WHY HASN'T WES CLARK EVER THOUGHT ABOUT RUNNING FOR SENATE? HE SOUNDS A HELLUVA LOT BETTER THAN ALMOST ANY OF 'EM

Last week, one of the strongest and most articulate calls for Joe Lieberman to respect the results of the Connecticut primary came from General Wes Clark. Clark had remained neutral during the primary contest, waiting to support the Democratic victor. Last week he firmly and respectfully called on Lieberman to call off his divisive, even destructive independent run, a run that serves no one but Bush and the Republicans.

Where Lieberman's Senate colleagues felt they had to keep up the charade that they like this treacherous ego-maniac-- Lieberman has long been one of the most detested and least trusted men on Capitol Hill-- Clark had no such constraints to keep him from exercising real leadership. Where Lieberman supporters like Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer were clear that Ned is now the Democratic candidate, their calls for Lieberman to do the right thing were... tepid... at best.

Yesterday Clark followed his strong letter to his supporters with a far more public call on Lieberman to give up his independent race-- an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. And, true to form, Clark doesn't mince any words:

Republican strategists could hardly be happier with the outcome of the Connecticut Democratic primary. And Democrats should be deeply concerned in the near term. But if I were a Republican, I'd recognize this as the beginning of the end. Forget about the neocons. This era is over.

Near term, for the Republicans, this is a triple-edged opportunity. First, the vote was close enough that, if Joe Lieberman follows through on his threat to run as an independent, there's a strong possibility of his winning, with a lot of Republican support, and thereby raising the bar even further for the Democrats' quest to regain control of the Senate this year.

Second, the fact that Mr. Lieberman lost the primary can also feed a national spin machine to talk about "feckless, antiwar Democrats," "not strong enough to protect America," and all the other noxious labels currently in play by the president's defenders. And the third bonus effect for Republicans is to play up the story about how the Dems are split, and lack the unity to win midterm elections, much less govern.

Clark goes on to state what in normal times would never have to be said, that "Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans, want a strong and secure America, and like every other American, want to trust the president and his team on national security issues." Of course these are hardly normal times. America seems at a crossroads between maintaining our electoral democracy and middle class meritocracy or turning towards an authoritarian state, along more theocratic and aristocratic lines, towards which the Republicans have been pushing. Bush's never-ending war in Iraq and his manipulation of terrorism play right into this.

But Clark claims that Lieberman's stunning loss in Connecticut last week shows that "judgment has been passed, especially on Iraq: The war was a mistake. Flawed intelligence, overly optimistic planning (or in some cases, none at all) and grandiose geostrategic designs, hyperinflated rhetoric about democracy, and perhaps raw political advantage. Whatever. The public hasn't quite sorted it out-- but they know a failure when they see one. And Iraq, as well as the larger Middle East policy, is such a failure... 'Stay the course' isn't a strategy. And the longer the bleeding goes on there, the harder the electorate will dig for answers-- and the tougher they'll be on those who got us in, and aided, abetted and apologized for them."

And despite the facile and erroneous assertions of the GOP and their propagandists in the mass media, misleading the public by dispargaging bloggers is not a real answer. "Longstanding relationships at home, a comfortable bank account, and the continuing blandishments of the lobbying crowd will no longer be sufficient-- Joe Lieberman's defeat shows that the public is now engaged in politics." That's bad for the GOP-- very bad.


MONDAY MORNING UPDATE: MEANWHILE, BOB GEIGER IS WATCHING THE SENATORS ON THIS

Bob is one of the most astute observers of the U.S. Senate and he's keeping an eye on which critters over there are backing Ned and which dirty low-down crooked whores are on the Bush-Coulter-Lieberman team.