Casting a part for dreams rather than for reality

In today's feedback column there are a number of letters critical of our coverage of Wesley Clark. They arrive just as your editor is finishing Gore Vidal's 'Washington,' a novel written in 1967.

One of the characters is a faux war hero who is elected senator despite the journalistic efforts of Peter Sanford, who at one point asks the senator being replaced: "Why do you think what I wrote about Clay had so little effect? It was the truth and it was devastating."

"Apparently not. In any case the public is impressed only by winners."

"But winners have become losers. They've even gone to jail."

"But to say that Clay was a false hero. . . "

"And I proved that he was. . . "

". . . only confuses people who have already accepted him as what they think he is, a genuine hero, the subject of an extraordinary amount of publicity. that's all that matters, the large first impression. You cannot change it, short of a public trial."

- snip -

Our job is to tell you, as best we can, what the hell is going on. Unfortunately, the facts about Clark simply do not fit the fantasy that has quickly developed around him. This is not a revelation for me. I have been following Clark ever since a high Clinton administration official told me during the Bosnian business what a problem the guy was to all around him. I would subsequently learn that one reason these people were around him was that Richard Holbrooke told them to be there, to reduce the chances of Clark saying something stupid to the press.

- snip -

Regardless of how you feel about their politics, Dean, Gephardt and Lieberman have consistent, seriously conceived policies, an integrity of philosophy and purpose, and a record of others having worked with them and thought well of the experience. Clark does not and those who ignore this are casting a part for dreams rather than for reality.

- SAM SMITH

Sam Smith is a writer, activist and social critic who has been at the forefront of new ideas and new politics for more than three decades.

More...

http://prorev.com/indexa.htm

I can understand how some might feel that the Democrats are lacking symbols of strength, but it is a mistake to adopt the Right's symbols because they sense that the Democrats are weak. The Democrats are weak because they didn't put up more of a fight to challenge Bush when it was obvious the 15 minutes of glory he reaped from 911 had gone to his feeble brain.

I'm afraid....it comes down to what people think comes closest to their ideals tied to what they think is electable by the American public.

Besides, I don't see a Presidential candidate as being the whole picture - the team he has around him has much to do with policy and philosophy.....

DemEx

Who defines what electible is--them?

the state of the union does......

by having fair elections we all define what electable is.

DemEx

I hereby contend that the overwhelming--almost to the point of ONLY--reason for Clark's support is "electability". It's simply a spurious argument; Junior's in trouble, and even pulling rabbits, Saddam and Osama out of his hat isn't going to solve it to the point that we need some "Wizard" to draw off swing and crossover voters. Many of those already running can whip him like a tasty malted milkshake. It just isn't reality anymore, and what's more: it's a display of group self-hatred to go so obviously against the grain and outside of our pool of professional politicians.

One can say all sorts of ugly things about the vocation of politician, but there remains an undeniable truth: it's a complex and specific discipline that has a long learning curve and intensely nuanced social element to it. Friendships and relationships can't be built in 9 days or even 14 months.

This is lunacy, and it will pass soon. He's entering at a high point, and will have a very short honeymoon--it might already be over--before he's just one of the bunch. Since the essence of his popularity is his popularity, the dimming of that is the dimming of him. Circular logic, you say? Yep. Think about it.

the packaging people are sold vs the reality?

I simply can not get over how some people on a Democratic board are supporting someone that has lived and voted repug ideologies for over two thirds of his life.

What next? A clark action figure doll?

"I'm not a loser! I'm not, I'm really not! Look, I gotta REAL military man, howya like that?"

Silly.

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Who knows? Perhaps history will show this as a huge sea-change where moderates, conservative dems (that's a hard one to type...) and other lily-livers and tough-guy worshippers got swamped by a wave of populism/liberalism gushing over the gunwale.

He may be the flavor of the moment and get ignored. What is his message? The others mostly have their cachets, but what about him? We'll see.

You silly boy! What would our action figure be w/o weapons and shiny medals? It also comes w/a bottle of Perfumed Prince, eau de testosterone!

Order now while supplies last. (About a month.)