Dean wants running mate who knows foreign policy

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, who has been vigorously defending himself against charges that he lacks foreign-policy experience, said yesterday he would want a vice president with such a background.

"I need to plug that hole on the résumé, and I'm going to do that with my running mate," Dean said.

Dean's comments came on the same day that rival Wesley Clark said on ABC News' "This Week" that the former Vermont governor had asked him to be his running mate earlier this year. The two met in early September, shortly before Clark decided to seek the presidential nomination

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001820759_ndig22.html

I gotta say I am not happy at the prospects of possibly having ANOTHER President who needs to "plug that hole on the resume... with my running mate" in regards to foreign policy.

We are in one hell of a mess here and around the world now. I want a President who doesn't need to "plug any holes" in his ability to be President.

200,000 Army personnel very much comparable to governing a state populated by 600,000 private citizens.

Even if Clark had NO "governing" experience I would much prefer that to NO foreign policy experience!

how can that compare? The military is a very different animal than the civilian world. The military is where people go when they want a black and white simplified life.

in the military you say "do this!" and it gets done. In gov't, Congress and the courts are not as cooperative.

Because I hear this all of the time - "In the military, orders are given and followed automatically" - but I have also heard from people who were in the military that it is a big bureaucracy. Sounds somewhat comparable to civilian government to me.

in the military you say "do this!" and it gets done.

You've got to be kidding.

As Clark said on the Daily Show when asked about how the military is like the government, he said it is a HUGE bureaucracy. You have to beg, wheedle and cajole to get things done - much like the Congress.

See my post above.

:)

and Clark has testified before them regarding Education for the troops under his command and their families.

He also worked in the Office of Budget & Management.

I think people's concept of the Military is strictly stereotypes from movies.

there is almost no difference in Dean and Clark's foreign policy vision. That Dean would seek out Clark's advice or potential position on the ticket speaks volumes of Dean's ability to get good advice on specific issues, but that doesn't translate into Clark being a better candidate, by any stretch. Clark has no political experience and is relying on advisors too heavily (as was shown at the beginning of his campaign). He also is not the straight shooter that Dean is. I don't think I've ever seen Clark answer a question directly - choosing to be deliberately vague because he may not even know where he stands on this or that issue yet (or want people to know where he stands).

I suppose using your logic, Clark doesn't even need a running mate - as he's got the whole ball of wax locked down ;)

They both had a phenominal impact on foreign policy and arguably could call their work in that area one of the strengths of their respective presidencies.

Carter help bring Isreal and Egypt together -- imagine the mess if that wasn't done when it was.

Though Bush fucked it up, The strides taken in both the middle east and N. Korea were major progress points under Clinton.

Bush just isn;t accountable -- it has less to do with his experience and more to do with his general intellectual laziness.

But most people would say he did okay addressing all the foreign policy issues during his watch.

which Dean is horrifyingly devoid of.

heheh. that's why i do think clark was offered the vp spot.

a Dean supporter mentioned on another thread to be on the look out for something big on the 26th.

yes, it's bob graham now since clark is really running for president including against dean and not for vp as some thought or rather hoped for. i personally knew clark was going to run for president as did kerry. but now that the clark as vp seems less likely bob graham is the one most mentioned and i do believe most likely to get the vp spot if dean wins the nomination. is that something big on the 26th an endorsement from bob graham, or a joint announcement that dean will make bob graham vp ?

Right after Baghdad fell. Fell for Dumbya evildoers crap.

Graham also supported keeping a good chunck of Dumbya's tax cuts to the rich. That's the wrong type of advice for any candidate to be recieving.

I have tremendous respect for Graham as a Senator and former Governor, but he ran a campaign with even more out-there theories than Dean has thrown around. His bitter attacks seemed very weird coming from someone so mild mannered, and it seemed like the net result was that his rhetoric had so alienated Florida voters that he didn't bother to run again after being blasted by the Florida press.

not sure if he will make any endorsement. but he said he supports them and will vote for one of them.

I really respect Biden and would seriously love to know who he thinks would make the best nominee. You sure about Clark & Kerry? Got a link for that?

i believe he said this on one of those sunday morning political shows like meet the press, fox news sunday, or some other one.

Boston Globe - Biden likes Kerry or Clark

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2003/09/22/biden_says_he_would_back_kerry_or_clark/

Thomas is on the Supreme Court because of Biden.

http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/17/113910/36

Dean Plugs Gaps in Experience

"Dean's most committed foreign policy wonk is a volunteer, Danny Sebright, a former Pentagon official who is vice president at a Washington consulting firm headed by William Cohen, who was President Bill Clinton's defense secretary.
Apparently another unfortunate favorite expression!
(and for those of you wondering, yes, THAT Cohen, who has been trashing Clark along with Shelton)
Maybe he should put out an ad in the personals:

HELP WANTED: HOLE PLUGGER FOR HD

that I will give you. But you owe Cohen a link as to this supposed trashing. I have seen not one quote in print, on TV, or anywhere else. If it exists, then show it. BTW I am referring to Cohen not Shelton.

Would make one fun, fun, fun election. Imagine, Dean blasting the shrub on his fiscal policies informing the uninformed as the dollar drops like a rock. Clark calling him a coward so he can't use our color coded terror warnings as a fear tool to get him elected. The shrub using his millions from his minions to PR his way out of questions with ads on the networks, which love him by the way since the FCC new rules. I'd love to see the debates, and how he'll "Whats the difference?" his way out of tough questions.

You know, I should have used that in High School. "I'm failing French class, but I can imagine myself speaking french, so, Whats the difference?"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's interesting that you bring that up, Dan, because during the campaign people said, about George W. Bush, he's a very nice man. He's got a wonderful family. Everybody loved Laura. She was very attractive and seemed like a very nice person. But he was inexperienced in international affairs and seemed to be unlearned in these matters, and not very interested in them, and people said, “Yeah, but he's gonna have great advisors. He's gonna have, you know Colin Powell's gonna be with him and Dick Cheney's gonna be his vice president and won't that take care of the problem?” And some people said, “Well, what happens if they disagree? Who makes the decision?” And that's precisely what's happened.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584554.shtml

Gen. Wesley K. Clark, said the former Vermont governor had asked him to be his running mate earlier this year.

Clark, appearing on ABC News' "This Week," said Dean "did offer me the vice presidency. And what I told him was, that's not the issue."

---

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/7548097.htm

---

Yet the stupid media has Clark on "ignore". Watch the Dems
fall in 2004 w/ Dean at the helm if he doesn't get his act together.

More like it was discussed as a possibility. No one makes that kind of commitment before one vote is cast.

because Dean, who'd been getting advice from Clark, most likely would rather have Clark on his team than running against him. Much like a lot of people were happily spreading the 'Clark as Dean's VP' rumor for months.

Evan Baye was floated on DU the other day.

VP choice is rarely made from the feild of other candidates.

so considering Dean's experience he's most qualified for that job.

The President is Commander in Chief... he is NOT qualified for that job...

he waited WAY too long to get Foreign Policy Advisors and made a HUGE gaffe by announcing who was on his team the day before his "big speech"... made him look like the dependant newcomer he is.

IMO, Clark & Kerry are most qualified for President.

Dean just can't hold a candle and VP won't really help him.

experience is bullshit. This is (or at least should be) a civilian dominated country. Service to America in other areas has as much value. You like a candidate who has a service record. Do you always? Tell me you did not vote for the elder Bush twice against the democrats he ran against.

And don't start the "its a different world" stuff. By saying our top leader must be military would surely make for a different world. We're not there yet.

Pretty funny how you blew a gasket there...

"The President is Commander in Chief... he is NOT qualified for that job...
he waited WAY too long to get Foreign Policy Advisors and made a HUGE gaffe by announcing who was on his team the day before his "big speech"... made him look like the dependant newcomer he is."

Dean is not qualified because he read a list of names? And this bothered you? Who blew a gasket? If you really feel Dean is unqualified, present a better example than this one. By extension, why are Kerry and Clark better? Have they no advisors?

FDR and Wilson did quite well in the White House during wars.

Carter and Clinton did fine on foreign policy, too (as Carter's Nobel Prize demonstrates).

Stay tuned.

Don't tell me that is a real quote from Howard Dean. I don't think a potential president should be talking about his deficiency in national security pre-election! How is that supposed to be inspiring. People simply do not vote based upon the bottom of the ticket.

If someone feels that Dean is critically deficient in that area (and I don't think he is woefully weak there), then filling the gap with a strong national security VP ain't gonna arrest many doubts.

he knows foreign policy.

:D

(speaking as someone with no foriegn policy experience)

I think Dean is strong on foriegn policy and national security. He obviously knows how to cut through the bullshit and make the right decisions. But his lack of foreign policy experience is an issue to some people, and getting a VP who advocates the same approach and has spades of foreign policy credentials would bolster him.