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:

    In the last few weeks, there have been a number of diaries about who should be Obama's VP pick, with many on this blog favoring either Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, or Kathleen Sebelieus. Others have argued that Clinton deserves the VP nod.  Although Clark was originally a favorite on this site back when he ran for President in 2004, some commentators have taken his endorsement of Hillary Clinton or his status as a retired military general as a reason to disqualify him from serious consideration for VP.

    Follow me below the fold and I will let Clark's own words make the case for Clark 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?  

Just at a time when we most need to make alternative energy sources a priority, it seems that our Congressional leaders are considering eliminating tax credits for renewable energy sources, which make solar energy more affordable.  

Last year, at great expense, we were able to install a 9.2Kw solar energy system to help reduce our energy use.  Without the system, our monthly electric bill during the summer was around $1500/month, mainly due to use of pumps and other irrigation systems. (We are on wells, so we don't pay for water but we pay for the electricity to pump water.)  We never use air conditioning and we try to keep our usage low, but our monthly bill was outrageous, so we decided to go solar.  

Without the state rebate and federal tax credit, the system would have been too expensive for us to install.  Now, it seems that Congress is considering a plan to remove the tax credits from the next Energy Bill.

    Watching the LV Debate the other night as an undecided voter (and still undecided now), I was struck by the lack of response to Edwards' "the system is corrupt" charge.  Although many of us progressives agree with the charge, it seemed that Edwards' repetition of it drew little response from the audience (admittedly a somewhat pro-Hillary audience).  Reading the comments on dK about the debate, I read many who seemed to feel that Edwards' repetition of the phrase made little impact on them. Some comments were almost sneering, as if they were bored or blase about the corruption charge, or thought it naive of Edwards to raise it.   It was as if Edwards' sounded like Chicken Little repeating "the sky is falling", only to be met with "ho hum" from his listeners.

    Why has this argument failed to score BIG with Democratic voters?   Last night, as I was pondering this question, I was flipping through channels and came to rest on PBS's weekly news show "NOW", which I had never viewed before.

    This is my first ever diary on DailyKos, although I have been a regular reader for several years.  Here's how I became a Kossack, and why I'm breaking ranks with the General.

     I woke up one Sunday morning in 2003, turned on Meet The Press, and heard a brilliant, eloquent General speak about the war.  My first thought:  "This guy ought to be President."  My second thought:  "Who is this guy?" I did some research, read Clark's Seton Hall commencement address, and that was IT.  After years of lackluster enthusiasm for politics and politicians, I became a committed Clarkie.  I discovered blogs (Daily Kos, TPM, and Greenwald).   I wrote letters pleading with Clark to enter the 2004 race.  Once he did, I spent endless hours writing letters and emails, making calls to voters, and working hard to help his campaign.  I never lost enthusiasm for Clark as a potential president, but I was deeply disappointed in his 2004 campaign, which was beset with rookie mistakes.