Clark no quitter- The Ohioan: Clark A Hero To Some; To Others, Headstrong

[Patriot_Spear]

LITTLE ROCK

"More than 40 years ago, a high school swim team here showed up one man short for a state meet. Everyone assumed they would forfeit the relay race -- the organizers, the school, even the team, which was resigned to loser status. But the teenage captain had a different plan. Young Wes Clark announced that he would swim twice in the relay so the team could compete."


"I just couldn't believe it -- no one could. I was ready to forfeit," said Phillip McMath, a member of that team and today a Little Rock attorney. "But the guy just won't let himself lose, and he doesn't tolerate failure in others."

Wes Clark won the relay for Hall High School that day, demonstrating the traits that would define his life and his career: a supreme confidence in himself, an absolute disregard for conventional wisdom and a relentless force of will. Those gifts, and an undisputed brilliance, would carry him through a modest childhood shaped by profound loss, through West Point to the highest levels of the Army, and into the presidential race today -- his first foray into politics.

http://www.the-ohioan.com/weekly_articles/October23Monthly/s003_Oct.html

[Jerseycoa]

1. Boy, you are a busy little bee tonight nt

[SahaleArm]

2. Digging deep - How many of these will he/she post? n/t

[Patriot_Spear]

4. uuummm... what exactly do you not like about this article?

Just curious.

[SahaleArm]

10. Just your exemplary highlighting skills ;) n/t

[Patriot_Spear]

13. For myself, I count everyone of those traits as a positive.

You don't?

[SahaleArm]

14. Why not highlight the rest of the paragraph? n/t

[Patriot_Spear]

17. Because I liked that passage. n/t

[LandOLincoln]

25. Hadn't seen this one before.

Liked it--but I wish Wes would lighten up about the "early retirement" thingy. He can just say he won his war, had to butt some heads to do it, and got zapped for his pains by those same soreheads as soon as they could find an excuse. End of story.

[ibegurpard]

7. Seemed pretty complimentary to me.

:shrug:

[Patriot_Spear]

9. I thought so... so what does this mean?

What do you think- did they react to the article or the the person who posted it?

[SahaleArm]

11. Look up ;) n/t

[Tatiana]

3. I'm pretty sure I read this a couple of months ago.

Still impressive, though. :)

[robbedvoter]

5. Yeap. They're worried.

[Patriot_Spear]

6. If you don't mind, tell me what you don't like about this article?

I'm interested.

[ibegurpard]

8. Simple. It was posted by you.

Had it been posted by a Clark supporter we would be treated to a smorgasbord of fawning praise.

[SahaleArm]

12. The article wasn't posted as is - the poster was giving his/her...

subjective viewpoint through the use of bold text. It centers the discussion around that viewpoint.

[ibegurpard]

15. Again...what's the negative?

Even the stuff in bold could only be CONSTRUED as negative. To the contrary, I would think those traits could be seen as a positive in a forceful leader.

[SahaleArm]

16. And highlighting the next sentence would in fact bear that out...

But the poster decided that the context of that statement was unnecessary. Why?

[ibegurpard]

18. I could POSSIBLY see your point if that part had been left out entirely

but as it stands it just seems to me that you are possibly overreacting a little.

[SahaleArm]

19. If it wasn't a pattern I would agree.

Why bother bold facing at all? If that was the thrust of the poster's point then just insert that paragraph, undecorated, and a link to the article.

On Edit

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=11787

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=9147

[Patriot_Spear]

20. Context? It was highly complimentary- as was the whole article.

I don't understand your position.

[SahaleArm]

23. In Context? Yes - Out of Context? It paints opposite the image n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Have to keep it short tonight

Gotta get some sleep, haven't much later. Yes this is a much more nuanced artical about Clark. Please accept that I am not trying to "whine" about this article here. You specifically asked me to tell you what I don't like about it. I think it does cast a positive light on some of Clark's personal characteristics, such as his ability, his dedication, his passion etc. The thing is I think the writer carefully crafted a piece that was designed to be honestly fair and balenced (not in the Fox sense, but the real sense of that term)). My stress though is on the phrase "designed to be" rather than "meant to be". It's almost like the author had a tally sheet of positive and negative liness devoted, and struggled to make sure they came out relatively equal. The author said a lot of positive things about Clark on his way up from child hood to command, so then there was that need for balence.

Balence is a fine thing. I think the problem was that the number of actual words and lines devoted to potential negatives about Clark then needed to be concentrated towards the end of the article, because the front was dominated by the predominantly positive anacdotes. Please bear with me. It is not that I think it was invalid to give coverage to those latter view points. The problem was that critics there were given free reign to speak at some length about Clark and NATO etc, while the space alloted to rebuttles of thnegative hits on this high profile portion of Clark's life was truncated, done through short summaries noting some have a more favorable view, and much shorter positive quotes inserted to stand against the more extensive and specific critisism.

Essentially none of Clark's own talking points, the things he actually says when he explains what happened during the time he was with NATO etc, made their way into print for that article. None of his explanations, none of his major backers from that period were interviewed at any remotely comparable length as were his critics regarding those events. So yes, this piece does openly say some flattering things about Clark, but it leaves him mostly exposed and undefended around exactly the issues that are most important. I don't think it was meant as a hit piece by any means. It's just that there is an extensive and well documented other side to the story about Clark, Europe, and the Pentagon, which you just don't get to read it in that article. Unfortunately, it is the stirred up controversies from just that part of Clark's career that his most bitter opponents always attempt to use against him. The more I look into it, the more I am convinced that Clark is fully vindicated by history for his performance there and then, but none of the arguments suport that position are found in the article. That is a glaring and very unfortunate ommission.

[dfong63]

21. and to others, a war criminal

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patriot_Spear]

24. Please refer to Clark Supporters as 'Clark Supporters' n/t

[5thGenDemocrat]

27. Wait a minute -- I'm a Clark supporter

What, exactly, is wrong with "a supreme confidence in himself, an absolute disregard for conventional wisdom and a relentless force of will"? Sounds like my kind of guy.
I like "undisputed brilliance," too.
John
Thanks for posting this, PS

[Progressive420]

28. I also think

those are very flattering comments about the General.

[5thGenDemocrat]

29. P420

Welcome to DU.
John
I hope you enjoy your time here (as do we all).