Clark's True Colors

[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

[FrenchieCat]

1. Yes, I read that nasty article...and this is what I told them

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. Also do not forget to 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,

[leetrisck]

2. While attempting to make Clark look strange

the writer of this article is strange indeed - actually sounds extremely "something" - why not just say "I hate Clark"

[Deb]

3. From the same author -

"Six months ago, when I first started investigating the Democratic candidates for 2004, Dean seemed to me the only one whom I would trust not to steal my silverware. Now I'm not so sure--but that might not be Dean's fault."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&c=2&s=taibbi

[Jerseycoa]

4. He has his fun

He wrote a kindly article about Kucinich, but generally likes to make fools of candidates. The Dean piece is cheap and crummy, too.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Oh, and Matt Taibbi

is not just a disinterested observer who masquerated at a Clark meet-up in a neckbrace posing as a porn producer. Matt Taibbi an American journalist who lived for a while in Russia in 1999 where he basically published in the Russian equivalent of the National Inquirer. Looks like he wrote quite a few articles back for some Russian "Enquirer" magazine, and may have a ulterior motive against Clark?
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990509exilewalker.htm
His 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 reveals his bias. So the guy is kinda looney. A reporter who writes in the first person narrative and who mainly interviews himself is not my idea of a good read, considering that this was not an "article" but an subjective essay from an adjective driven asshole!
----------------------------------------
Now here's a 1st person narrative to read from a sane UCLA Political Philosophy Professor and prolific writer.....
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
November 26, 2003
How I became a Clark supporter
By By Andrew Sabl

My support for Clark has not come naturally. I'm a partisan and liberal Democrat, no great lover of old Clinton staffers and smug New Democrats. I'm prone to value experience in democratic politics over the hierarchical values of military service. And when I heard that Clark had voted for Reagan, praised Bush, spoken at a Lincoln Day dinner, and said that he'd have been a Republican had Karl Rove returned his calls (no, I don't believe that he was joking -- though he may have been trying for sarcasm), I judged him an amoral opportunist and borderline con artist. In angry e-mails to a pro-Clark friend, I called the general an "ambipartisan" and summarized the Lincoln Day revelation as "Game Over."

But I figured I owed the largely unknown candidate a chance. Being a professor, I decided to read his book, Winning Modern Wars. After finishing it, I figured out what Clark is about, and why his candidacy is both baffling and compelling.

Bottom line: Clark is a throwback, a Rip Van Winkle, a pluralistic, optimistic, Greatest Generation-style politician lost, like Howard the Duck, in a world he never made. He's further outside the mainstream political culture than can possibly be imagined. This is what makes him so striking, so hard to parse, and so clearly the best candidate.

Sabl teaches political philosophy in the Department of Policy Studies at UCLA.

[sfecap]

10. A Commie!

LOL!

[robbedvoter]

21. No, a Milosovic fan. Defend that!

Posting this trash was pretty despicable. Speaks volume for your candidate.
Glad that the Serbian atrocities amuse you. Anyway, the "commie" did a number on your guy too, so maybe he's not all that.

[dsc]

22. Do you really want to go there?

a simple search can find all kinds of utter garbage about Dean posted by Clark supporters. Do you really want me to do that? This is one Dean supporter and so far one Dean supporter called him on it. I don't recall you calling Clark supporters on the use of Drudge as a source to desecrate Charlie's memory. I don't recall you calling Clark supporters on posting lies from Murdock about Dean. You really, really, really don't want to go there.

[Jerseycoa]

24. Any proof?

Where do you get the idea Clark supporters used the Drudge Report to desecrate Charles Dean's memory? Or is it supposition? This is one Clark supporter who has no idea what you're talking about.

[dsc]

29. This thread

I do back my stuff up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=782767

I will grant this is a Kucinich supporter by avitar but this poster has also supported Clark in word. And I could come up with several other threads trashing Dean by two other supporters of Clark (I would name them but that is against the rules) one has since repented but the other hasn't.

[Kahuna]

39. In other words, you were wrong about it being a Clarkie.

right?

[dsc]

43. That thread yes

but there were two others one by that Frenchie for Clark.

[Jerseycoa]

30. Excuse me

I misread your post. I thought I read you say Clark supporters were the source for Drudge, not used Drudge as a source.

[dsc]

31. Oh then I misread yours too

I had assumed you wanted the thread. Great minds, or I guess in this case not so great readers, think alike.

[Kahuna]

38. What's with all the drama?

:shrug:

[dsc]

42. because I am sick to death

of being trashed by implication by Clark and Kerry supporters for what one or two Dean supporters do when they, unlike me, have made no effort whatsoever to get their own zealots to stop similar behavior. I am sick of the cheap shot garbage.

[AP]

27. robbed, I'm glad to see you calling out the media whores...

...but, why didn't you change that subject line in your post after you knew it wasn't true?

You don't want to be the pot who calls the kettle black, do you?

[Jerseycoa]

6. How come?

Is it usual to post two threads on the same topic this way?

Clark's True Colors Again



Just curious, I'm new here.

[FrenchieCat]

7. No,

It's just that anti-Clark people want to rub our nose in whatever criticism they can locate. No matter how nonsensical they are. No matter how obviously biased they are. They think that Clark supporters don't read the internet, or something!

Did you see the new Drudge report about Dean? I ain't posting it though...don't want to be known as a pure flamebait starter!

[Jerseycoa]

8. Kind of amusing

One thread for Clark supporters and a second for Clark bashers. What will they think of next?

[democratreformed]

11. Actually, I think these posts

have more to do with trying to prevent any further support from those who may still be undecided. Surely they know that true Clark supporters will not be swayed by drivel such as this. Or- maybe not -maybe they really want to make us look stupid.

[sfecap]

9. No...

Some don't read P and C, and it IS an editorial piece...

[dkf]

12. This is what I don't like about Clark

"Clark's new book, Winning Modern Wars, is 200 pages long, all about the Iraq war. Yet there is only one instance in the entire book in which he gives a physical description of the death of a human being, that being a mention of some Marines in Nasiriyah who were found with bullet holes in their heads. Everywhere else, human beings are described as "targets" or "objectives" or even "high-value targets," and their deaths are rendered with sports/ football metaphors ("going 'downtown' with air power," "Red Zone" attacks, "the Big Win," etc.) and bloodless euphemisms for words like "kill" or "assassination" ("destroy," "decapitating strike"). Moreover, he never mentions civilian casualties without qualifying his statements--the "alleged mistakes of the bombing campaign," the "hapless women and children reported to be victims of the bombing." "

Sounds like de-humanizing language if you ask me.

[Jerseycoa]

13. Did you happen to see?

The Clark interview with Dan Rather? When he is showing pictures of the victims of genocide? The man has more heart-felt humanity than any crowd of people. When he is speaking in a military sense it may not seem so, but, let's face it, Clark is a general. Battlefield metaphors in a book about war are not out of place. I know you don't like him, but you're reaching here and missing.

[robbedvoter]

20. Samantha Powers's book about genocide has Clark as a hero

for his efforts to intervene in Rwanda (which earned him the Sheltons and Cohens) and his deeds in Kosovo. This is not some demagogue - but a man who rapelled over a cliff to try to save people in 1995. Smear him at the cost of your own humanity.
This is how someone who worked with him feels:
cris.forclark.com/

[douginmarshall]

32. Wrong impression

Check out this article. When you want to know about someone talk to those he works with.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/112703clark_guy_2003.shtml

This is the real general.

[Padraig18]

14. I wouldn't wipe my arse with anything Tabibi wrote.

Nice smear of general Clark. :eyes:

[dusty64]

15. Silly and strange article.

How about the author's take on the chimp and some others on the other side of the aisle.

[AP]

16. You'd think the Nation woud be more interested in policy.

I was just reading a book about Wilson and the league of nations. This is from memory only. The Nation, I believe, was a very important progressive magazine during Wilson's administration, and the League of Nations was a very important liberal project. The RW'ers hated it because it was going to reduce conflict, and a lot of RW'ers (many of them arms merchants, or people who built things back up after they were destroyed by war, or people whose industries were more competitive when their European or overseas compeitors were in chaos).

If I rember, the Nation was on Wilson's side for a long time. Something happened though, with the plans. As a compromise Wilson had to give up on one small thing (was it the obligation to defend LofN members if they were attacked? which FDR ultimately gave up with the UN). The Nation was so mad about this, that they changed their editorial stance on the LofN, which delighted the RW. The twin attack from the fascists on the left and the nearsighted, liberal purists on the far left had a great deal to do with the failure of the League of Nations.

We might have avoided WWII if the League of Nations had succeeded.

By no means was The Nation's (and the far lefts) attack on the League of Nations the ONLY reason it failed (the RW was very organized, and had a LOT of money at stake, so they were motivated, and Wilson was a rigid, uncompromising person, who refused to allow Republicans have very much input in it at all, and without them having a stake or being able to act like it was their victory too, they had little interest in seeing Wilson have any success for himself or for his party).

Nonetheless, the far left, and publications like The Nation can be just as much tools of the right as tools of the left, and sometimes moreso.

If they think nominating a sure-loser, fiscal conservative with a bad message on race is the way towards liberal progress, have at it. Pull a McCain on Clark, and talk about his eyes, and the way his supporters act like it's important. And then lets see where we are in 2005.

[dsc]

23. I take it you didn't read the article

nor the article linked in a different post here. If you had bothered to do that you would know that this author supports Kucinich. Like always your utter blind hatred of Dean makes you twist facts in what would otherwise have been a good post.

[AP]

25. I was making a general comment about The Nation. Greider and what's her

name seem to be pro-Dean.

Right?

[dsc]

28. To my knowledge

no one other than Greider has actually endorsed Dean over there. As a whole they have written both good and bad about him. I doubt they will endorse him outright. They surely haven't now.

[dsc]

17. Wow what a mess

Here is a particularly vulgar part.

I suggested, sarcastically, that he play up the general's sex appeal. Yoken jumped on the theme, telling me a story about meeting Clark in Knoxville early in the Draft Clark period. "He showed me a picture of himself in a T-shirt," he said. "He's really a ripped guy; his arms were showing. He called that his 'drool shirt.' So I think there's something there."

He laughed and almost slapped my back for emphasis, but remembered my neck injury and held up just in time.

Shortly afterward, Rubin came over again. Thirty-five minutes later, he'd thought of something to say. "Hey, at least it wasn't an elephant," he cracked.

The meeting wore on. It was an amazing experience. Here, ostensibly, were two porn-industry professionals, dressed in identically preposterous cervical collars, attending an organizational meeting for a straitlaced four-star general--and no one so much as blinked.

This is not so surprising, however, because paying close attention is not really what the Clark campaign is about. In fact, it's very much about the opposite: squinting your eyes, blurring out the margins and focusing on the one main goal on the horizon--beating George Bush. In my time around the campaign I got the sense that this "blurring out" is central to the thinking of the Clark supporter--a desire to dispense with the moral nitpicking of the post-1960s era and get behind the man for the Big Win.

end of quote

I literally don't know what to say about this horrid, putrid mess. It is easily the worst thing I have seen in ages. You shouldn't have posted this drivel. We rightly complain when supporters of Clark post crapola telling tales pleasing to them and we shouldn't be posting crapola telling tales pleasing to us.

[robbedvoter]

18. My apology letter to the Nation

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 Kucjhinich 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!

[robbedvoter]

19. Just for fun, the letter I'm apologizing for:

Re:Clark's True Colors
 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=1&s=taibbi


Disappointed. I waited for the obvious lines: "heh, heh, heh = Bababouie" The date was all wrong too: you meant to publish that on April 1st.

Whenever I start appreciating anything in your publication, an election comes along and then you remind me the real reason you get funded: supress the vote by advancing the right wing friendly meme: "they are all the same".
The good news for this democracy: after what you did in 2000, no sane person in this country is likely to look for voting advice from you.

I hope you accepted the responsibility of doing your part in bringing about the present disaster: GWbush.
Whether you accepted it or not, it's on your heads. Publishing shophomoric trash like that is your attempt to earn him a second term - only now even youngsters are on to you these days.

Have fun on your way down the drain - I see Taibbi having a gloriuos career at Faux. He'll have to ditch Kuchinich of course, but he looks like someone who is more comfortable spewing venom anyway. And if he's lucky, he'll even get to date Ann Coulter!

Sneer all you want, people want a competent leader who is anti-war because knows intimately its horrors and who knows how to bring about a peace - having actually done it.

How does it feel to always be on the wrong side of history? You savaged Al Gore last election - did you hear his speech at Moveon.org? With Clark, you are just repeating your idiocy. Congratulations! You are consistent. Only this time, only Beavis and Butthead will follow you. On second thought, just Beavis.

[ebw]

26. eight hours later, i still remember the cows

granted, there should be more wit in an character assasination piece than one set of naturally inseminated cows, but it was moooooving.

[ludwigb]

33. In defense of The Nation

Taibbi doesn't make any claims to objectivity in this piece. He's just another guy who dislikes Clark. I happen to find him very funny and I also enjoyed his Nation piece on Dean. Check out Taibbi's latest (hysterical!) piece slamming a Joe Klein article--do you think Joe Klein is going to be up nights worrying about this?

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

Obviously, The Nation doesn't like Clark. Big deal. The Nation is in the buisness of progressive politics, not picking the best horse. They like Kucinich and Dean. Morever, Clark is not trying to cater to the editors of The Nation--he is going for the swing voters.

TNR (one of my favorite magazines) happens to dislike Dean, twisting his views and attacking him every chance they get. So what! I still find their commentary valuable. We are better off accepting differing viewpoints with a grain of salt.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Yea,

One man's viewpoint is another's man's trash....
You got that right.....
That's where that article belongs, IMO

[KittyWampus]

37. Clark Is Furthest Left Second Only To Kucinich

who is a long shot to say the least.

Dean is much further to the right and has quite a bit in his record from Vermont that most Progressives would abhor:

Energy Deregulation
Affirmative Action based on Class
Limiting patients rights to sue HMO's
Denying American Indian Tribal recognition

Dean was part of the Democratic Leadership and is NOT AN OUTSIDER no matter how much his supporters like to bandy about htat notion.

So one is left to wonder WHY the Nation likes Dean.

[dogman]

35. True colors

When I looked at Clark's eyes I saw clear focus on the objective. This man has been appropriately compared to a Panther ready to strike swiftly. Hardly a turtle.

[sandnsea]

36. Trees are gone for this?

What a total waste of space. I got to page 4 and quit. What's the point of this article? Clark really likes napoleons? A whole page devoted to pastry? They didn't get enough sympathy when wearing a neck brace? More gossip column politics with absolutely no point whatsoever.

[Kahuna]

40. Taibbi LIED about Clark's comment at UNH... I was there..

and recorded the entire speech with my camcorder. Last night I transcribed the reference to the MIC statement and sent this email to the editors at the Nation...

"Clark's True Colors" by Matt Taibbi, contains a blaring mistruth. I would appreciate an immediate correction or retraction. Mr. Taibbi claims that during a speech at UNH campus in Manchester, General Clark said (notice the use of quotation marks)

"I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH campus in Manchester. The general assumed--correctly--that the term no longer inspired revulsion in young audiences.

I attended that speech with my camcorder. Lordy, how reporters continue to lie with abandon. Knowing that everyday citizens are attending these events with camcorders in hand! It would be nice if reporters followed this practice so that they could be accurate in their reporting.

I just listened to the video. This is General Clark's exact quote:

"I wore a uniform for a long time,. I was part of that military industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned about. So, I know all about it and how it works. I'm going to tell you something. I'm going to support every dime we need to keep America strong. But I'm not going to tolerate billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency because someone stamps a label "secret" on it."

It's apparent that Mr. Taibbi intended to portray General Clark as a hypocrite and impugn his integrity. I am circulating this quote and a clip of the video on the internet so that everybody will know what the Nation’s and Mr. Taibba's agenda is. That being, "Smear Clark."

[ebw]

41. Recall Taibbi

Clark said something simple and profound at one of the debates, which I'd like to quote but I'm relying on memory. He contrasted people vs systems as the centers of DOD budget planning -- under Bush's watch, systems and their vendors gets the big buck, under his watch, less money would go into complex, expensive (fragile) hardware, and more money would go into pay and benefits.

He also said something profound about the PNAC agenda, possibly in the same debate, that the current policy will exhaust the capabilities of the non-draft military, something along the lines of your choice of wars determines your military requirements. Now that seems obvious when I write it, but to my ears these were previously unheard messages in the campaign.

In a nationally televised debate, Clark attacked systems-over-people military budgeting, and surgical techno-adventurism. I'm unable to believe that Taibbi didn't "improve" the text he was working off of.

Still, his best line was the one about the cows.

[Larkspur]

44. My female intuition was right about Clark!

He's not human!
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...
The emptiness in Clark's eyes always bothered me and I wondered if anyone else noticed it. Looks like I'm not alone in feeling this way.


And the clincher for supporting my female intuition --
"I'm a product of that military-industrial complex General Eisenhower warned you about," he said with a smile a few weeks ago, during a speech at the UNH campus in Manchester.

That explains the vapid grin on his face. Wonder how many batches of clones the MIC had to grow to get Clark or which alien snatched his body?

[CivilRightsNow]

45. NED

More to come on this, Ill try this forum and see if we can get any cognizant responses.

[douginmarshall]

46. Clark not Human?

You need to check out the writings of soldiers who served under Clark.

Check out http://cris.forclark.com/ and http://commoguy.forclark.com/

This is a real person who cares about the people who work for him.