Thanks to Stan Davis and a couple of phone calls, I was in my favorite chair listening to General Clark this morning talk about three main topics. On a top rated Sunday news program, he was asked about the Dubai Ports World deal, Iraq, and his intentions for the White House in 2008. He addressed each one in a passionate, succinct, and meaningful manner. Having had the privilege of being with the General throughout a significant portion of my adult life, there are a few things I’d like to point out. First, unlike so many who appear on the Sunday morning shows, Wes Clark's discussions of the issues illustrate such a depth and understanding that the rest of the guests pale in comparison. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with him, you would be hard pressed to find someone who would not acknowledge his exceptional international and homeland security credentials. Second, General Clark was right on the money in highlighting the lack of focus, now years after 9/11, by this Administration on real Homeland Security. The debate about foreign ownership of port operations is both complex and strikingly simple at the same time. Leaders are lining up across party lines in rather interesting and surprising positions, BUT the fact that this debate is even taking place when the security of our ports is among the top issues facing this nation today, points to a clear continuation of the incompetence of this Administration. When Republicans attack Democrats for not being unified on national security, perhaps they should listen to the Republican Chair of the House Armed Services Committee who today declared that this deal "would not go through" and who has introduced legislation to review all foreign ownership of designated critical national infrastructure. In his mind, he equates the United Kingdom and Canada with the UAE. And they say that the Democrats are not speaking with one voice on national security? Does anyone out there have a mirror we can give to the Republicans? When the senior Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee directly challenges the President in a manner that no Democrat has even yet done, I think this draws real attention to the lack of consensus and the incredible lack of true leadership on national security the Bush Administration has demonstrated. Clearly, General Clark hit that nail on the head. Third, and most importantly, General Clark’s discussion of Iraq reflects his extensive experience in Europe where, without the combat loss of a US military warrior, he was able to recognize, react, and lead to stop what was threatening to become the worst war in Europe in fifty years. This morning he talked about the need to leverage Persian Shias opposite Arab Shias, and, I dare say, that the President of the United States has no more understanding of that key difference than he has of his Vice President’s marksmanship skills. After all, this is a George Bush who declared, at an arrival announcement in his last stop of his just-ended three nation tour, that "Pakistan can be a real leader of freedom in the Arab world;” the problem with that being that Pakistan is neither a free democracy nor is it Arab. Contrast that in depth understanding of the world embodied in George Bush with what you heard in the analysis of Iraq presented by General Clark then ask yourself: “Where would we be today if Wes Clark had been elected President?” I think the answer is clear. Finally, I want to highlight what I thought was among the best answers I’ve heard from anyone pressed to reveal ambitions for the White House in 2008. During his interview, George Stephanopoulos asked General Cark to announce his attentions with respect to the 2008 Presidential election. General Clark made it very clear, in an answer that focused on the common good of the United States, that the next few months are not about him but, rather, they are about bringing a new leadership to Congress. "I am very proud that we have something like 55 U.S. military veterans running for Congress as Democrats,” General Cark said. “I want to help each and every one of them. I think they can make a huge difference in the future of this country." He then went on to highlight the dangers of a one party system and continued his pledge to help Democrats get elected throughout the nation. There was no evasion, no spin – just the honest truth that he is dedicating his efforts to helping others. What a concept in a political environment where many candidates think the world revolves around them, and a stark contrast to Republican strategists’ contentions that voters in 2006 don’t care about national issues. After all, it was just over a decade ago that Republicans nationalized elections to their benefit against what they viewed as excessive Democratic power. Perhaps we all learned a thing or two about team work from General Clark today. We need to help him help candidates who stand to win, candidates who will bring real leadership back to Washington, candidates who will make a difference. Eric Massa