What's the best use for Clark: VP or Sec. of State?

Dookus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:40 PM
Original message

Poll question: What's the best use for Clark: VP or Sec. of State?

Politically, VP gives him a brighter future, I think, but in practical terms, it would seem Secretary of State might be a better use of his talents.

Of course, the VP can be anything the President wants, so he could play a huge role. Which do you think would be a better role for him?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nashyra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:42 PM
Response to Original message

1. Vice president

He can motivate people very easily in the General Election. I think he would be a very understated "high profile" vice president. I think he would do alot of traveling overseas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ewagner

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:43 PM
Response to Original message

2. Actually

I think he would be very effective as Secretary of State but I think by running as VP he would insure a victory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sangha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:44 PM
Response to Original message

3. Sec'y of Defense

Edited on Mon Apr-05-04 09:45 PM by sangha

I don't see Clark as a politician. And that's not a criticism. I just don't see him doing what it takes to win elections. The fundraising, the glad-handing, etc. It's not that i don't think he could do it; I don't think he would want to do it.

And Sec'y of State seems like both a more political job and a more ideological job than Clark would want or be suited for, though he certainly has the experience to do that job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

PragMantisT

(893 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message

4. Secretery of Defense

A real GI instead of a politician.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

guitar man

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Agreed

Sec. of Defense. Let's put someone in there that actually knows something about the job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dookus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. He is legally ineligible to be Secretary of Defense

you must be out of active service for 10 years to hold that post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

meow2u3

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. Secretary of Defense is right

Clark's experience in the military as a general, in my opinion, qualifies him for the job. It takes a military type to understand the needs of a strong national--and domestic--defense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dookus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. and yet

he is not allowed to hold that job.

Pick another one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Leilani

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. You would think after all the posts

about the requirements, people would have heard by now that he is not elligible for Sec of Defense.

I vote Veep, because I think he will help Kerry win. Also I think Sec of State will go to a liftime diplomat, like Holbrooke.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dookus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #10

13. heheh... I know...

It's been brought up a few hundred times before.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cheezus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:56 PM
Response to Original message

9. You don't make a military leader your chief diplomat

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dookus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. Tell us why

I'm unaware of any such rule.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cheezus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-06-04 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #11

16. There's isn't a rule of course, but think about it

Why send a warmaker to go make peace. I think it's dangerous to put a military face on the State Dept. In our government, they're seperate. It's nice to present a view that they actually are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Leilani

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #9

12. What about Colin Powell?

What about Marshall? Remember the Marshall Plan?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Traveler

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #9

14. History would suggest differently

It has been done before ... frequently, with mixed success. The outcome would seem to be dependent upon the character of the individual and not the perceptual lenses through which various ideologues perceive him or her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dookus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-05-04 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #9

15. C'mon cheezus

defend your assertion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cheezus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-06-04 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #15

17. damn. give me some time

sorry for posting before bedtime. hope I didn't keep you up all night or anything.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:34 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.