Breaking news: Who says Senator Obama isn't considering Wes Clark as his running mate? Um, would you believe the Obama campaign?

by Ken

When I wrote in my Friday post on the Democratic vice presidential mess that "I still don't understand why retired Gen. Wes Clark isn't being considered," a commenter asked, "Who told you Clark ISN'T being considered?" I could only reply that everything I've heard indicates that the general is pretty much persona non grata in the Obama camp.

Now Steve Clemons is reporting on his Washington Note blog that General Clark has been told by the Obama people that there's "no reason" [but see UPDATE below] for him to come to the Democratic National Convention:

Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed

General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock as well as by the director of WesPAC that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was "no reason to come." [Again, see the UPDATE below.]

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the "theme" of Wednesday's Democratic convention agenda is "Securing America."

Wesley Clark's PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA.

This is a mistake in my view. There are a lot of perspectives and competing agendas about how to direct America's next national security posture -- and General Wesley Clark should be one of the top tier names and personalities at the table.

Clark is loved by the netroots -- and I'm sure that they would hope that the Obama campaign will revisit this decision to exclude General Wesley Clark from the entire Democratic National Convention ageda.

Am I the only one who's, well, flabbergasted?


LATE-AFTERNOON UPDATE

Steve Clemons now reports that he has removed the quotation marks around "no reason to come" in his second paragraph. I was always a bit troubled by the (lack of) sourcing for this statement. Steve now suggests it was his sources' (twice-repeated) "shorthand" for the sense of the Obama campaign's message. He has also added an update:

I have reconfirmed with General Wesley Clark's office that he has not been asked to play a role at the Democratic National Convention. His staff have told me that while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked.

#

Obama Having Fun With The Big VP Tease?

So far I've been able to shrug off every nauseating head-fake that's come our way regarding an Obama running mate. The floating of Republican ex-Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman was a signal, to me at least, that we were entering silly season and that Obama was having a good laugh. Not as funny as CERN's Large Hadron Collider (particle accelerator) being shut down by ripples from the future, but funny enough to not get much buzz out of the media. So they next float, a more aggressive one, was for homophobic anti-choice, lobbyist-loving Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. That got some more attention and certainly caused an outpouring of your proverbial teeth gnashing and clothes rending from the base.

So I said to myself, "Self, what's he doing?" There's not much drama at the National Conventions and chances are, that's when the running mate gets announced-- and for that reason. Obama's cool as a cucumber and he's not about to float a bunch of trial balloons so he can gauge public opinion. Then came Evan Bayh-- with lots and lots and lots of attendant hoopla. Before Bayh let the air out of this one, entire wardrobes were rendered and orthodontists were getting booked up.

Now, after these three, almost anything (reasonable) that Obama picks will cause dancing in the streets. Katherine Sebelius? America's sweetheart. Hillary Clinton? Well,,, can she send that husband off somewhere? But, honestly, except for a small handful of die-hards, Hillary would be greeted by Democrats as the solution to everything that plagues Obama's campaign. I've never really doubted that Obama would keep it to himself and hold it back for as long as possible... but I do admit that I started researching Bayh the other day.

Obviously, Obama could pick a worse running mate than Bayh. He could choose a Republican. He could choose Ben Nelson or Tim Johnson, the only two Democrats in the Senate who have been more consistent supporters of the Bush-Cheney agenda that Evan Bayh. He could pick Lieberman, although Lieberman votes more frequently-- considerably more frequently-- with the Democrats than Bayh does. If Obama were to pick Bayh I would still hope the venal and hateful McCain loses. But Obama will have lost me. I live in California and if he can't win this state without me, he's going down to the worst landslide in history in his attempt to prove he stands for nothing whatsoever anyway.

When Gore picked Lieberman in 2000 I wrote a letter to the L.A. Times, the only letter I ever wrote to that paper; and it got published! I said I could forgive Al Gore, Tipper; after all, we all make rash and even disastrous decisions when we're young. But Lieberman was asking too much. I ran into Tipper at a White House bash for the president of the Czech Republic and she asked me if I'd support Al. I think I was more plainspoken than people are supposed to be at State Banquets but I said that I wouldn't. But, you know what... in the end I did. I'll never forgive myself but I voted for Joe Lieberman. That isn't going to happen again. And Evan Bayh, at least in terms of voting records, is worse.

Bayh's Iraq voting record is putrid. Only Tim Johnson, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu have been worse Democrats on the most important issue of our day. Some Obama supporters says he can't pick Hillary because she had the same response to Iraq that McCain did? Well so did Bayh. On October 10, 2002, Bayh backed Bush and Cheney on all 5 roll calls to authorize the use of force and he did the same thing on Oct 11. The following year he strayed back towards the Democrats on procedural and inconsequential votes but stuck with Bush-- as he still does-- on the important Iraq votes.

On June 17, 2004 Joe Biden proposed a bill to roll back the tax cuts on millionaires so that the war in Iraq would be funded responsibly. Even Lieberman voted with the Democrats on that. But not Bayh. He, Ben Nelson, the deranged Zell Miller, Mark Pryor and Max Baucus crossed the aisle and voted against working families and for more unpaid for war. And this piece of DLC shit is what Obama is teasing us with. I mean something untoward could happen to him.

Bayh, in fact, has been a supporter of the same approach to Iraq as McCain. For example, on September 19, 2007, McCain offered a sham alternative to the resolution proposed by Jim Webb (D-VA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to allow active duty service members and reservists to spend as much time at home as they do deployed in combat. Obama and all but 6 Democrats voted against it. Bayh voted for it. The next day Bayh chose McCain, Bush and Cheney over Obama again when Russ Feingold and Harry Reid offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act to withdraw troops from Iraq in 3 months. Obama and most of the Democrats voted yes. Bayh stuck with Bush, McCain and Cheney again.

But let's leave Bayh's record of supporting the war in Iraq alone for a minute and look at other issues where he and McCain have agreed and he and Obama have disagreed:

The Republican Flag Burning Amendment (Jun 27, 2006)- McCain and Bayh were for it; Obama and most Democrats opposed it.

Bush's heinous FISA bill, taking away constitutional rights to privacy- McCain and Bayh supported this horrific, even fascistic legislation and Obama did all he could to support amendments to ameliorate the worst excesses. Example: on February 2 of this year Russ Feingold offered an amendment to provide safeguards for communications involving persons inside the United States. Obama and most Democrats supported Feingold. Bayh stuck with McCain again. The same day Chris Dodd offered an amendment to the same toxic bill that would have rejected retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that broke the law. Obama and most Democrats supported Dodd. Bayh stuck with McCain on this one too.

On March 10, 2005, the Senate voted to agree to a bankruptcy bill written by credit card company lobbyists, as a big fat thank you for the millions and millions of dollars these companies have dumped into the senators' political careers. The bill has destroyed the financial lives of hundreds of thousands of American families, primarily those who were hit with catastrophic illnesses. Not a single self-respecting or half-way honest, decent member of the Senate voted for it. Even Joe Lieberman abandoned his Republican buddies on this hideous piece of anti-working family legislation. Obama opposed it, as did Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, Kennedy, Harkin, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy... every Democrat who cares for people and families over corporations and campaign contributors opposed this brazen "F-U" to working people. Bayh joined with all the people Obama is running against: McCain, McConnell, Cornyn, Inhofe, Collins, Sununu, Coleman, bribe-slurping Ted Stevens, Pat Roberts hypocrite Gordon Smith (a walking exemplar of corruption with 117 earmarks worth $151,782,310 to his "credit"), Lindsey Graham... all the Bush rubber stamps.

Maybe even worse than all of the above, is the fact that Bayh is a worthless, elitist dunderhead who learned absolutely nothing from his and Bush's Iraq follies. Along with Jon Kyl, Joe Lieberman, Norm Coleman, Lamar Alexander, John Ensign and Lindsey Graham-- how's that for company?-- he supported the resolution, usually called the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment, that is widely regarded as a first step towards attacking Iran. Neither Obama nor McCain was in the Senate that day but McCain was supportive of it and Obama wasn't. Obama used it as a club to beat the presidential nomination out of Clinton's hands. The two Republicans with the most foreign policy expertise, Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, joined the non-warmonger Democrats in opposing it. Bayh, of course, was and is gung ho for war against Iran. He is utterly unfit to be on a Democratic national ticket.

But, of course, Obama knows that. He's just having a good time. I'm still hopin' that good time leads to Wes Clark. And I really liked his response to the Texas Tea Party stunt that well-bribed Republican Big Oil shills have been twittering about. Obama was in Berea, Ohio today talking about energy policy.

"Let me make a point about efficiency, because my Republican opponents-- they don't like to talk about efficiency... You know the other day I was in a town hall meeting and I laid out my plans for investing $15 billion a year in energy efficient cars and a new electricity grid and somebody said 'Well what can I do? What can individuals do?'"

So I told them something simple. I said, 'You know what? You can inflate your tires to the proper levels and that if everybody in America inflated their tires to the proper level, we would actually probably save more oil than all the oil we'd get from John McCain drilling right below his feet there, or wherever he was going to drill.'"

"So now the Republicans are going around-- this is the kind of thing they do. I don't understand it! They're going around, they're sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is 'Barack Obama's energy plan.'

"Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

Yes, they do. And we just put up with seven and a half years of it. Do we want another four. Could we survive another four?

What would you say to a grass-roots movement for Wes Clark as VP? Well, it's underway

by Ken

I was going to write a whole long piece about the situation with regard to the Democratic VP nomination. In fact, I wrote a whole long piece, but I lost it to that devil incarnate Steve Jobs's operating system from hell OS X. (Dammit, I saved the friggin' thing, so why wasn't it there when I rebooted in order to regain a modicum of computer functionality?)

I don't feel like writing that piece again, so let me cut to the chase. When you hear the latest sludge supposedly perched on the Obama VP short list, do you feel like retching? In the end, of course, we Bolshies over here on the senator's left don't have a damned thing to say about it. But a couple of those Bolshies, Matt Stoller and Aaron Ament, have decided to launch a crusade for retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

Matt will tell you all about it over at OpenLeft, and direct you to the website (www.obamaclark) that he and Aaron have put up. But here in a nutshell is the idea:

The basic idea behind Clark for VP is that we want to make a little noise about the position of Vice President and ask that Obama consider a real progressive in that slot who can help fix some of the most damaging aspects of the Bush Presidency.

The political argument for Clark is simple. He is a great surrogate for Democrats, with experience in 2004 and 2006 on the campaign trail, and a genuine national base of supporters. In terms of governance, which is what Obama says is the most important criteria for his VP pick, Clark can help Obama deal with the mess that the Bush administration left behind. As commander of NATO in the late 1990s, Clark won a war, so he is more likely than any progressive out there to be able to wrangle solutions from a military establishment that has been decimated by Bush's cronyism and incompetence. That is really important moving forward, since rebuilding our national security posture is a critical challenge over the next eight years

Clark also emphasizes Obama's strengths. He is popular among grassroots progressives, he was against the war in Iraq from the get-go, and he is an outsider to politics. He also demonstrated terrific political judgment in being willing to work against Lieberman in 2006, unlike, say, Tim Kaine, who endorsed Lieberman for President in 2004. This kind of savvy political judgment can help Obama avoid landmines down the road, and the Bush administration has left very little but landmines for the next President.

General Clark was one of the two people I originally thought about as a plausible VP nominee (the other being Virginia freshman Sen. Jim Webb), and he sure sounds better to me than even the best -- or least worst -- of the names we've heard of as actual possible Obama VP picks. I don't think this is going to change what happens. At the same time, I say, what the heck?

#

New rule for Pandering Media Infotainmenteers: You have to answer a couple of questions before you get to spread more lies about Wes Clark

General Clark last night on MSNBC's Verdict

"All I know is I served 38 years in uniform. I'm proud of my service and I was asked to give my opinion about professional qualifications based on my experience," Clark said. "I served at both levels -- I was a junior officer, I did come back from Vietnam on a stretcher -- and I served as a commander at the highest levels ....

"So I have some appreciation for both levels of command and the qualities it takes at the top. I simply say it's a matter of judgment -- experience, yes, it's important. It shows character and courage, but on the other hand there are other ways to show character and courage."

-- from the AP's account of retired Gen. Wes Clark's appearance
this morning on ABC's Good Morning America

[Note: ABC News's online story has skimpier quotes but has video. I don't know about you, but these days I'd rather hear General Clark's own words rather than undigested Infotainmenteerish renderings.]

Okay now, here's the new rule for the Pandering Media Infotainmenteers: You don't get to say squat about Wes Clark's criticisms of Young Johnny McCranky until you've successfully answered two questions:

(1) Do you know what General Clark actually said?

-- If "no, "then you need to shut the hell up, asshole.

-- If "yes," then you need to stop lying about it, asshole.

The basic point: General Clark took great care not to impugn either Senator McCranky's heroism or his military service. He said, remarkably clearly, that he sees nothing in them that constitute qualifications for the presidency. Are all the men McCranky served with qualified, by virtue of their military service, to be president? And while yes, anyone who survived five and a half years as a Vietnamese POW is unquestionably heroic, does mean all long-term POWs are qualified to be president?

Unlike McCranky, General Clark has long, intensive experience of actual wartime military command.

(2) Four years ago, when Republicans actually did what they are now falsely accusing General Clark of doing, which is to say lying about and trashing the record of a military combat hero, in that case Sen. John Kerry, how much outrage did you, Mr./Ms. Infotainmenteer, express?

-- Based on the record of the infotainmenteering class, the probability is about 99.99 percent that you didn't utter a peep. In all likelihood, you jumped on the bandwagon of slander.

-- Ironically, McCranky himself was one of the few Republicans to voice disgust, but he got over it pretty quickly, and then wasn't much heard from. To this day major elements of the Party of Lies remain diehard believers in the savage campaign of blatant lies conducted against Senator Kerry.

Senator McCranky's brain is apparently now so pickled in corruption, lies, and desperate personal ambition that he has lost contact with truth. Yet he is talking about forming "truth squads." Of course what he means is "lie squads." The one thing his cynical and desperate campaign can't possibly stand is any element of truth. It's all built on lies, and between now and November it will do its best to bury the country miles-deep in them.

Wes Clark says what a lot of us have been waiting to hear said about McCranky's national-security cred, and Senator Obama turns his back on him

"It's crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that's at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person's record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute 'attacking' their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

"That's not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it's one the press isn't capable of clearing."

-- Zachary Roth, this afternoon on the Columbia Journalism Review
"Campaign Desk" webpage

On one level, I think we need to get used to the fact that between now and November every day's news cycle is likely to include a new barrage of sniping at Barack Obama. We have to face the reality that as far as our sclerotic Infotainment Media are concerned, Young Johnny McCranky -- sleazy, ignorant, and ideologically whacked-out opportunist that he is -- is like unto a god walking among us, while the other guy is just some garden-variety Islamofascist-Marxist-Leninist off the Arab street.

Today's ruckus arises from comments made yesterday on Face the Nation by Gen. Wes Clark, who in response to questions said that while he certainly honors Young Johnny McCranky's service as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, that's not a qualification for the presidency. Nor does the "naval command" on his resume: "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall." Finally, in response to moderator Bob Schieffer's observation that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, he said, “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

At this point, let's turn to Zachary Roth's online account for CJR:

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had "attacked John McCain’s military service record." Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain's combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you'd expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

But many in the press have been unable to. ABC News political director Rick Klein led the outrage, writing in a blog post on ABCNews.com:

Find me a single Democrat who thinks it's good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war.

This is the perfect embodiment of the press's unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.

Roth asks utterly reasonably, "Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain's particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he'll have to make as president?" But the Infotainmenteers will have none of it, and he goes on to sample their veritable feeding frenzy.

By the time we sink to the level of Wall Street Journal analysis, we get Gerald Seib and Sara Murray writing: "The one certainty of the 2008 campaign, it might have seemed, was that Sen. John McCain would be acknowledged all around as a war hero for his service in Vietnam—but apparently not."

At which Roth wonders: "Did Seib and Murray even read what Clark said? Where did Clark say anything about McCain not being a war hero?"

And then today, on Day Two, Senator Obama turned his back on General Clark, with some obnoxious bloviating about patriotism:

Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice -- to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation -- for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country -- no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides. We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Full stop.

Which makes you wonder, did Senator Obama even read what Clark said?

As a really smart colleague put it online earlier today, all Senator Obama had to do was issue this simple statement:

"That's not what General Clark said. He said he respects McCain's service -- as do we -- but that McCain has done nothing that shows he has the leadership ability to serve as commander in chief."

And then, of course, stick to it, however long it takes for this embarrassingly simple idea to penetrate the blockheads of the Infotainment Media. But this resoluteness is in fact something that the senator has shown himself to be quite good at.

I can only guess that Senator Obama and his people have made an all but exception-proof decision that they will fight no battle that they don't absolutely have to, apparently including even slightly risky battles that if won might pay off in significantly raising the candidate's stature, electability, presidential mandate, and consequently ability to govern.

Oh, they'll fight the battles they have to, as when the senator was inspired by necessity to make his outstanding speech on racism. They have no intention, in other words, of being swiftboated. But it appears that they won't venture onto less solid ground.

In fact, General Clark basically said the same thing that a lot of people, including a lot of military people, have been thinking and saying for a decade or more: that being a prisoner of war isn't any sort of credential to be commander-in-chief. In fact, a lot of them go further. I'm hearing a lot of military types who really do question the McCranky military record. But the general pointedly didn't do that. He talked only about qualifications for the presidency. And found himself out there on that limb all by himself.

I'm thinking now that a forceful, articulate national-security specialist like General Clark or Virginia Senator Jim Webb isn't going to find a place on the 2008 Democratic ticket. I'm thining that all the talk we're hearing about that dismal reactionary Sam Nunn maybe isn't just talk.

If I'm close to right about the Obama camp's take-no-risk strategy, it will quite likely get him into the White House. But I wonder what kind of leadership he'll be able to exert when he gets there. If he's thinking that he can be truly himself once he's in the Oval Office, history shows few instances of that happening. By and large, once you're "in command," you're far less likely to drive events than to be driven by them, especially in modern times.

I suppose you could argue that Chimpy the Prez is an exception. When the Supreme Court installed him in the Oval Office, he went on being what he always was: less than nothing. If this is supposed to be a reassuring example, however, it doesn't reassure me the least bit.

#

McCAIN'S QUALIFICATIONS-- WES CLARK EXPOSES THE REAL McCAIN ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Historians and political scientists recognize that McCain has virtually no chance to win the presidency. That's probably why his campaign-- waged by greed-obsessed, amoral lobbyist surrogates-- will be the most vicious and negative in contemporary political history-- something that was recognized by Mark McKinnon, McCain's chief media strategist, who took one look at the plan and fled the Double Talk Express in horror. McCain's campaign-- not the "official one," of course, but the real campaign the lobbyists have plotted out with him-- is so divisive and so disgusting that the man who ran the media operations for both Bush campaigns couldn't bring himself to participate in it!

Earlier today we met Nurse Debra Bartoshevich from Racine, a confused "Democrat" who was so obsessed with Hillary Clinton's... gender? experience? skin color?... something, that she has decided to support McCain. There aren't many like her since most KKK sympathizers left the Democratic Party during the Nixon years. But of course Nurse Debra doesn't site Obama's hue-- probably not even to herself-- as her reason for jumping ship. Instead, groping for a reason, this self-described "devoted Democrat" is enjoying her 15 minutes of fame by channeling GOP talking points, chanting Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko and was quoted in a local newspaper saying, “I just feel you need to have somebody who has experience with foreign matters.” Perhaps if she didn't spend so much time watching Fox News and listening to hate talk radio, she would be more aware of the nature of John McCain's "experience with foreign matters."

Perhaps the Hillary Clinton advisor who has the most impressive credentials of "foreign matters," or at least foreign military "matters," is General Wes Clark. Just as Nurse Debra was looking around for some newspapers to make her this week's anti-hero, General Clark was assessing the security credentials of the good nurse's new candidate.

"I know he's trying to get traction by seeking to play to what he thinks is his strong suit of national security. The truth is that, in national security terms, he's largely untested and untried. He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or [in managing] his own congressional staff. It's not clear that this is going to be the strong suit that he thinks it is.... McCain's weakness is that he's always been for the use of force, force and more force. In my experience, the only time to use force is as a last resort. ... When he talks about throwing Russia out of the G8 and makes ditties about bombing Iran, he betrays a disrespect for the office of the presidency.... Republicans like to focus on the threat, on fear, on insecurities. It's what motivates their base. As Democrats, we focus on hope and possibilities in the future. So the two parties are asymmetrical. And because the two parties are different, it makes the national security [issue] play differently to both parties. But I think we have to point out the failures and shortcomings of the current approach. In the foreign policy arena, John McCain has pretty much bought the central thrust of the Bush administration's foreign policies: relying on threat and bluster [and] isolating people we don't agree with instead of engaging them."

Nurse Debra won't be hearing about that kind of experience with foreign matters on Fox. MSNBC, however, interviewed General Clark this week and perhaps people who have been brainwashed by the Republican corporate media ought to watch it... carefully:



No relation to Nurse Debra, but it might be interesting to take note of the fact that even Democrats in Arkansas (Wes Clark's home state), who were quite attached to their former first lady, are pulling together behind Obama. "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Arkansas shows John McCain leading Barack Obama 48% to 39%. That’s a stunning improvement for Obama who trailed by twenty-four points a month ago. This is most likely a direct result of the former Clinton supporters accepting Obama now that he has clinched the nomination. Nationally, Obama has enjoyed a modest bounce since winning that prize."

WHY IS THE DCCC OLD GUARD (THE EMANUEL CREW) BOYCOTTING THE PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE IN OH-05?

As we mentioned Monday, there's a battle brewing inside the DCCC over the Democratic congressional candidate in the December 11 special election to fill the seat of Paul Gillmor (R-RIP). The whole Ohio Democratic congressional delegation, but especially Tim Ryan and Sherrod Brown, have been pushing for serious DCCC involvement. Everyone knows Van Hollen is sitting on tens of millions of dollars so why won't Emanuel let him spend some?

It's more than just wanting it to defend Bush Dogs who are unpopular with Democrats and face defeat due to low grassroots participation from people who look at congressmen like Jim Marshall and John Barrow and decide to stay home, correctly thinking, "What difference does it really make?" Sure Emanuel needs as many generic Democrats-- regardless of how they actually vote-- in order to maintain his power and get a good parking spot at the office. Today's Toledo Blade has a story by Josh Boak that gives strong hints about Emanuel would rather see a reactionary Republican win than a progressive Democrat: trade policy.

Emanuel made his bones by beating up on congressional Democrats on behalf of Bill Clinton's worst legislative initiative, NAFTA. Clinton had the Republicans behind him but he needed more Democrats to pass it. He sent over "tough guy" operative Emanuel. (Keep in mind this is when Emanuel was still getting away with his boastful, and false, claims that he lost a finger single-handedly capturing a Syrian tank in the Golan Heights and no one knew it had been amputated because a minor boo-boo got infected when he didn't wash it after an accident involving a pastrami sandwich at a deli in Chicago. Nor did they know, at the time that he was a ballet dancer and attended an all girls college.) Anyway, Mr Rough and Tumble, bribed and threatened enough Democrats to get NAFTA passed by 2 votes. It's the single worst thing to have come out of the Clinton Regime. And Emanuel stands by it to this day-- really stands by it. And that's why Bob Latta, the reactionary Republican in the OH-05 race (a district incorrectly deemed as "too red"), is his kind of candidate. Yesterday Latta "sketched out an economic agenda based on the traditional GOP pillars of limited government, reduced taxes, and expanded global markets."

The announcement highlighted the partisan differences on economic growth in the Dec. 11 run-off election for Ohio's 5th District congressional seat.

Democrat Robin Weirauch of Napoleon favors trade agreements that protect domestic factory workers from foreign rivals. She also believes that the federal government should enact policies to lower the price of gas, saying that existing laws enable the oil industry to reap substantial profits.

Emanuel hears a candidate "favors trade agreements that protect domestic factory workers from foreign rivals" and suddenly he forgets he's supposed to be a Democrat. It's much easier for him to blame the calamities caused by NAFTA on "illegal aliens" and to team up with Tom Tancredo and Heath Shuler is demonizing minorities than in facing up to a fatally flawed policy that has his name written all over it.

Perhaps one day Chris Van Hollen will tell Emanuel that he isn't the boss anymore. But don't count on it. Instead we need to count on ourselves.


UPDATE: EVEN IF EMANUEL WON'T MOVE, WES CLARK HAS

Wes is a real leader and he just sent this letter out to his list:

Pouring rain. 10-hour long lines. A final margin of just 2%. This was Ohio in 2004.

But one year before any votes are cast in the general election, we have a chance to send a message to voters in Ohio and across the country: 2008 will not be 2004.

Robin Weirauch is running for the open seat in Ohio's 5th congressional district. Voters will be hitting the ballot box in less than two weeks on December 11.

A victory in OH-5 will send a message across Ohio and America that voters are ready to turn the page on George W. Bush and the Republicans. Contribute to Robin's campaign today!

http://www.actblue.com/pages/WinOhio5

As the daughter of a retired Master Staff Sergeant in the United States Air Force, Robin will do more than simply repeat slogans like "Support the Troops." She will fight to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq and make sure our veterans receive the health care they deserve.

A former Emergency Medical Technician and the wife of a retired police officer, Robin has honest middle class values. She understands the critical issues for working-class people such as education, fair trade policies, and bringing good jobs back to Northwest Ohio. She will ensure that all Americans have access to the opportunities that will help them and their children succeed in the 21st Century.

Northwest Ohio and Congress need Robin's strong, honest, independent voice.

Give Robin the final push she needs to win this seat for Democrats and give us the momentum we need heading into the 2008 elections!

http://www.actblue.com/pages/WinOhio5

Like many of the races I've asked you to help with in the past, this is a tough district. It's a Republican district, but as I've said before, we've got to compete everywhere. Republican districts can become Democratic districts. Republican states can become Democratic states. But only if we contest the seats.

I remember campaigning last year in Montana with Jon Tester, standing with Jim Webb in Virginia, and barnstorming some of the reddest Congressional districts in the final days of the 2006 elections. With you by my side, we changed the map.

We have the chance to do it again. Bush won this district by 20 points in 2004, but in 2006, Governor Ted Strickland and Senator Sherrod Brown carried it for Democrats. Now in this special election, just 13 days away, Robin Weirauch can win Ohio's 5th district...with your help.

Please rush a contribution to Robin in these final days before the special election on December 11.

http://www.actblue.com/pages/WinOhio5

You are helping to change our country, and I can't thank you enough for all you do.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

And thank you, General Clark, for doing what Chris Van Hollen should do-- with or without Rahm Emanuel's blessing.

CELEBRATING HER ENDORSEMENT BY WES CLARK, HILLARY STOMPED ALL OVER THE RIDICULOUS GIULIANI

I can't remember all the times I've moaned about how I expected Hillary to win the Democratic nomination which, in 2008, is tantamount to winning the presidency-- since the winner of all Republicans polls, "None of the Above," won't be on the ballot. She's got a really bad bunch around her-- not as bad as Bush's bunch, but really bad. And, as difficult as it may seem that there could be a worse Secretary of State than the two wimps Bush appointed, Joe Biden would probably overcome all obstacles to that-- and really fast.

So when Hillary's campaign announced the Wes Clark endorsement today, I was pretty happy. He's probably be a decent Secretary of State. Here's what he had to say about why he's proud to endorse her. Everyone I know thinks this is an indication Clark is high on the VP list. Maybe he is. But I suspect that that slot's going to Iowa's ex-Governor Vilsack.

But the Clark endorsement wasn't even the highlight of Hillary's day-- at least not for me. For me it was when Hillary shredded Giuliani into pulp and showed him what can expect when he tries running his lies. Giuliani, a natural born demagogue to begin with, tried tarring Hillary with the MoveOn ad, which, alas, she had exactly as much to do with as he did (nothing).

"It's hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the '08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush's failed Iraq strategy."

Giuliani's move comes as Fred Thompson is eroding the ex-mayor's lead in the race. This could be Giuliani's way of seizing the momentum again.

"He'd love nothing more than for her or members of her campaign to respond in an agitated way to what is clearly at best a very dubious linkage between what Moveon does and what Hillary Clinton says," said David Birdsell, professor at Baruch College.

WES CLARK LUMPS LIEBERMAN IN WITH GARBAGE LIKE BUSH AND CHENEY-- GOOD CALL

It's alive! It's alive!

Referring to Holy Joe Lieberman's war-mongering bluster on Face the Nation a couple days ago, Wes Clark wrote on Huff Po that "only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point. What our soldiers need is responsible strategy, not a further escalation of tensions in the region. Senator Lieberman must act more responsibly and tone down his threat machine."

Although Bush wore a fancy dress uniform when he was making believe he was serving in some kind of champagne Air National Guard unit for rich people's spoiled brats during the Vietnam War, Cheney and Lieberman just avoided service entirely out of budding selfishness and strongly developed senses of entitlement. If any of the three have thought seriously about national security, it certainly doesn't show in the results.

General Clark, who takes national security very seriously and who has thought about it deeply, asks Lieberman to stop acting like a baboon with his ineffectual saber-rattling towards Iran-- saber rattling that will just strengthen world sentiment against the U.S.-- and increase political cohesion inside Iran.

This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action. What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran. We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options. The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities. They don't need Joe Lieberman to remind them that we are the militarily dominant power in the world today.

I bet Harry Reid is sorry he didn't help Ned Lamont and Connecticut Democrats last year. He still refuses to see that Lieberman is nothing but a pawn of Cheney and the Bush Regime. Others take it more seriously than Reid-- like Code Pink, who held a sit-in and hunger strike at Lieberwhore's office today at the Hart Office Building in DC.


UPDATE: LIEBERMAN AND CHENEY UP IN A TREE... WAY OUT ON A LIMB, ALONE

While a kook with zero cred like Lieberman-- along with a small gaggle of other disreputable and discredited figures whose main claim to fame is that they brought us the Iraq situation-- have bought into Cheney's plan to provoke a war with Iran, even inside the Regime this posture gets a skeptical reception and its proponents' are becoming more marginalized.

A media campaign portraying Iran as supplying arms to the Taliban guerrillas fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, orchestrated by advocates of a more confrontational stance toward Iran in the George W. Bush administration, appears to have backfired last week when Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeil, issued unusually strong denials.

The allegation that Iran has reversed a decade-long policy and is now supporting the Taliban, conveyed in a series of press articles quoting "senior officials" in recent weeks, is related to a broader effort by officials aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney to portray Iran as supporting Sunni insurgents, including al Qaeda, to defeat the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

WOW! TODAY I GOT FREEPED BY WES CLARK! AND WELCOME TO DWT, CLARKIES!

First a little disclaimer: I only met Wes Clark once and I only heard him speak in person once. Maybe it was a bad night. And I do want to say that anyone with as charming and gracious a wife as Gert, can't be all bad. In fact, the general himself seemed like a nice enough fella-- and not stupid at all. If I was a betting man and I had to bet who could find Iraq and Afghanistan faster on a map, Clark or any sitting U.S. Senator, I wouldn't hesitate to put my nickel down on Clark. And I have no reason to believe he's anything but a top-notch military man.

A couple nights ago I met Ned Lamont under very similar circumstances to the circumstances in which I had met the general-- I had been invited to the home of a supporter, along with a few other people, to meet and greet and listen to a stump speech. Lamont's was inspiring, fresh and powerful and made me hope he wins his Connecticut senate race against the odious Joe Lieberman. I didn't just revel in Lamont's progressive policies and his over-all vision for our country-- which you can easily read on a website or in a newspaper interview-- but I was knocked over by his energy, his enthusiasm, his open-mindedness, his life-experience, the gestalt I detected in the man in terms of how he looks at a problem and attempts to deal with it. Parenthetically, there was a throw-away line in the story I did about Lamont: "He went right to Jack Murtha and showed me immediately that not only does he support a plan for withdrawal but that he has a far better grasp of what the war is all about than old-line Democratic 'thinkers' like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Wes Clark (all of whom are still babbling nonsense about 'winning,' an absurd concept to begin with)."

Well... who'da thunk the general and his little troopers would have even noticed, let alone get in such a snit? But when I woke up at 5AM I noticed an inordinately large amount of traffic here at DWT. "Wow," I thought, people actually are reading that long-drawn out schpiel I wrote last night about Bush's reverse Robin Hood Budget." I was impressed. But I immediately realized I was wrong. (Actually a couple people did read it-- and even left comments, but the surging traffic was because of the great plug the Lamont piece got on firelakedog, one of my favorite on-line hang-outs.)

Later in the morning, I found a very different kind of plug. The general's non-campaign campaign site put out an alert to all the general's little troopers (with 4 exclamation points, no less; I don't think I've even used that many in anything I've posted, not even about the deprecations of Cheney and Bush!): "Needs response!!!!" directing the Clarkies to respond to my disparagement and "disservice" done by yours truly to their beloved strong man, the general. So there they were rooting around on my site and on firelakedog. The first comment I saw was by someone I know, like and respect, Steve from the SteveAudio Blog. I met Steve at, of all places, a Clark rally. His comment was "Howie had no interest in attending our little meeting with Gen. Clark last Saturday, and I think he might have been surprised, since Clark actually talked about 'getting out.' It was really a 'between the lines' kind of thing, but still, it was better than the last time I spoke with him, when it was full on 'stay the course.'" Poor SteveAudio doesn't realize that by having accused the general of having said what he said at the rally-- the he believes in staying the course-- he could be subjecting himself to endless pestering by the general's silly little fanatics. His is the most party-line-only (one could almost say Stalinist) campaign I have ever seen (from a Democrat) in my life. These are very thin-skinned people. Anyway, although I didn't feel I would be welcome at the second Clark event, it wasn't that I had "no interest;" I had a little bit of interest, just not enough to start up the car and stuff. But it's true--I had just found Clark to not be worth paying much attention to as a presidential or vice presidential candidate. Remember what I said about Lamont's gestalt a couple paragraphs up? Would that I could say something so kind about the general's.

My impression of Clark-- from my one short meeting-- was of a nice guy, a sincere guy, a pretty smart guy. And I know some VERY smart people who say Clark's even smarter than they are. I don't mean to get his relatives', friends' and little troopers' panties all in a bunch, but-- like his supporter SteveAudio-- I absolutely heard him advocate staying the course. He laid out a policy at a rally attended by quite a few people (apparently mostly his supporters from his former race for the presidency) that was perhaps subtly different from Bush's-- but only subtly. Like Jack Murtha does comprehend but, alas, something the general apparently cannot, the U.S. cannot and will not win a war of national liberation inside an Arab country. The Iraqis want us out of there-- as we would want invaders out of here. That's how it will play out. Lamont gets it. Feingold gets it. Pelosi gets it. Dean gets it. Murtha gets it. Biden doesn't. Hillary doesn't. And when I met Clark, he didn't. Now SteveAudio says the general is making some tiny baby steps ("between the lines") in the direction of foreign policy sanity.

Clark will never be president (of the United States) so why does it matter? Well, for one thing, he is a smart and principled guy and he is admired and respected by a lot of people-- Democrats, independents and even Republicans. And, unlike most Democratic senators, Clark opposed Bush's unwarranted, dishonest attack on Iraq from day one-- and for the right reasons. There is a huge schism in the Democratic Party right now between idealists, who are behind Murtha, and possibly well-meaning but definitely ill-advised "pragmatists" who are afraid to join the majority of the American people-- let alone (god forbid) lead them-- in opposing Bush's war. Many of the so-called pragmatists' arguments for their position go no further than "Well, Wes Clark supports this and he's so smart and so experienced and he must be right."

One of Clark's little troopers left a comment on firelakedog that is more indicative of those who attach themselves to the political fortunes of a militaristically-minded strongman than the more interesting and worthwhile and thought-provoking one left by SteveAudio. A Clarkie only willing to identify himself as "W." (suspicious in itself) had this to say "Howie is a stupid motherfucker to conflate HRC, Biden and Clark. How can we trust him on Lamont if he can't be bothered enough to state the truth about Clark? And even if he is right about HRC and Biden, he could have avoided subjective language deliberately chosen to ridicule their positions. Jesus God. We are so doomed with supporters like Klein."

Thanks for the plug on your website, general, and, again, welcome all you Clarkies to DWT. The art department whipped something up especially for you. Oh, one more thing: last time I disagreed with the general about something I was bombarded with e-mails accusing me of hating the military. That's the kind of "argument" I've come to expect from Clarkies. Many members of my immediate family proudly served in the military and not only did I contribute to Paul Hackett's congressional campaign very early on, I also convinced a large organization I'm on the Board of to endorse him, someone who they hadn't even heard of previously. I honor and appreciate Clark's service in the military. He was correct about Bush making a catastrophic blunder by attacking Iraq. He's been wrong on the issue since. If he's changing... AWESOME. I'll be happy to welcome him into the majority.