Horrible New York Times Book Review on Clark's Book

Disclaimer: I'm a Dean supporter.

This morning in the college dining hall, I picked up the Sunday Edition of the New York Times, flipped to the Book Review section, and read the review of Clark's book.

I was shocked at how horribly biased this article was and the picture of Clark made me gasp. His eyes in the photo seemed to have that red glare to them and his hands were up like a surfer's hands were up.

If there's any Clark supporters, I'd suggest that you write letters admonishing the reporter's obvious bias and horrible choice of a photo. I'm disappointed in this reporter's review of Clark's book, and the choice of the photo.

Did anyone see this in the Book Review today?

the article wasn't on the merits of the book. it was a combination of nasty sniping and bitching that it didn't include enough pro-bush sentences.

it's a very good book.

incidentally--and I'm not being sarcastic--do you know when Dean's book is coming out? i heard he had one in the works.

You can pre-order on Amazon :)

As soon as I have money, I'm going to pre-order Dean's book. I did the same thing with Clinton's book in D.C., and stood in line forever to get it signed. I had a really good conversation with Hillary----told her she should've gone to Smith instead of Wellesley in a joking tone. She laughed and said that everyone makes mistakes in their youth. She's a good Senator, but I think she has too much baggage to be President. :-(

And the picture of him in the review was atrocious....

I have a bad feeling about 04....

I agree with you. Any Dem nominee is going to be demonized by the Republicans, and there's going to be so much mud-slinging. I hear that Krugman says that this upcoming election is going to be the nastiest election ever. :-/

:dem:

This happens every time around.

NT

Bush could probably use that in a campaign ad!
:eyes:

99 44/100% of that piece of shit is nothing but endless Nazi whoring propaganda.

Krugman is the only person who tells the truth in that rancid rag, and it's only a matter of time before Brooks fires him...

No comics in there! Damn New York Times....

Every 2nd editorial I read in the National Post whines that the NYT is too stody and liebrul....lol

Must be good to garner that sort of personal swiping. He musta mentioned the whore press and how cheaply their affections were bought or something....

Now on my Must Read list.

Julie

Detail, please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/books/review/26FRANKET.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5062&en=bc7ddecc212e4e39&ex=1067745600

It's a lazy, weird review. A ton of short phrases from the book are interspersed in Frankel's commentary, giving the effect of finger-quoting Clark's ideas, so as to mark them as unserious.

And he wants you to know that Clark is a bitter man. He uses that characterization 3 times in the short article.

Frankel's an ass.

The finger-pointing thing is extremely annoying. It just reveals the reviewers unwillingness (or laziness) to draw any conclusions.

This article certainly is critical of Clark, but at the same time it doesn’t provide much substance as to why he's such a terrible choice for president. The author also uses way too many emphasis quotations.


Here's an example:It is a breathtaking vision. Besides sidling out of Iraq, a President Clark would strengthen ''and use'' international institutions, ''repair'' trans-Atlantic relations, ''resolve'' the nuclear challenges of North Korea and Iran, help settle ''disputes'' between India and Pakistan and Israel and the Palestinians, and help to ''ease the ongoing conflicts'' in Africa.

I guess he's trying to be sarcastic(?)
:eyes::shrug:

Also note that two paragraphs before, he remarks that Clark's exit plan is effectively Bush's exit plan. Yet he can't resist characterizing it in your pullquote as "sidling" out of Iraq, unwittingly throwing a dig at his hero in his zeal to belittle Clark. What a tool.

Isn't that the rag that actually pays Friedman to write puff-pieces?

The Clinton Wars review was torn to pieces by MWO.