The Broad View

Wes Clark as Obama VP: SIGN HERE

Join Todd Beeton (MyDD), Matt Stoller, Digby and other A-list voices in the progressive blogosphere to encourage Obama to offer the VP slot to Wes Clark.

Sign the petition here, at obamaclark.com!

Andrea Mitchell, Queen of the Damnable

Or, at least, Baroness of the Bullshitters. Andrea Mitchell is, IMO, the most repulsive "personality" on MSNBC, far, far worse than Tweety Matthews. She is a pro-active shill for the right wing:

Here she is again, in all her botoxed glory. (What is it about Republican women? At the risk of being catty, I have to wonder why so many of them look like mummified anorexics.)

Toobin on Obama says it all

Today on The Situation Room (made palatable by the absence of Wolf Blitzer, with John Roberts replacing him) -- Jeffrey Toobin had the last word. He turned to a fellow panel-member and said,

I'm old enough to remember when Barack Obama was a Democrat.

We've got your back, General

VoteVets.org has a petiton for us to sign. It praises Wes Clark for his straight talk, and assures him that we've got his back.

Go Wes!

www.VoteVets.org

P.S. Wes will be on Dan Abrams' "Verdict" tonight (Monday) on MSNBC.

Hang in there, General

Updated below. Update II below.

As dday predicted, the "Mother Of All Hissy Fits" has broken out in the McCain camp over Gen. Wesley Clark's remarks on "Face the Nation" yesterday. Quite predictably, the media chuckleheads are agape, rendered so by this simple statement from Clark:

“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

The gasbags would rather question Clark's judgment and motives than McCain's mythical qualifications. To even consider Clark's arguments would cause such cognitive dissonance and so undermine the media's long-cherished McCain narrative that it cannot be allowed.

MSNBC has made it the "controversy" of the day, as if a bald statement of fact is controversial. Check out Mika Brzezinski once again for her sneering contempt. Following up on my post of June 14 re Clark's opening shots in this battle, this is the second time vis-a-vis Clark that Brzezinski has mulishly refused to consider the facts over the myth:

Let the piling on begin! There's Perry Bacon from the Washington Post agreeing that Clark has stepped in it, big time. He also claims that the Obama campaign has "already started distancing itself" from Clark's remarks. If so, Obama and his advisors are losing their touch. I don't know what they're feeding the media hounds back in the kennel, but Obama's speech on patriotism this morning didn't make any reference to this manufactured controversy.

The Repubs and the media are trying to twist Clark's remarks as somehow attacking McCain's service or patriotism. That's pure moonshine and the Repubs know it, even if the media can't or won't understand. The media's only other explanation for Clark's interview is that he's auditioning for the Veep/Attack Dog position. It may be so but that doesn't negate the truth of what he's saying.

Finally, it doesn't help when the Dems go on the air to validate the Repubs' hissy fits. I earlier heard Chris Kofinis on MSNBC yammering about Clark's remarks being "inappropriate". I'm sorry, Chris, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You're the guy who can brag about the losing Edwards campaign's communications -- you know, the communications that were never heard, the shots heard 'round your head.

It's going to take a sustained attack to make a dent in McCain's media armor. It can't just be Clark out there putting his own credibility on the line. It's time for every Dem standing in front of a microphone to go through the obligatory thanks for McCain's Vietnam experience -- forty years ago -- and then insist that it has nothing to do with judgment or leadership in a very different world. Dems must get over their craven resistance to confronting the McCain Myth head-on.

Wes Clark had better not back down on this. He's right, he knows it, and it behooves him to be one Dem who's not afraid to stand by what he knows is right.

Maybe it will be a lesson for Obama, who's looking more and more the Clintonesque triangulator. Paul Krugman puts it this way:

"In effect, they [progressive activists] convinced themselves that he [Obama] was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

They may have had it backward."

Here's the video from "Face the Nation" with the "controversial" remarks in their entirety:

Update: Well, not surprisingly, I'm disgusted. I couldn't characterize anything in Obama's "patriotism" speech today that directly or even indirectly disparaged Wes Clark's comments but it seems everybody on the teevee disagrees. That's all debatable, but there's no mistaking the pitiful surrender to the baying hounds when Obama's campaign spokesman Bill Burton says this:

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

Does Obama merely reject, or does he repudiate, revile and recoil? Does he repulse and regurgitate? Give me time, I'll think of a few more. Way to go, Barack. You're really looking like a stalwart example of a different kind of politics. Yep.

Steve Benen sums up the problem with dancing to the Repub's tune:

Now, it's possible that everyone is just playing a part here. Clark takes on one of the pillars of McCain's campaign pitch (just as MoveOn.org took on Petraeus), it gets lots of attention, and Obama distances himself from the remarks, nevertheless pleased that the arguments have been inserted into the public discourse.

The problem, though, is that the Obama campaign's response implicitly accepts the criticism offered by the media and the right -- that Clark was attacking McCain's military service, despite the fact that it never happened. Four years ago, Republicans said John Kerry's military background didn't necessarily mean he was right about national security, and didn't necessarily make him qualified to be president. Sunday, Clark made the same argument about McCain.

The feigned, coordinated outrage here is transparent. The way in which the media is buying into the outrage, and exaggerating it, makes me wonder if the McCain campaign will have to report today's coverage as an in-kind contribution.

Update II: Interestingly, DIgby speaks directly to the idea that Benen outlines above, that everyone was playing a part in the kabuki [emphasis mine].

For those of you who insist that this is some kind of super-duper jiujitsu, well --- if it is, it's not very effective. When you have a "surrogate" go out and say something which you want to "repudiate" but need to get "out there" you don't send one of the most important and credible voices on the left. You send some lowly factotum or political operative whose job it is to be publicly slapped down and whose credibility is irrelevant. You don't repudiate someone of Clark's stature unless you are prepared for him to be damaged and undermined in the future.

I don't believe the Obama campaign sent out Clark to say this. I think Clark was speaking for himself as a Democrat and respected four star General. And what he said was perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial. The establishment reflexively turned it into one of their little pearl clutching pageants. It isn't real. One of these days Democrats will learn that the hissy fit is designed to make them look weak and unprincipled.

Gen. Clark is, as Digby says elswhere in the post, "a very special person in the Democratic Party and should be highly valued." She goes on:

...They don't have many people like him. He not only brings national security credibility and experience in a unique way, he has proven himself to be a tireless worker for Democratic candidates and causes for the last four years. He is very, very smart and would be an asset in any Democratic administration. Indeed, I think it was assumed that he would be in any Democratic administration. Certainly, one would think any Democrat would want him.

As I wrote yesterday, I think the Obama campaign is working overtime to prove to the Village that he isn't "dangerously" radical. At least that seems to be the campaign's overriding message at the moment. I have little doubt that everyone who's anyone has decided that Clark "screwed up" and that he had to be cut loose. The gasbag reviews are sure to be glowing. Everyone knows that you are not allowed to assail the military record of a war hero, right? (Oh wait .... only certain war heroes. I forgot.)

Again, it's all very convenient for Republicans. There's one less super smart,liberal military expert to contend with, paving the way, no doubt, for someone a little more ... reliable.

Another chapter in the neverending saga of "Democrats: Gun Meets Foot."

I ♥ the General

Yesterday, Wes Clark followed up his HuffPo smackdown of McCain's vaunted "experience" on MSNBC's Morning Joe. Kudos and lurve to the General for meeting the McCain media embeds head on. [H/T Deoliver47 on DKos.]

Mika Brzezinski repeats the money quote from Clark's HuffPo interview:

"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."

Brzezinski leaps to the defense of the media's darling:

Brzezinski: "I hear what you're saying, but at the same time I think -- don't you think it's kind of a dangerous thing to say about someone who was a war hero, a POW for several years? This is John McCain we're talkin' about!"

Is that extraordinary or what? A member of the media, the daughter of Zbiggy Brzezinski, suggests it's "dangerous" to critically evaluate McCain's mythical qualifications to be president and find him lacking. She, and most of her media brethren, have totally drunk the Kool-Aid. They are apparently unable to understand that McCain's history as a pilot and a POW 40 years ago does not innoculate him from displaying bad judgment, ineptitude and hypocrisy in 2008.

How utterly refreshing it was to hear a reasoned evaluation of McCain instead of a hagiography. Clark didn't stop there. Mika tried to tout McCain's "insight" into the horrors of war and torture. Ha! Clark cut off that escape route by pointing out McCain's flip-flop on torture.

Clark: "What does John McCain really believe? Who is he? Is he the sort of straight-talk express, maverick people thought he was in the late '90s or is he just a guy that wants to be president and he'll say what's necessary to get the job?"

You could almost see their heads exploding from cognitive dissonance. When Mike Barnicle and Brzezinski tried to turn the criticism back on Obama, Clark pointed out the obvious: Obama isn't running on his national security experience but rather on the basis of good judgment. It was quite obvious that Barnicle and Brzezinski were very rattled by their inability to get Clark to agree to some sort of even-handed equivalency that would get St. McCain off the hook.

Bless Wes Clark, he didn't give an inch and said he thought his was a "fair evaluation." All I can say is, "Yay! More, please." Watch the video. You won't be disappointed.

A strong voice for Clark's HRC endorsement

My good friend and 2004 Clark colleague, Gabriele Droz, writes an excellent post at her WesPAC blog. She has signed up with the local Hillary effort, as I did after learning of Wes Clark's endorsement of HRC. Her arguments for Hillary are cogent and insightful, and deserve attention. And please read the comments. There are, of course, anti-Hillary remarks — but there are extremely thoughtful rebuttals as well. All of it worth your time.

Update: You might also want to check out Wes's "live blogging" this morning — a good give-and-take with his supporters...

...and, for those of you who oppose HRC, the post by Tom Rinaldo, reminding us that sometimes we Democrats are our own worst enemies.

Tom has not been a Hillary supporter but argues that "What Hillary needs most is for more Democratic activists to view her nomination as at least marginally acceptable when in all likelihood it actually comes to pass. That is how Wes Clark is helping Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party in my opinion, the most. That is why his support of her now is critical. Hillary will need some serious bridge building to this party's activist base to unify the party behind her if she becomes our nominee. Wes Clark is helping walk point for her now in that regard. In so doing I believe Wes Clark is also walking point for our nation's future well being, just like he has for his entire life."

Wes Clark endorses Hillary

Just as his new book, A Time to Lead, is hitting the bookstores, and a day after he told the Associated Press that he "remains willing to run for office or serve as a political appointee," Wes Clark has endorsed Hillary Clinton in her presidential bid.

My prediction is that Clinton will choose Wes as her running mate if — as seems likely — she wins the Democratic nomination. With Wes out front on national security, it's an "experience and leadership" ticket that would trump anything any other candidate — Democrat or Republican — could possibly put together. (It's a big plus for her that Wes was against the Iraq War from the very beginning.)

Of course I have been disappointed that Wes isn't himself running for the top spot. And when he was here last year as guest of honor at our Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, my son gave him a homegrown button for what we thought then was the dream team — Clark/Obama.

But Clinton/Clark is pretty much a dream team, too — and historic in scope. Just think of the brain power!

I'm sure there will be much speculation on this in days to come. Just thought I'd jump in early!

Wes's communiqué on his endorsement is below the fold...

Senator Hillary Clinton has earned the support of millions of Americans in her campaign for president -- and today I am pleased to count myself among them. The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. I believe Senator Clinton is that leader, and I whole-heartedly endorse her for President of the United States. Senator Clinton and I share a worldview in which diplomacy is the best first-strike tool in our arsenal; in today's complicated global system, the United States should be making more friends than enemies.

Never before have so many Americans had our well-being so closely tied to world events. Our economic and national security has become more complicated than ever before, and we deserve a leader who draws on wisdom, compassion, intelligence and moral courage -- in short, we need Hillary Clinton. She is tough but fair, a rock-solid leader equal to the many weighty challenges ahead of us.

Wes Clark wins whether he runs or not

You can't ever have had a political conversation with me and not learned pretty quickly that I'm a fervent supporter of Wes Clark. I joined the Draft Clark movement early in 2003, and continue to hold the title of coordinator for all of California's Central Coast Clark volunteers.

There are many reasons why I believe that Wes is by far the most qualified person to become our next president. One of them is the enormous respect he enjoys in those "furrin" countries the current administration has dismissed and alienated. At this moment in history, when the reputation of this country abroad is at an absolute nadir, what could be more worthwhile than electing to the White House a man who would bring instant rehabilitation to our image and great new vitality to our relationship with our allies?

Just cast an eye on this list of the high honors conferred upon Wes Clark during his service to our nation:

Presidential Medal of Freedom;
Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire;
Commander of the Legion of Honor (France);
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany;
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands);
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy;
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal);
The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland;
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg;
Grand Military Service Cross (White Badge) (Spain);
The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium);
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic);
Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic;
Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia;
Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria);
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia);
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania);
Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia);
The Skanderbeg Medal (Albania);
Grand Cordon of the Ouissam Alaoui (Morocco);
Order of May of Military Merit (Argentina);
The Grade of Prince Trpimir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia);
The Military Service Cross of Canada

Learn more at Wes's MySpace page and at WesPAC/Securing America.

And if you haven't yet done so, be sure to click on the stopiranwar.com logo in the right sidebar and sign the petition!

Give credit where it's due

Arianna pushes Obama today on the HuffPo. She worries that the Iraq war authorization will continue to bite the butts of the senators who voted for it; and that if one of them is nominated the 2008 election noise will be all about their vote and when they changed their minds. I agree that that's a truly promblematic state of affairs.

But it's pure fancy to give props solely to Obama when there are others who early on adopted an anti-war stance — and as a staunch supporter of one of them I'm getting rather tired of his not getting fair recognition for his early and continued wisdom.

Fortunately, Arianna's commentators are not so obtuse.

From MSheppard:

If you're looking for a candidate who was critical of the war from the beginning, who foresaw the disasters it could lead to, who has the judgment, character and intelligence to be President and who is also "seasoned," incredibly knowledgeable about foreign policy and who has the respect of the world at large while being a solid progressive on dometic issues then you need look no further than Wesley Clark.

And, yes, he will run.

Nocore writes:

It's not only Obama who should be singled out for his courage and vision and presidential judgment.

Wes Clark and Al Gore belong in that category as well.

Clark, Gore, and Obama were right about the war in 2002. They were right about the war in March of 2003. And they are right now.

With Clark, Gore, and Obama, we Democrats would get to argue our 2008 case from the position of greatest strength:

"WE WERE RIGHT. REPUBLICANS WERE WRONG. TAKE YOUR PICK."

Clark, Gore, and Obama offer us a campaign of incredibly strong clarity.

However, if we go for one of those who supported the war- Hillary, Edwards, or Biden- we are suddenly fighting the 2008 campaign from a position of weakness. Instead of rightness and clarity, our campaign would suddenly become about apologies, excuses, mea cuplas, and woulda shouldas. We will have another flip flopping for-it-before-we-were-against-it candidate as our voice. And it will confirm every negative caricature of Democrats as mealy-mouthed vacilators who don't understand keeping America safe.

With Edwards, Hillary, or Biden, 2008 becomes a crap shoot.

With Clark, Obama, or Gore- the three who were right all along- Democrats would be arguing from maximum strength. With maximum clarity. Maximum rightness. Maximum force. And maximum leadership. It is a formula for guaranteed victory.

I've posted a comment, too, but it hasn't shown up yet. Here's a hint. It begins, "Wes Clark. Wes Clark. Wes Clark."