The last few days have seen multiple diaries on whether Clark might be Obama's VP pick.  We've all tried to connect the dots.  

    Dot One:  Wednesday at the Convention is "Securing America's Future" night -- which just happens to be the name of Clark's PAC.

    Dot Two:  Clark sent out an email indicating that he was clearing his schedule to "hit the road" in support of Obama and other Democrats until November.

    Dot Three:  I got Obama's email about texting his VP choice as soon as it was announced and the very next email I "happened" to receive was the one from Clark indicating he's clearing his schedule to hit the road in support of the Democratic contender.  

 Coincidences?  I don't believe in coincidences.

    Now Clark's first interview in several weeks on the air -- on radio with Rachel Maddow to talk about the situation in Georgia.  Note the difference between his understanding of the situation and the players, versus McCain's Wikipedia response.  This is the guy we want standing shoulder to shoulder with Obama.

    In the past few weeks, there  have been many diaries on the subject of Clark's qualifications as VP.  I've even written a few of them myself, as I'm a big Clark supporter.

    Proponents of putting Clark on the ticket have focused on Clark's many qualifications, while opponents believe Obama doesn't need Clark to burnish his foreign policy or national defense creds.  

    I am not repeating that discussion here.  Rather, I want to explore the specific issue of why Clark on the ticket has the greatest potential to enrage McCain's campaign and guarantee that McCain will be forced to defend his record on military and national security issues.  

    Follow me below the fold for a discussion of why Clark on the ticket will make McCain's head explode.

     I learned a lesson in law school, more than thirty yeas ago, which has proven correct time and time again in every debate, argument, or conflict, whether legal, political or personal.

   The person or party that defines the issue wins.

    A few weeks ago, Obama's tour de force of Europe had the media swooning. The narrative was that Obama had risen to the challenge on foreign policy issues.  The media images of Obama showed world leaders and battlefield tours.  McCain's images featured "Mac 'n Cheese."  

    Obama "won" that week because the narrative was centered on how everyone from Maliki to  Bush was now adopting Obama's policies, such as a "timetable" for Iraq.  The focus was Obama's entrance to the world stage.

    Last week, McCain's ads reframed an Obama success into a debate on   "Is he too presumptuous" "Is he a shallow celebrity" etc.  

    Follow me below the fold and let's discuss two things Obama can do to reframe the issues and change the media narrative.

"You'll never get the American people to believe that Democrats will defend them until Democrats stand up and defend each other."    (source identified below the fold)

    Yesterday, I wrote a diary about MTP's Tom Brokaw using Wesley Clark's statement that being shot down didn't qualify McCain to be president out of context, as a supposed example of an Obama negative attack (presumably to "balance" his showing of McCain's attack ad).  

    I was angered by the manipulation of Clark's statement (which was displayed without showing the specific question),  and dismayed that Kerry, the Obama surrogate du jour, not only failed to defend Clark but basically caved and agreed with the false characterization of his comments.

  Many commentators responded that Kerry was there to make the case for Obama, not to defend Clark or any other Obama surrogate attacked by the right,  and that the media had created a certain narrative, and we should just accept that and move on.    

So follow me below the fold if you want to know who made the statement quoted above, and let's see what's at stake when Democrats "cower" to the media narrative.
   

    This morning's MTP had Kerry and Lieberman arguing on behalf of Obama and McCain.  Tom Brokaw started with the McCain's attacks ads on Obama, and then -- presumably to show "balance," revisited that infamous Clark statement  in which Clark responded that being shot did not qualify someone to be president.  Kerry failed to stand up for Clark, and what steamed me is that Brokaw took Clark's answer straight out of context without showing Bob Schieffer's question, which specifically had asked Clark how he could question someone's qualification when McCain had been shot down in a plane.

    I have to ask how come Clark is being attacked again for this "coincidentally" just after a week in which he has once again been rumored as a VP pick, and when a website has started a petition drive to put Clark on the ticket.  

Follow me below the fold and let's explore this issue.  First here' the link to the MTP interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

Then, here's how the controversy started:

Once again, apparently, Senator Obama's judgment and approach to the volatile situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- where he differs markedly from McCain, has been borne out by leaders far more knowledgeable and experienced than most.  Sam Stein over at HuffPo posts that Afghan Ambassador Trumpets Obama Agenda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

     For the past few weeks I have grown increasingly frustrated with the Democratic response to the "Surge" debate.  Repeatedly, McCain and the complicit media have harped on the surge being a "success" and Obama's alleged "unwillingness" or "stubbornness" in admitting what a great success the surge was and -- by implication -- what a great "success" Iraq is becoming.  

    Obama's response has been accurate as he attempts to distinguish military tactics from an overarching strategy -- but his answers have been far too wordy and complex to allow that "soundbite response" that reaches the average voter, who may devote only limited time to consideration of these complex issues.  

    I hoped the "surge" issue would just fade, but sure enough, on Sunday I saw a headline on an AP story in my local paper saying "At Last, America is Winning."  So I decided to diary this issue and see if we Kossacks can put our collective heads together and come up with that winning "soundbite" response for the campaign.

    Follow me below the fold and let's explore some pithy responses that the Obama campaign may want to consider.

I've long been a Clarkie, and now that Clark has strongly endorsed Obama after his initial support for Clinton, I continue to see him as a strong pick for VP, not just for his military credentials and foreign policy experience, but also because he's a strong progressive and an unabashed "liberal" Democrat.

    This morning, he was interviewed on Huffington Post, and totally toook the battle to McCain on McCain's supposed strong suit, foreign policy and national security.

Read the whole article, on Huffington Post , but follow me below the fold for some great excerpts:

   I originally posted a version of this diary on May 27, 2008, because I thought (and still think) that Clark and Obama would make a great team -- not primarily because of Clark's military background (though that doesn't hurt him), but because Clark is a strong progressive with a strong background in economic issues (degrees in economics and philosophy from Oxford) and also executive experience as Supreme NATO Allied Commander.

    My original diary didn't last long, with the VP flavor of the day at the time being Webb or Sibelieus or Richardson.  But today there are two diaries -- one front page -- that makes the case for Clark, so I think it is appropriate to let Clark's own words make the case for him on the issues that are important to us.

    Follow me below the fold and let Clark's own words show him as a strong progressive and a great candidate for Obama's VP pick.

    I just finished watching the NBC Nightly News, which of course was covering the King events in Memphis, and also interviewing all three presidential candidates.  I was also flipping back and forth between their coverage and CNN's coverage, so I am not positive which show this clip ran on, but at one point there was a video clip of Senator Clinton describing how she heard about MLK's death while she was a student at Wellsley.

    As she described it, she heard the news, and was so distraught that she "hurled her bookbag across the room" and just felt (and here is where she seemed to be choking up) "such despair, just despair."

    I don't mean to be uncharitable, and perhaps indeed the young Ms. Clinton "hurled her bookbag across the room" and felt deep "despair," but there was something about the way she described this, the studied pause for a moment of choked voice and perhaps teariness that just didn't ring true at all to me.

Follow me below the jump and then jump in if you saw the video clip.  (Updated with link, below)

    Last night, I fell asleep around 10:30, tired from a stressful day.  For some reason, I woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't go back to sleep.  Although I don't usually turn on the TV in the middle of the night (too hard to fall asleep again afterwards) after tossing and turning for awhile, I turned on the TV and landed on CSpan, which was broadcasting a Senate committee hearing (Foreign Affairs? -- the one Biden chairs) and was transfixed by the testimony of the three retired generals and another expert on the current situation in Iraq.

   The panel included retired generals Odom, McCaffrey, and I think Casey??, as well as a woman "MIcehle" whose last name I forget.  All of these thoughtful, experienced, expert analysts drew an incredibly bleak picture of the current situation, as well as of the remaining options for leaving Iraq.  Senate Committee hearings are generally too much trite posturing and not much honesty and integrity, but I found myself riveted by the testimony of these four individuals.  And it made me really reflect on who is best prepared to be Commander in Chief during the next administration.

    O.K. That title was just to get your attention.  Actually, I'm hoping that everyone ponys up today and tomorrow to donate to Barack Obama so that he can show HUGE fundraising totals for March.  We all know that the media will scrutinize what happens in the fundraising totals for the candidates.  February was a HUGE month for Obama -- over $55 million (compared to about $34.5 I think for Clinton and about $11 million for McCain.)  

    Obviously, Obama has had a challenging time in March with the Rev. Wright controversy and the endless media loop of inflammatory comments.  The poll numbers seem to show him rebounding, and his speech on race was well-received, but the media will scrutinize the fundraising numbers as an additional (and perhaps more accurate) indication of whether Obama has been damaged by the constant attacks.  

    That's why I donated again today -- that and the exciting possibility of dinner with Senator Obama!  For those of you who haven't heard, here's the scoop after the jump.
   

    I was just watching Wolf Blitzer's the Situation Room.  They were discussing the poll that suggested that a certain number of Clinton supporters (28 percent) might vote for McCain if Obama won the nomination, while 19 percent of Obama supporters might do the same if Hillary were the nominee.  During the entire five minute segment discussing this poll -- which clearly applied to both candidates and their supporters, the caption on CNN underneath the picture said "Obama Nod Helps McCain".  This caption remained the same for the entire story -- never did it show that the same applied if Clinton won.  

I just finished watching Senator Clinton speak, attacking Obama for representing empty words and rhetoric, while she stands for "actions."  I know Obama has addressed this issue, quoting "I have a Dream" and other phrases as words that have indeed "mattered."   I started thinking this morning about the power of words, and how of course they matter ("the pen is mightier than the sword.")   I wanted to list all the words -- both positive and negative that have mattered so much in our history.  Here's a short list.  I'd love to see everyone's addition to this list of "WORDS THAT MATTER"

My list is nondenominational and cuts across party lines.  I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed -- just that the idea that "words don't matter" is probably one of the stupidest ideas floated so far by the Clinton campaign, although at least it is a consistent message:  Words don't matter, states with caucuses don't matter, little states don't matter, party rules don't matter.  Having listed all the things that don't matter, one is left with the impression that little matters to the Clintons other than being back in the White House, no matter how.

Here's my list -- add to it and tell me your favorite "words that matter"

   I was just watching Larry King last night talking to both James Carville (who, as we know,  supports Senator Clinton), and Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist who supports Obama.  They were discussing the two campaigns, and what the likely results would be of the next weeks.  When asked if Sen. Clinton had to win both Texas and Ohio, Carville bluntly said "yes."  They then spoke about how the race had taken shape, how Obama had managed to get to where he is, etc.  Jamal Simmons had a fascinating (to me) revelation, which I reflect on below the fold.

    In the interest of fair disclosure, I am a former Edwards supporter who is now firmly in the Obama camp.  I respect Senator Clinton, but I don't think she is our best nominee.  

I was watching the "after-party" to the SOTU on both NBC and CNN.  On NBC, Brian Williams spoke with Hillary, and asked her a direct question about the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama.  She spoke for several minutes, but flat out failed to answer the question at all.  She didn't even mention Kennedy or the endorsement in her answer, instead talking in vague generalities about herself and her campaign.  Williams was out of time and didn't follow up, so she totally got away with a flat out evasion of a direct question.  

Then, a few minutes later, on CNN,   Anderson Cooper was interviewing the various political celebrities who were wandering around.  There was Mitt, arguing why he was a voice for change and how the system is broken (did anyone ever tell him he's stealing lines from John Edwards??), then on came Obama, who answered questions, including one about the Kennedy endorsements, with a suitable mixture of humility and gratitude, but who avoided saying anything controversial.   After Obama had left, Anderson stated explicitly that Senator Clinton had been scheduled to be interviewed as well, but had cancelled at the last minute, and that she had given no reason for the cancellation.  

I was undecided until the last month or so before Iowa, and choose to support Edwards based on what seemed to me to be Edwards' more progressive agenda and his understanding that the system needs to have core changes.  I think Edwards did a great job in the face of relentless media hype over a "Clinton/Obama" two-person race, and given his comparative lack of financial resources.  Last night, as the caucus results came in, I agonized over the tenuous lead Edwards maintained over Clinton.  I felt that a third-place finish would finish Edwards, and validate the "two-horse" race meme that the MSM has postulated.  So Edwards' win over Clinton (narrow or not) seems to me to give him credibility to continue at least through New Hampshire, and possibly South Carolina.  I will continue to support him, because I feel that he has staked out the boldest positions as a progressive candidate.  But I also feel Obama deserves recognition for what he accomplished, and that we are blessed with two candidates who can change the dynamics in Washington.

     For the past few weeks, I have struggled to make a decision as to which candidate to support.  Let me say right off that I was a fervent Clark supporter in 2004.  I worked my butt off for him, and was disappointed that such a great candidate ran such a poor campaign.  I understand why he has now endorsed Clinton -- it's a great endorsement for him, and a Clinton/Clark ticket would be, in my opinion, about the strongest possible Clinton ticket.  If that's the ticket, I would be happy to support it. But, as I said in my first diary, I am not falling into line behind the General's endorsement.  

    Having come to accept that Clark was out as a candidate in 2008, I have had to look closely at all the other candidates.  I think we have a great crop of candidates.  Any of the candidates would do a pretty good job.  So how to choose?