Re: William Safire: Why have the Clintons anointed Wesley Clark?
For the sake of Democrat solidarity, which is sorely needed today, I think the Clintons are going to have to
answer to this one.
Snippy Safire is making some nasty accusations.
The question is: Are they true?
He HAS to ask these questions, in my opinion.
They're hanging in the air just waiting to be plucked and printed.
You decide. I can't tell you what to believe...I don't know myself.
I'll tell you one thing, though. For the many Howard Dean supporters, it puts the Clintons in a very dismal light.
The Clintons had best speak clearly in response to these allegations...and soon.
By the way, I give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt here.
Safire is almost a complete ass....one example-the obvious bias he has against Dean already:
"As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar."
***UPDATE! THE CLINTONS HAVE SPOKEN!*****
Washington Post: Sen. Clinton Denies Backing Clark
".....Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) yesterday dismissed reports that she and her husband are the agents behind retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark's presidential candidacy, reiterated that she will not run in 2004 and pledged to work for the eventual Democratic nominee, saying the reelection of President Bush would be "an overwhelming setback for this country...."
"....Referring to an account by New York Times columnist William Safire that had sketched out such a scenario, she said, "That's an absurd feat of imagination."