a two-star (general) in '78, '79, working in Al Haig's office at SHAPE Headquarters in Mons, Belgium," Wetzel said Thursday. "Wes, who was a major then, was one of Haig's three speech writers. Bright kid, a political scientist. I remember Haig taking notes as the speech writers argued back and forth on what he should talk about. When they left the room, he'd tear his notes off the tablet and throw them in the trash. And then he'd give the kind of speech he wanted to to begin with."

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/6816180.htm

SHAPE stands for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.

In other words, when he was a major in the late 1970s the army assigned him to NATO headquarters, where Al Haig was his commanding officer. And this disqualifies him from being President today because .... ? Same thing goes for his assignments during the Ford Administration. And the business about his being a "passionate supporter of the Vietnam War" is, shall we say, not honest. It's clear Clark is extremely ambivalent about Vietnam, as most of us who lived through those times were.

I repeat, there's not one word in this article about Wesley Clark.

[IndianaGreen]

8. What the fuck is this piece of shit?

This sounds like Bush looking into Putin's eyes to look into his soul.

This article is utter crap!

[The Zanti Regent]

9. F the Nation

I cancelled my long term subscription after that hatchet job Hitchens and Cockburn did on Hillary.

The Nation is just a bunch of dog turds loaded into a Whitman's Sampler box!

[Nashyra]

10. I agree what a piece of shit

Desperate to defame. Why? Scared is my answer, * could not wipe this mans shoes.

[Eric J in MN]

11. "not easy to explain" why Clark popular with some Democrats

I disagree with this sentence:
"It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd."
It is easy to explain. Democrats want to win the next Presidential election, and many think that only Clark can do it.

Personally, I think John Edwards would win if he were nominated.

[tabasco]

12. You don't have to be a Clark supporter to condemn this drivel.

Unsupportable rubbish like this belongs on the Limbaugh show.

[whirlygigspin]

13. Mission accomplished

buy one get one free!

no money down!

All new!

(gotta love marketing people)

I guess there is one born every day.

[FrenchieCat]

17. My letter to the Nation

Dear Nations Editors:

I was kept in utter captivation as I read "Clark’s True Colors" by Matt Taibbi. As I finished the essay, I was not quite sure what to think; not of Wes Clark, but of Matt Taibbi. I marveled at the gift so undeniably handed to Mr. Taibbi in his god given talent to be ultimate judge as to what lays beneath the eyes of others. I had always thought that the truth laid in the eye of the beholder. I want to thank Mr. Taibbi for appointing himself as such. That is quite a feat for just a mere mortal; or is he?

I was quite relieved to read in the first paragraph of the seven pages essay that three of the Democratic candidates had positive qualities beneath their eyes. I was stunned, however, that the Beholder, Mr. Taibbi, in the second paragraph of the piece, quickly determined that the designated victim of the piece had none. What I realized while reading the second paragraph, was that the Beholder was just beginning and then I sadly understood what I would have to bare.

The Beholder did not disappoint. The descriptions and adjectives reserved for Wes Clark are what makes this piece so disturbingly biased. Phrases such "strange performance", "heads turned in shock", "what the hell was he talking about?", "desperate problem", "true intentions harder to discern", "double talk", "what in the hell does that mean?", "a man yearning to scratch a very old itch", "a person who was opposed to the war ...would be sick even thinking such a thing" are utilized throughout this smear opinion piece as obvious proses utilized to de-construct a perfectly viable presidential candidate. The lowest blow, however, is how the supporters of General Clark are depicted. Although one could have portrayed them as non-judgmental individuals coming together for a single noble purpose, to defeat George Bush come next election; Mr. Taibbi aptly dragged them trough the mud as well. Those supporters are portrayed as uncaring calculated eager but cold people of little character.

Although I easily picked up on the fact that Mr. Taibbi, the Beholder, must support Denis Kucinich, it would have been most professional of the Beholder to have informed unsuspecting readers of this fact at the onset of the essay. Unlike Mr. Taibbi, most readers are not as fortunate as to have been blessed with second sight, ESP, and the sixth sense.

After reading the story, I rubbed my eyes and wondered why The Nation, a publication that I have read throughout the years, would allowed this amateurish piece of first account fiction to be placed on its pages. The only conclusion that I could come to was that it was intentional. Therefore, my only conclusion is not to read this publication anymore. Please make sure to cancel my subscription today, and take my name off of your marketing database.

Please give a special note to the Beholder, although with his special powers he may already know, that I won't miss him not a bit, that's for sure.

You have yourselves a wonderful turkey for Thanksgiving.

Sincerely,

[tabasco]

33. Beautiful sarcasm !

I love it!

[dobak]

45. nice!

I also am not renewing when my subscription ends in January.

I'll just read it for free at work.

[FrenchieCat]

18. This was sent by another Clark supporter......

Clark's true colors - an apology re: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=1&s=taibbi
A short while ago, I sent you a scathing critique on Matt Taibbi's piece on Wesley Clark, excoriating him as a clueless sophomoric Kuchinich supporter. I was wrong. I am sorry.

Supporting Kuchinich is actually Taibbi's most redeeming feature.
What he failed to disclose in his "undercover" hit piece is his real agenda: it's not Kuchinich that justified the venom in that piece,but his true love: Slobodan Milosevic. It seems Taibbi feels that the entire world (Wesley Clark, his followers, NATO the international community, the judges and witnesses at Hague are guilty of conspiring against Taibbi's one and true love: pure as driven snow Milosevic.

Here's one Taibbi piece to deminstrating this: http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990509exilewalker.htm Yes, Matt Taibi - the world is wrong. You and Slobodan are right. But if you believe that to be true, why not disclose your reasons in your article?

Why hate Clark for eating napoleons when you can tell the world that stopping genocide is a bad thing? Come on, Taibbi, make my day: defend genocide!

[thebigidea]

22. that link doesn't mention anything about Milosevic's purity

its about Walker.

You sound suspiciously like the anti-ANSWER crowd, though.

[mmonk]

21. Yes

we are all slavish unthinking followers. We have no brains and don't intend to use them. We're just looking for another republican candidate. We're not real thinkers like those who say, repeat, write, etc. the same thing over and over again. These people are really imaginative, original. So go give it your all for your candidate, we Clark people will mindlessly follow our republican candidate that we just worship blindly and don't know where he stands. At least we finally know, after being told for 1 million or 2 million times by original free thinking people what we are.

[Cocoa]

23. this article confirms my worst fears about Clark

which is obviously what this reporter was intent on doing.

What a total disappointment. I saw that this was in the Nation, I saw the fact that the article was six pages long, and the reporter used an interesting technique.

But it's a total waste. The reporter came in with his picture of Clark, and didn't challenge it. He just looked for things that reinforced it. I guess he couldn't finde enough, due to all the totally extraneous garbage. Does the Nation have editors?

What was the point of the "porn producer" thing? Why did he do this, and what was the Clark supporters' reaction supposed to prove. As far as I could tell, it just proved that they were polite people.

How embarrassing for the Nation. This kind of crap belongs in free weekly rags, not in a respected publication like theirs.

[Red_Storm]

25. "This kind of crap belongs in free weekly rags"

Well, oddly enough the writer is a columnist for New York Press.......a free weekly rag........

[SeveneightyWhoa]

27. Now that I think about the article

..yes, that porn producer thing was totally unnecessary, pointless, and just plain harsh--the Clark campaign is supposed to kick this guy out because he's a "porn producer"? Would the author have been pleased if they had kicked him out and called him a Commie-lib God-hater instead? Thats what a Republican campaign would have done, not a Democratic one. The fact that he chose to include this extraneous information shows that he not only lacks a firm grasp on reality, but will use whatever info it takes to smear a man running against his favored candidate. Gee, I wonder how many people will switch to Kucinich after reading this mastery of literary objectivity? My guess--zero.

So after reading the article, I just thought to myself, 'hmmm, just some guys opinion, hopefully he's wrong'. Now after reading other opinions of the article, its clear to me that this horrendous piece of writing shouldn't have appeared anywhere near a political publication, especially a liberal one.

The fact that this was in The Nation, a consisted of underhanded attacks on Clark and every one of his supporters using nothing but totally subjective information, makes this one of the most vile hit pieces on Clark yet. I wonder if the RNC or GOP can come even close to this one?

[salin]

24. haven't read it - and won't.

The comments here, from supporters, fence-sitters and nonsupporters is enough for me to pass this by.

Thus my comment isn't about the content of the article, but on the existence of the article. It seems that some on the left really enjoy cutting up one's own - and working to advance the cause on the right, by giving biased critiques that will undoubtedly resurface as "proof" during the election and supposed validity BECAUSE the article comes from a reputable left-perspective source. Have seen the same thing on several other candidates. Bad journalism, bad trend.

[alittlelark]

29. I read it and was disgusted

no more subscription renewals for me. I have an open mind and my eyes on the prize - 2004 White House. The Nation needs to step back and re-focus.:kick:

[Demeter]

26. I Look at the Actions, Not the Eyes

And I don't see any actions that I want to put into office at any level. I was too young to know much about Eisenhower, but I don't think he did anything too fundamentally wrong--perhaps he had enough of killing. But I would want to think many times before putting any modern military man into public office.

How can anyone trained to be a professional order taker and killer turn completely around and become the kind of President that will get us out of this anarchy and greed phase that our current Fearless Leader got us into? How can somebody come out of nowhere, at the eleventh hour, with no previous experience, and expect to make it into the Presidency?

I don't worship uniforms, I don't worship anybody or anything. It is idolatry that got Bush into office, no point in replacing a golden calf with a golden sword.

[maha]

30. Military men as presidents

"But I would want to think many times before putting any modern military man into public office."

Why? Are "modern" military men worse than "historic" military men?

Historically, "military men" who become President work harder to maintain peace than some who haven't. That's because they know what war is. Notice how easily the shirking chimp-in-chief started a war.

Nobody hates war more than someone who's been in one.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

28. When Clark becomes the Dem nominee

..what are the chances that the GOP/RNC (and therefore the media as well) will use Clark's unblinking eyes as the general smear meme against him? Like Gore was a liar, Clark will be the one with "scary, empty, Godless" eyes.

Just imagine.
Margaret Carlson: "You can tell by his eyes that he greatly dislikes America".
Bill O'Reilly: "Any American will tell you that Wesley Clark's eyes show a man that is devoid of character, honesty or soul!"
Bill Schneider: "Most voters agree that Clark's unblinking eyes are the window to a man who shows no semblance of humanity or integrity. The majority of Americans trust Bush and he has shown that he is a compassionate leader--voters trust him to do what is right".

...blah, I can see this type of crap coming already.

[ResistTheCoup]

31. Digby does a great take on this slash piece

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Et tu, Van den Heuvel?

Hey all you Democrats, if you need to be reminded of what a real old fashioned Emmett Tyrell style hit piece looks like, this one defines the genre as well as anything you'll see from The American Spectator. It's an excellent example of character assassination, done with the patented snotty superiority that drips most copiously from those whose main contribution to political discourse is the metaphorical shiv in the metaphorical backs of their own allies.

I haven't up to now recognized myself as a servile member of a "group of hushed, groveling supplicants staring dewy-eyed at their savior Caesar," and frankly I've never seen any such thing at the Clark events I've attended. (But, my goosestepping martial spirit was thrilled to read that Clark joked with a pastry salesgirl about really loving "napoleons." I think that pretty much says it all about what Clark is really up to and I couldn't be happier. My savior wants to invade Russia. And this time he'll do it right.)

In fact, the "napoleon" comment merely foreshadows the main contention (aside from how silly his stupid volunteers are) that the "neo-Nixonian" Clark wants to replay the Vietnam war in Iraq so that he can emerge the winner. This is as sophomoric a psychological insight as anything the blond pundetts ever spewed with such prurient delight about Clinton's alleged sexual pervertedness. In much the same way, this claim is nothing more than a fevered Naderite's masturbatory war-porn fantasy.

>snip<

[0rganism]

34. That's a hatchet job to remember, practically Rove-worthy

Wow. I guess Clark is really scaring someone, to merit this kind of slam.

Everything I've seen and heard from him in the debates makes him seem like a reasonable choice, certainly no more behaviorally disturbing than Kerry or Gep, but I'm sure Taibbi would point out that means I have a predilection to become a mindless goose-stepping drone. Not quite a brown shirt, maybe something in a light khaki...

[kaitykaity]

35. My letter about this piece of crap.

To the Editors:

In regards to "Clark's True Colors" by Matt Taibbi, I must say I had a painful flashback to the days of Gore and earthtones, Gore and Love Canal, Gore and inventing the internet.

I have spent the last three years shaking my head in disbelief at the "whores" in the mainstream media who have suckled and stroked the illegitimate squatter in the White House.

Imagine my shock at finding such pablum in the pages of one of my favorite magazines, The Nation. I am heartily disappointed that such a piece, based on personality intuition and a secret axe-to-grind would find it's way into your pages. Here's one Taibbi piece to deminstrating this: http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990509exilewalker.htm Taibbi admits to being supporter of Slobidan Milosevic, the man General Clark bombed into submission.

Really shoddy stuff here. I hope the black eye your magazine sustained heals real soon.

Regards.

[lowkell]

40. My letter to The Nation,,,

Matt Taibbi's article, "Clark's True Colors" (December 15, 2003) is, in nearly every way, atrocious. The writing and editing are terrible. The reporting is terrible. The ethics are terrible. The writer's agenda is terrible. And The Nation has made a terrible mistake in publishing this garbage. Let me go through these briefly one by one.

First, the writing and editing are awful. Let's proceed no further than the first paragraph, following the strange turtle metaphor introduction (what on earth is THAT all about, by the way?). Just in this one paragraph alone, the author changes verb tenses inappropriately twice, from present to subjunctive and from subjunctive to past, with no apparent rhyme or reason, and with no transition. Thus, we go from "are addressing" and "is a beautiful" to "would take" to "cracked Gail Kinney." My 6th-grade English teacher would have given me an "F" for this kind of writing. In fact, come to think of it, I think she did! Just curious, but does The Nation have editors? Does it use them? Did they skip 6th-grade English?

Second, what kind of reporter needs to disguise himself under an assumed name and identity in order to infiltrate an event -- the Clark "Meetup" -- that is FREELY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?!? Hello? And who cares if some 25-year-old volunteer can't think of a snappy comeback to an idiotic, narcissistic, sadistic weirdo who has come and crashed his party? Is Matt Taibbi's real name "Stephen Glass?" Does the magazine "The New Republic" or the movie "Shattered Glass" ring a bell with any of you at The Nation? Hmmmm....

Third, please explain to me how pretending to be an adult movie producer or a neck injury patient either has anything whatsoever to do with the supposed story being investigated, or is in the slightest bit ethical. While we're at it, can someone at The Nation please tell me exactly WHAT the story being investigated IS here? After reading this article a couple of times, I still have absolutely no idea. Ostensibly it's supposed to be about General Clark's "true colors," but it's obvious that, in this author's worldview, everything is either black or white. No, what I am really curious about at this point is not General Clark's "true colors" at all, but The Nation's and Matt Taibbi's "true colors!"

As far as the ethics of all this are concerned, has The Nation truly stooped this low? Adult movie producer? Fake neck injuries? Please say it ain't so, editors. Do you normally publish this level of trash in your esteemed magazine? Seriously, after reading Matt Taibbi's atrocious excuse for an article, I felt like I needed to take a hot shower, and not because of Wesley Clark or the Clark campaign volunteers depicted here. No, it's just that Matt Taibbi's "journalism" made me feel unclean all over.

Fourth, the writer's agenda here is so obvious, predictable -- and stupid -- it's simply pitiful: Taibbi hates America; he hates the military; he hates General Clark; and he wants to tear down all three. You know, Matt Taibbi is exactly the kind of guy who drives life-long liberals like myself to think about becoming conservatives. As I read this article, I kept thinking, do I really want to be on the same side as people like this? For instance, I notice how we supposedly "murdered" 2 million people in Vietnam. For now, let's not even touch on the dubious merits of that statement. But, while we're on this topic, can I find any mention here of the millions of innocent people murdered by the wonderful Communists in North Vietnam and Cambodia before and after the war? But of course not! This is the extreme Far Left "Hate America" crowd we're talking about, where America is always wrong and the foreign country (as long as it's not Israel, of course!) is always right. When THEY kill people -- as long as they're brown or black people -- it's alright, but when we do it, it's a war crime, genocide, etc. Whatever.

Finally, let me just add that I have encountered numerous people like Matt Taibbi in my life, from both the Loony Left and the Radical Right. To this day, there's only thing I can't decide about these people: who I detest more.

Lowell Feld

[roguevalley]

36. yawn.

[CWebster]

37. Wow---

great articulation of a strong gut suspicion. Damn.

[Cocoa]

39. six pages on a gut suspicion

impressive indeed. Maybe he'll write a book on it.

[slappypan]

41. Matt Taibbi, the left-wing Ann Coulter

Here's another piece by Mr. Taibbi. I have no idea what his point is, other than to be as offensive as possible:

http://www.nypress.com/16/48/news&columns/cage.cfm

A choice paragraph:

"If you want to recruit killers for foreign conquest, you need to be able to offer them the three basics: treasure, murder and pussy. This is why Iraq is a dead end. There is no pussy in Iraq, absolutely none. No "me so horny" scenes will be shot in the inevitable Iraq movies. "

[donhakman]

42. His eyes were on fire on FOX

"The vibe is all about ceding power, not empowerment."

thats in the eye of the beholder I believe.

Forget the look in his eye. Generals are generally poor presidents.

Colin Powell turned out to be quite a step and fetchit.
Eisenhower did have a great "parting" warning.
Grant had a failed presidency.
Jackson was a disaster.
George Washington wasn't half bad.

[mmonk]

43. Rove dupes

:boring:

[Larkspur]

44. Finally, a reporter who sees Clark the way I do

I was wondering if I was one of the few who saw Clark as a doppleganger.

Clark definitely has the aura of a product from the military-industrial complex. No wonder I can't get enthusiastic about this guy.

As far as the critiquing of Clark Meetup hosts and attendees, Dean supporters went through similar startup gaffes and miscues because many of us never ran a public meeting before and were learning on the fly. Also, Dean's campaign wasn't as robust pre-2nd QTR as it is now. This section of this article about Clark Meetups was not necessary, unless Clark attended a Meetup and the reporter was covering it.

I don't base my decision on candidates on their followers. I base it upon the candidate himself or herself, and Clark never had me because I found it arrogant that I was being told that I should support a 4 star general for president, who never had any civilian political campaign or elected office experience, just because he would look better on foreign policy than Dean. He forever lost any hope of getting my vote when he said in the last debate that he'd support shipping my software engineering job to India. And this article confirms the warnings of my female intuition on Clark, when it quoted Clark as saying he was a product of the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. Clark, in his own words, defined why I won't ever support him. Clark is a Repuke doppleganger.

[maha]

49. This is some of the sloppiest journalism

I have seen outside weekly advertising supplements in a long time. What makes you think any quotation in this article is accurate,or if accurate not taken out of context?

Clark has spoken out against the war profiteering and cronyism infesting the Bush administration, which is what Eisenhower warned about regarding the military-industrial complex. Clark is on record as being against the military-industrial complex, in other words.

He has also said that he's been inside the military-industrial complex, knows how it works, and knows how to take it apart.

[dobak]

46. Unsubscribe....

Here is my letter


Hello again,

I just sent an email a few minutes ago regarding Matt
Taibbi's article, "Clark's True Colors." After sending the
email, I thought that I may have rushed to judgement. I
hold your magazine in high regard and didn't really think
that you would run an obvious hatchet job on someone
who is intent on removing Bush from office. So I read the
article again.

I have decided that I was wrong the first time. Instead of
sending an email saying that I thought the article was not
up to your standards, I should have sent you notice to
cancel my subscription.

Hope I am not the only one.

Thanks,

[Myra]

47. I have a real problem with this column 'cause of all the cheap shots.

And not because I'm trying to filter out legit
criticisms of Clark.

I think it's a terrible column precisely because it has pages
and pages of smears that are inherently impossible to refute.
*Then* in the last page it brings up some (IMO) huge legit
concerns about wars that really should have been on page 1.

It's so over the top and heavy handed it's like it was designed to
program Clark supporters to ignore attacks.

First pages of smears:

-"His eyes are blank."

Puhleeze.
He goes on to gush about "the elaborate sense of humor
just under the surface of Joe Lieberman."
Yeah, that Lieberman's a funny guy.
I just about die laughing every time he claims to be a Democrat.

"(He) gave a short address that was laden with military metaphors."

Um, he did spend 34 years in the military, and is addressing
people while the US in mired in multiple "wars":
against Afghanistan, against Iraq, against "terra-ism."
I wonder if Dean would get attacked for using medical metaphors.

-"His favorite dessert (is) a napoleon."

Great googely moogly; Clark likes dictatorial desserts!
Plutocratic pastry, tyrannical totalitarian treats,
supremacist sweets!
I better find out what dessert Kucinich likes best...
Ooo nooooooooo, twinkys!

They're the kind of tactics the right wing used against
Anita Hill about a decade ago:

Senator Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, had said he was
"getting stuff over the transom" suggesting the committee should
"watch out for this woman."

David Brock, a writer for the American Spectator magazine,
published a book entitled "The Real Anita Hill," wherein he
called Hill "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty."

Again, The Nation writer spews pages of non-specific
crud so it can't be refuted. I guess he got it over the transom.
Then he attacks Clarks volunteers for being open minded
about his fake "porn" business, for displaying the qualities of
compassion and sympathy, and for expressing appreciation for his
time. This is one of the cheapest lines I've ever seen
a "journalist"(?) write:

"But the chief crowd ritual in the Clark campaign is that of a
group of hushed, groveling supplicants staring dewy-eyed at
their savior Caesar."

MEOW.


Still, the worst part is that this "journalist"(?) waits until
the last page to bring up the Vietnam war and draw parallels
with the Iraq war:

Clark>"The legacy of Vietnam," he said, "will be put to rest by the legacy of Iraq."

"A few reporters asked Clark to explain himself, but the general basically just repeated the statement before leaving the podium. As it turned out, only one journalist wrote it up in the post-mortems. Afterward, I went up to Clark spokesman Bill Buck and found out what he meant.

"What he means," Buck said, "is that the legacy of Vietnam was that it was a war that we went into without a clear strategy for a successful conclusion."

"Really?" I said. "Because I thought the legacy of Vietnam was that we senselessly murdered 2 million people in an illegal, criminal colonial invasion."


OK.
Finally; I think that's some valid stuff.

Looking back over Clark's comments on CNN *months before*
the Iraq invasion, I don't see good evidence (like quotes) that
he was consistently strongly against attacking Iraq for no reason.
So he seems vulnerable on that, and if he's vulnerable on
that it's a pretty big deal.

But I wonder how many people made it thru the trashy
first four pages (webwise) to see the important questions.

(Er, it might also make The Nation seem a little more
journalistic and impartial if they didn't have the column
"Why I'm for Dean" right below the Clark slashing.)

[burythehatchet]

50. I hope this is the last time this article gets discussed here - it really

sucks

[mzmolly]

51. I'm a Dean supporter but Clark has grown on me. I saw tears in those

black eyes in a recent interview where he showed pics of children damaged by war. I think he's sincere. I have a hard time with the fact that he's a former General and I don't think he'll be our nominee, but I can't imagine him not holding a cabinet position in a Democratic administration.

Sorry, I haven't read the article, but I will check it out later.

[eek]

52. feh! FWIW, when I met him i actually did look at his eyes

I looked closely at his eyes whilst attending a very small Q&A.
Funnily enough I was unsure whether he was the real deal or a pod-person. Those unblinkers were tough to read when I'd seen him on TV .

At this event I was able to ask a question and I got a decent ,impromptu reply . The Gen made eye contact the entire time; didn't blink much.

Afterwards I went over to meet him. He looked me right in the eye as we talked (maybe for a minute) while doing a double-handed handshake.

I am happy to report that this guy seemed quite genuine and warm from up close.

I think his intensity of gaze and darkness of eye are misleading on TV.

Really, they remind me more of animal eyes .

He sold me that day.