Right-wing hacks Andrew Sullivan and Dick Morris continue the "Goring" of Clark.
First, Sullivan clowns around in The New Republic, calling Clark "Ross Perot-crazy" and "loopy" and ends with this hatchet piece:
What we know about Wesley Clark from this brief extract is therefore quite damning: His logic about the differences between Iraq and Kosovo is illogic; his own position on both wars has been contradictory and confused; his fundamental argument is based on an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that even he admits he cannot prove. And this man wants to be president of the United States?
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan111103
Second, Dick Morris gets into the act in the New York post, cherry-picking recent polls and dishonestly comparing across polls to suggest that Clark's campaign has "faded" and "collapsed." Even worse, Morris regurgitates the same baseless smears repeated ad-nauseum by the Clark-haters in the press corps:
This is too steep a hill for Clark to climb with fading popularity, limited financial resources and no early primary victories for momentum.
Clark's slips, reversals, disavowals and denials have begun to catch up with him. The war? He first said that he would have voted for it, then flipped to say he would have voted no.
Political party? He's a Democrat, but he backed Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and didn't fully decide on his party until right before he entered the race. Bosnia? What was he doing posing with a Serbian war criminal swapping hats like old buddies? A face, a rank and a former uniform are not enough to make up a presidential candidate.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102794,00.html
These articles, like the New Yorker article published earlier this week -
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031117fa_fact
- manifest a level of dishonesty and hostility aimed at Clark that rivals the ruthless sliming of Gore in 2000. Similar to that campaign, the rabid Clark-haters now have their talking points and are repeating them ad nauseum.
We ignore this hatchet campaign against Clark at our peril. These smears will be repeated until they stick as the conventional wisdom that defines Clark in the minds of voters. We must not let these low, dishonest tacticts go unanswered.