...the new politics has consistently selected politicians of a particular type, with a particular personality. The type is not the true outsider who comes in with completely radical notions about the system but, instead, the intellectual maverick who has risen within the system and who has succeeded by "thinking outside the box."...The cardinal examples are Howard Dean and Wesley Clark...Publicly, both have a robust enthusiasm and "follow me" charisma...[and] a wide-ranging and voracious willingness to examine every situation afresh, and seek solutions that fall outside conventional thinking. Not as outsiders, mind you, but as insiders who have mastered the game as it is, and are all too painfully aware of its limitations.  

...Lamont is an individual of this mold. His resume is not that of an outsider, but of an insider...His public persona reeks of confidence. However it is the less visible Ned Lamont who has generated supporters, a willingness to examine the facts afresh, and from a firm knowledge of those facts and how the world actually operates, propose solutions that go beyond the carefully delineated boundaries of beltway politics.

I'd argue that Lamont's win in CT is evidence that at least that state's Democrats understand that "strong, clear and smart" is what's needed to bring more of the "safety and security," for which so many American's feel a desperate need.  Unfortunately, the risk-averse, triangulating strategies and Senate-speak adopted by so many DC-centric establishment Democratic leaders doesn't express anything near the right SCS mix.  The "strong" and "clear" qualities tend to be sorely lacking, which leaves too many Americans responding to the "smart" part (assuming its there) with "I don't understand, can't relate to, and don't trust this person" (of course MSM coverage doesn't help in that regard).

I focus on Wes Clark not to promote him as a presidential candidate, but to highlight the value he can have to the party in the days and months ahead.  

As far as I can tell, Clark has proven himself to be a loyal, strong and helpful Democratic ally of a range of candidates, and also of the netroots.  The unique thing about him--especially right now--is that he was a four-star general who led a successful war (yes, it had its problems and yes, it was an ugly, horrific thing, like any damn war) and has presumably been practicing his "debate the right wing bullies & liars" skills for the past year or two on Fox News.  I admit to having seen very little of this, so I don't really know who well he's done, but I can still remember him confronting the likes of Hannity with clear, strong and relentless arguments.  At those times--and especially when "under fire"--Clark did not back down, did not lose his cool, and did not retreat into Senate-speak or similarly soulless dialects.  Those encounters were both impressive and refreshing, and, at least for that moment, revealed the essential weakness of the right wing media bullies trying their usual tactics on Clark.

In the wake of the Lamont victory, I'd love to see the Democratic party find a way to put their "strong, clear and smart" leaders at the forefront of the media battle for the hearts and minds (and attention) of Americans.  I'm not really sure what that means in terms of specific strategies or execution steps, but I have a feeling it relates to the growing power of the netroots, including the use of video (and audio and photos), which MyDD and others have started to use in ever-larger and more effective doses.

I'm not proposing that Clark be leading the charge, only that he be among the top tier of fighting generals, and be used (as I believe he's willing to be) to express the party's views on military and foreign policy, as he did in that WSJ piece.  There are others as well that have unique strengths and areas of expertise, eloquence and passion, including John Edwards and Russ Feingold. Each, in their own way and especially on certain issues, express a compelling mix of the SCS leadership qualities.

And we've just added another potential fighting general in Ned Lamont, who will hopefully soon be in the Senate, helping his colleagues unlearn Senate-speak and other DC dialects and relearn the language of "strong, clear and smart" and helping Americans understand that a newly revitalized Democratic party is an overwhelmingly better choice to achieve safety and security than the Republican party, which is responsible for what Clark rightly called "one of the greatest strategic blunders the American government has made since the end of the Cold War."  

And that was before Katrina and before Iraq descended into Civil War...and before Hezbollah and Israel began a very sad and dangerous round of violence in an area of the world that desperately needs helpful intervention from "strong, smart and clear" American leaders but instead is left with the blind ideology, distrust and weakened stature and military power that, unfortunately, have become the signature characteristics of Bush foreign policy.