I was enjoying the battle between Will Beback and assorted other editors at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. Since Clark, who approached LaRouche at the time of his trial and asked to be his attorney, maintains that LaRouche was the target of a political prosecution, Will is obliged to argue that Clark has "a poor grasp of the federal justice system, or at least of the right standards for justice and legal activity." A reference to Clark's obviously non-notable opinion was removed from the lead in this stealth edit by SlimVirgin on March 23. Will is defending this action on the grounds that the reference was added by my purported legions of socks four years ago, and was only recently noticed by Slim 'n' Will. That, and the fact that Clark has a poor grasp of the federal justice system.

All this is by way of introduction. I admire Clark, without necessarily agreeing with him, because he seeks out political trials with no ideological filter -- he has defended left-wingers, right-wingers, you name it. In my view, this is admirable, but generally, it means he pisses off people of all persuasions. So, let's take a look at his BLP.


That's the lead. No mention of the fact that he authored the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1968 (although that is mentioned in the article.) He's notable for defending Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein, two cases that were cherry-picked out of dozens in order to make him look bad. This is typical Wikipedia crap.

It is simply an example of popculture recentism, driven by what comes up in the first few articles on Google.

Actually, a look at the article history reveals continual POV warfare, and the lead has been growing steadily less favorable over the past 5-6 years.

Damn, this is one of the most blatant defamation attempts I've ever seen on WP.

Normally, Clark would be regarded as a hero by the left-leaning/libertarian WP crowd.

Who is Prezbo (T-C-L-K-R-D) , I wonder? He did this.
Discarded sock of a POV pusher in the Israel area, I'm thinking.

When you're right, you're right. This does look like some more of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" or rather "lawyer of my enemy is my enemy" kind of mentality.