Four-star General Wesley Clark announced his presidential intentions today, which can only mean one thing:
The Republican Smear Machine is about to cranked up to “eleven.”
It’s going to be a challenge: Clark is smart, articulate, funny, brave, and well-liked. His ability to make George Bush look like craven weasel might be second only to… well, Bush himself. So it’s imperative for the right to smack Clark early and often. But how? And when?
That’s where you come in, dear readers. Just put your answers to the questions below in the Comments box and win a Valuable Prize!
1) Who will be the first major blogger to launch a broadside attack on Clark?
It all starts in the blogosphere nowadays. Hordes of unpaid conservative cyberflunkies are combing the internet as we speak, looking for evidence to support some spurious thesis about Clark’s rottenness. Who will get there first?
2) When the Republicans finally come to an agreement about what Clark’s Big Problem is, what will it be?
It looks like the tar-and-feathers squad has tentatively settled on how to trash the other front-runners: Dean is mean, and he’s too liberal, and he’s a compulsive liar (hey, that stuff worked on Gore!). Kerry is wooden, boring, and machine-like (ibid). And Gephardt is wholly owned by old school politics and the unions (ibid, dammit, ibid!). So what’s wrong with Wesley?
3) What will be the big, nasty, unprovable rumor about Clark that appears out of nowhere, get incontrovertibly refuted immediately, and yet somehow linger around the fringes right up until election day?
You can’t run a modern campaign without one of these. There are a lot of people out there who lack the intellectual gifts to appreciate a nuanced message like, “He’s a liar!” or “He’s a big stupid-head!” For these folks, the opposition is always ready to supply a patently ridiculous and lurid rumor to chew on. So what’ll Clark’s be? Did he kill a man? Or two? Is he secretly gay? Did he sell secrets to the Chinese? How about trafficking in white slaves? Take your best guess.
As I said, simply submit your answers in the Comments below. The person with the most correct calls wins. In the event of a tie, I’ll perform a random drawing among the finalists. Stay tuned to find out what the Valuable Prize will be, but I can assure you of this - it’ll be big, it’ll be valuable, and it may just help you defend yourself when secret vampire Wesley Clark appears at your window, ready to once again drink the blood of the living.





36 comments
Educated Comedian
September 16, 2003 at 4:44 pm
11. Clark is a chicken. He pulled political strings to avoid being stationed in Iraq, using such devious tactics as leaving the army…
2. No questions asked, it’ll be on FARK.com first. Eventually, the discussion will deteriorate (or evolve?) into an flamewar on the quality of this week’s Stongbad e-mail.
3. To relieve stress, Clark kills and eats hobos. Also, this week’s Strongbad wasn’t funny.
Steve
September 16, 2003 at 5:20 pm
2In a surprise turn of events, a despairing Tom Tomorrow will sarcastically ask “what will they begin to claim about Clark next? That he eats babies????” and Ann Coulter will be inspired to immediately begin to bemoan liberals support for known baby-eater Clark, and point out that he is unelectable since with a short mustache and darker hair Clark would somewhat resemble Hitler if you squint while drunk. From there, it will spread to Fox news and on from there.
Sunnie
September 16, 2003 at 5:45 pm
3Well, they can’t call him an alien pet-eater, at the very least… the Canadians beat us to that one.
Ed
September 16, 2003 at 5:45 pm
4He can’t be president his name souds too black!!
julia
September 16, 2003 at 6:03 pm
5Alex, I’ll take foggily-sourced war crimes for $300.
Dee
September 16, 2003 at 6:07 pm
61) This is the only blog I read so I plead ignorance. (and to being guilty of sucking up bigtime)
2) He’s a Bill/Hillary stand-in.
3) He had:
a) a Serbian mistress
b) a Bosnian mistress
c) a Croatian mistress
d) all of the above
tim
September 16, 2003 at 6:08 pm
71. Andy Sullivan.
2. It’s gotta be that despite his war record and flawless character, he’s really just another Bill Clinton, whatever that means.
3. Some kind of Kosovo war atrocity that he supposedly covered up or knew about or something. Or a failed land deal. Ken, you still there?
meg
September 16, 2003 at 6:22 pm
81 - Andy Sullivan
2 - lacks experience and is contaminated by too much time spent in foreign adventurism; real fatigues lack the panache of flight suit costume.
3 - has too many mistresses, a bad temper, and drinks like a fish, without the tempering of Christian repentence.
Wes
September 16, 2003 at 6:49 pm
91 - Kaus (gotta cover all bases here.)
2 - That he’s never held a REAL job, that he’s a sissified northerner and that he hates America (why work from reality when fiction is so much more fun?)
3 - That he went AWOL.
Anonymous
September 16, 2003 at 7:10 pm
10He reads books, without pictures.
“Egghead’ however, is a hard piece of mud to fling against a general. Who was actually awarded medals for bravery.
But hey! Who cares about real bravery? If you’re a candidate who be brave in a movie, (see; California dreams) or in a TV Op, (see Action Figure in costume) who the hell cares?
Not us. That’s for sure.
Steve G.
September 16, 2003 at 7:26 pm
11Adam, the extreme right needs only look to the extreme left:
The following claims come from a 2003 Antiwar.com article subtitled, “The Guy Who Almost Started World War III”:
Col. George Jatras: “I went to [a book promotion by Wesley Clark at Borders Books] very much opposed to everything Clark stood for, but it wasn’t until I heard him speak and answer questions that I realized how dangerous a man like this is.” Interestingly, George Jatras shares his last name with this article’s author, Stella Jatras. It’s a coincidence, I’m sure.
The Guardian, 8/3/99, “The guy who almost started World War III”: “No sooner are we told by Britain’s top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West’s war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO’s supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War.
” ‘I’m not going to start the third world war for you,’ General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo’s provincial capital. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, ‘Kosovo clash of allied generals,’ that ‘General Sir Michael Jackson [was] told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato’s forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999.’ ”
The conclusion is that the only reason we haven’t had a nuclear World War III is because a British officer disobeyed Clark.
Clark sides with Albania over Kosovo. More pointedly, “Clark is the Albanian lobby’s fair-haired boy. And why not? He delivered Kosovo to them,” says this article’s author.
Clark only received a Kosovo Campaign Medal after an unknown higher-up granted a waiver.
Author: The only reason no soldier was killed under Clark’s command is because “the Serbs did not want Americans to die at their hands.”
Col. David Hackworth: “Known by those who’ve served with him as the Ultimate Perfumed Prince, [Clark] is far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die.”
Col. Jatras: “General Clark is the kind of general we saw too often during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our nation. That it happened once again we can thank that other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas.”
—
The following annonymous quotes are from a 1999 CounterPunch article subtitled, “A Vain, Pompous, Brown-noser”:
Anonymous Pentagon official: Clark is “a horse’s ass.”
Anonymous colonel: Clark is “the poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO [general officer] corps.”
Same anonymous colonel: Clark’s division was “easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff.”
Anonymous major: Clark “regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career.”
Anonymous observer: Clark had a “massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded (canteen) checkout lines didn’t jump out of the way fast enough to let him through.”
Clark only received his third star because of interference from higher-ups. In actuality, he is inept.
Clark displayed his arrongance and pomposity at Senate hearings, where his entourage adjusted lights, polished his chair, tested his microphone, and did other disgraceful things. Said one anonymous Senate aide: “We are state of the art pomposity and arrogance up here, so when a witness displays those traits so egregiously that even the senators notice, you know we’re in trouble.”
NATO subordinates called him “the Supreme Being” rather than “Supreme Commander.”
Second anonymous observer: “Clark is smart, but his whole life has been spent manipulating appearances in the interests of his career.”
aaron
September 16, 2003 at 7:39 pm
121) Me. Just this afternoon (although I e-mailed the post to myself, and just published it now, conveinently giving it a time of oh…five minutes ago. (Of course, calling myself a “major” blogger is like referring to myself as a “former baseball player” which technically I am, but not since tenth grade.)
2) I’m guessing they’re going to go for the “trust” thing, since he’s got zero name recognition.
3) He’s gay.
John Isbell
September 16, 2003 at 9:35 pm
13“1) Who will be the first major blogger to launch a broadside attack on Clark?”
Well, The Daily Kos is pretty major, he gets 15,000 hits a day. He also works for Dean. I’d then place money on the other Dean blogs: Steve Gilliard has a new post up, for instance. It’s a little discombobulating, since Dean fans were wanting Clark for their VP last week. You have to be quick these days!
Murray
September 16, 2003 at 9:49 pm
141. My guess is Mutt Dredge
2. You know of course that Clark was arrested several time for drunken driving,.. oops that was Bush, Well, when he was in the service he went AWOL.. DAMN that was Bush again, no here we go, he owned an Oil company, drove it into the ground and as it went under he sold out all of his stocks while the other inverstors who had funded the business lost all of their money,..DOH!
3. Wesley Clark killed Vince Foster.
he sold his burial spot in Arlington National Cemetery, and he fired the white house Travel Staff.
If there is one thing that Republicans can do it’s fight dirty. But of course; they’re shamless.
Benedict Monk
September 16, 2003 at 9:59 pm
15He’s soft on terriers.
Eva
September 16, 2003 at 10:30 pm
16He got arrested for drunk driving?
He did A LOT of coke in his younger years?
He got out of serving in Vietnam?
He lied about why we needed to invade Iraq?
He made millions on “inside information” while serving on a Board of Directors only because his dad was in the White House?
He likes REALLY long vacations- i.e. the entire month of August 2001?
He called Ariel Sharon a “man of peace”?
Wow good thing Clark never did these things- I mean no American in their right mind would vote for someone like that!
(I am imaging Carl Rove in a total tizzy…….)
Cheryl
September 16, 2003 at 11:47 pm
17I’m sure the worst the “wrong Right” can do is to tie Clark together with Clinton/Gore/et. al. with all of the nasty inuendo they can imply. Why make up new lies when you can simply re-use all the tried and true ones?
Claudius
September 17, 2003 at 12:06 am
18That he’s another Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas (but without a bimbo problem) will drive them into incoherent paroxysms of rage.
George Will is already trying the “liar” tactic (on Clark’s post-9/11 call about Iraq).
Steve G. is correct about the right looking to the left for smears.
Look for David Brooks in the Times to fault that he went to military school instead of prep school.
Look for William Safire to fault him as a betrayer to Judaism.
Look for Dick Morris to say he warned Clinton that Clark was responsible for ignoring terrorism in 1996.
Look for a lot of “armchair general” crap.
Charles Sommers
September 17, 2003 at 7:23 am
19As head of NATO he actually lived in
“Old Europe”…and cooperated with the
French!!!
He has obviously been corrupted.
aimai
September 17, 2003 at 8:27 am
20Me! Me! I heard one last night on NPR (the 7:00 show whose name escapes me but that I usually really like). I heard some guy assert that he had “heard from lots of army folks” that Clark was “really elitist” and “snobby” and “cold” (or words to that effect). The wonderful host of the show, a little taken aback, said only “gee, we just talked to him on the phone as he was running up the steps to his house and he seemed kind of, you know, humble and nice…” I”m sure this isn’t the best they can come up with, but it seemed weak even for “off the cuff.”–aimai
Beth
September 17, 2003 at 9:38 am
211. He’s a coward who shirked military service. (We have evidence that for an entire week while his brothers-in-arms were fighting their for country in Vietnam, Clark was in Thailand engaging in God knows what kind of sexual depravity. Clark supporters will argue that he was on leave at the time, but their pathetic attempts at spin don’t change the essential facts.)
2. He has a history of willfully destroying US govt. property. (His army uniform was severely damaged due to Clark’s failure to dodge enemy bullets. Contrast this with GW Bush who returned his own wartime uniform in the same pristine condition in which he received it.)
3. He was personally responsible for America’s defeat in Vietnam. (The fact that we’re not presenting hard evidence to support this claim, doesn’t mean no such evidence exists.)
And let’s not forget the obvious: he’s an arrogant*, elitist**, pretty boy*** whose extreme partisanship**** threatens to undermine everything this country stands for*****.
* successful
** smart
*** handsome
**** criticism of Bush
***** could result in a Democratic victory
Chicory
September 17, 2003 at 12:24 pm
22Wow, everyone has done so well. Here are my lame quesses:
1) I’m going with Bill Reilly as I consider him a “big fat liar*” and fox(nowedontreportthe)news a blog.
2) Inability to to govern due to lack of experience. Hey, the army isn’t that same as Washington, you know. (No, that is NOT a problem for Arnold.)
3) He was totally inept as a general due to: he’s arrogant, an elitist, and a pretty boy whose extreme partisanship threatens to undermine everything this country stands for. (Beth was right on with this one)
* from Al Franken
Tom from Tacoma
September 17, 2003 at 1:02 pm
23It has already started (last night on MSNBC).
1. Keith Oberman, one of the Raving Heads compared him to the porno star (Mary Cary ?) who is running for Governor of California.
2. The so called Liberal Media is pulling out all stops to blame this on the Clintons (they want him to run and lose to pave the way for Hillary in 2008).
3. And of course the flaps with the Brits and the other “anonymous” contacts in the Pentagon.
I have a Golden Retriever. I’ll vote for before I vote for Shrub. However, I’ll gladly donate money to Gen Clark’s campaign.
carla
September 17, 2003 at 1:29 pm
24Game’s over–it’s already started. TBOGG has excerpts from “frontpagemag,” and all of your guesses, while nice, are wrong. For one thing, you’re forgetting the overwhelming force of the Clenis! In the piece, Clark’s family is likened to Billary repeatedly, and, btw, his biological father was Jewish. And he was responsible for lending arms to the feds at Waco.
Amazing. It’d be funny if it weren’t so scary and sad.
Ken, Just Ken...
September 17, 2003 at 2:23 pm
251) Fanatacal Apathy: noted blogger Adam Felber (or something like that) asked his readers to dig up dirt on this upstart Wesley Clark for him… very tricky.
2)The Guy’s soft on international Iraqi terrorists and their WMD What more do you need?
3) Gay (But he’s a career soldier who…), nope Gay Gay Gay.
Mr_Grant
September 17, 2003 at 5:12 pm
261. Does Linda Tripp have a blog?
2. “Think about it: William Clinton… Wesley Clark– the initials are the same!!! Clinton… from Arkansas. Clark… FROM ARKANSAS! Clinton and Clark: both great military lea- oh damn.”
3. Not smart enough to get out of active military duty.
Steve G.
September 17, 2003 at 5:13 pm
27Drudge: Clark fundraised for Republicans in 2001. Clearly an attempt by right-wingers (consider the source) to get left-wingers (consider the effect) to distrust Clark.
Matt Sandwich
September 17, 2003 at 5:45 pm
28Sadly, it looks as though the BBC is giving Republicans a head start by suggesting that Clark came dangerously close to starting World War III.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm
I can’t help but think that they’re overstating the danger a bit. But it sure makes the British general sound like a prince of a man.
Chicory
September 18, 2003 at 2:07 pm
29So is their Prime Minister.
John Isbell
September 18, 2003 at 5:42 pm
30Well, I don’t know if Tony’s a prince, but he’ll be a lord before he’s through. One thing I like about Labour Lords is they often take names from really working-class places: “Lord Tony of Wolverhampton!” It’s kind of one in the eye for the whole business.
One of the UK’s leading radical politicians, Tony Benn, was something like Viscount Anthony Wedgwood-Benn, but he didn’t like that much.
Judy
September 19, 2003 at 2:01 pm
31If you want to support the real thing for President, help DRAFT GORE.
Go to:
www.draftgore.com
www.meetup.com
www.moveon.org
or any other draftgore site to work to bring him in, and/or to contribute.
p mac
September 19, 2003 at 6:32 pm
32There’s no way on earth that the Russians would have started WWW III over Pristina Air Field. It’s preposterous!
Of course, the answer is already out there.
It’s that Clark is too fond of large international bureaucracies, like NATO and the UN.
He wanted to establish a formal political effort to go along with the military effort in Afghanistan, to set up an “international terrorist court.”
This is, of course, dangerously wrong thinking, since it would mean that the perfidious French would have a veto on terrorism convictions, and would let them walk with a slap on the wrist.
Laura in DC (originally from outside Philly)
September 19, 2003 at 7:23 pm
33Are you a Clark person? If not, which Democrat do you like the best?
Dudley Irish
September 19, 2003 at 11:06 pm
34Well, I was too late for 1 and 2, but I have 3 nailed. It is so obvious. The answer is …
He supports gays in the military.
Think about it. He can’t deny it with out upsetting lots of demos and lie or not it will really get the worst element out fighting agaist him.
dang
September 23, 2003 at 6:54 pm
35Now it looks like several GOP operatives (Weekly Standard, Andrew Sullivan, the governor of CO, and Fox TV) are going after Clark’s “credibility” by saying he wanted to be in the Bush White House, but a check of the White house phone records reveals he never called. This is ridiculous.
See Josh Micah Marshall’s website:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html
adam
September 25, 2003 at 12:35 am
36Laura -
I guess I’d describe myselfg as a candidate who would probably endorse Clark if my campaign faltered. But I’m not conceding yet.