PS.   Be very, very careful when you read any or these quick fixes on Clark -- that he's "really" a Republican or "pro-war" (Dean people were distributing fliers proclaiming both of these untruths in New Hampshire, and I must admit that their candidate, whom I'd previously respected, lost all credibility in my eyes -- here he was complaining about "unfair attacks" and telling lies himself, or authorizing them, about the one candidate who hadn't been attacking him at all. Was he that desperate? Obviously yes...)
    You have to be especially careful of journalistic distortions in Clark's case. First, because he's a highly intelligent man who doesn't see things in black and white. So his lengthy testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2002 can be "cherry picked" for statements that taken violently out of context and strung together "with malice aforethought" (as CJR puts it)
give an opposite meaning to what he was in fact telling them -- that we DIDN'T need to wage war.
    But why the "malice"? Well, that comes to the second reason for caution, which I covered in my previous posting: that the hard core right really is scared of the Dems nominating Clark. They really are ABC (anybody but Clark) to the point of asking their supporters to donate money to competing Dem campaigns. (I know this sounds like gossip, but I posted the link on my last message -- it's for real). And if they're willing to give MONEY, for sure, they're up for twisting a few words.