I realise that Kleiman quoted Suellentrop in full. Suellentrop's reply to many criticisms is

"I was obviously too oblique, given the number of readers in the Fray (and my inbox) that have objected to this piece. My point was simply that Wesley Clark's statements aren't being treated like Howard Dean's statements.

Perhaps it's because Dean is the front-runner and therefore his statements are receiving a higher degree of scrutiny. (That's my guess, by the way.) Or perhaps it's because Clark's supporters are right, and the fact that he was a general inoculates him somewhat from this kind of criticism.

Is Clark really the "electable Dean," or does he just seem that way because he's being judged by a different standard for now? "

This does not respond to the criticisms. Blatantly false paraphrases are not "closer scrutiny". The degree of close scrutiny required to fix what Clark did and did not say is evidently too much for Suellentrop.

The introduction to the original article clearly
states that it is an article about Clark's loose lips not how Clark's statements could be distorted (which is what it is). Suellentrop wrote "But Clark has the same propensity for speaking imprecisely off the cuff." note the claim that Clark spoke imprecisely NOT that some irresponsible journalist might paraphrase imprecisely.

If Suellentrop's post to "The Fray" is seriously considered and not imprecise or off the cuff, then I stand by my view that he is a disgrace to journalism. The post does not concede that he misconstrued Clark's statements. It certainly does not state that his article was meant as a parody of bad journalism. This is the only way that the article can be defended as is shown by the fact that people who are clearly trying to be nice to Suellentrop can only defend him by charitably interpreting his much different defence as equivalent to saying "I wrote an aweful article on purpose as a parody."