Lawrence O'Donnell-Whoever the Dem. candidate is, will choose Wes Clark as V.P.

That was his prediction on "McLaughlin Group" this morning! :D :D :D

gore/clark:patriot:

gore and clark, two good minds, are not -either one of them - particularly good at campaign speeches, IMO. maybe it shouldn't matter, but it does.

Kerry (war-hero, devoted public servant, intellectually astute, learned, honest) was infinitely the better man in 04, and - it's my belief, anyway - his oratical skills did as much harm as the swift-boaters.

And while the same positive attributes attach to the two (Gore and Clark) I worry about the ticket you propose, only in that regard.

If you fail to be elected, then it does not matter how great your mind may be.

he is currently running a very skillful non-campaign:patriot:

patience is key.

I have seen both men run campaigns. I don't think they were, either of them, terrific campaigners. This is not news, as many thought the same. Think back.

they would - most likely - be very good office-holders, as would some other Dems.

I worry they would never get there.

btw, running a non-campaign skillfully is much, much easier than running an actual campaign. the moment you are on the stump, as one who has stated they want the office, the whole thing changes dramatically.

I think this is the case with both Clark and Gore.

I think either of them would form the gravitas/experience wing of more charismatic campaigns. But I don't see either being the electricity, as we have seen in the past.

Just my opinion.

i just think gore has come a long way. of course, there is always room for improvement.

The strongest media impressions most people have of Clark from his 2004 run dates from the first months of his political campaign, which happened to be the first months of Clark's life ever spent in a political campaign. Since then Clark campaigned quite extensively for John Kerry, as one of Kerry's 2004 chief surragates, then Clark campaigned all across the nation for dozens of Democrats running for Congress in 2006. Clark is a very fast learner and it now shows. The fact that so few will see Clark's current campaign skills coming until it hits them over the head will help Clark exceed virtually all expectations of him, and it is far far better to exceed expectations than to fall short of them.

he wd definitely run differently this time, should he get in.

prefer him as President.

But it's good to know if he doesn't enter the race there's still hope of a VP slot.

Wes Clark is twice as smart as any of them - he'd be a terrific asset to our 08 ticket!!

His campaign called me and made it clear he WOULD take VP. They asked if he'd be one of my top two choices, and when I told them I'd like Wes Clark as president if he entered the race and Obama as VP, he said that's fine.

I know you're not lying, so don't get mad at me. It's just hard to think anyone's campaign would say that. :wow:

It seemed as if they'd be happy enough with VP for now and maybe pres. 8 years later. Of course publicly he'd never say he'd accept VP (2nd slot) but privately, at least the guy who called ME, said he WOULD.

You do not see many well known politicians do that.

The sooner he "goes national" with a slot in the executive branch, and is able to "campaign" for eight years as VP in every state in the union, the sooner he can move up to the number one slot.

And he is the ONLY guy on the ticket with time on his side. People don't seem to realize how OLD some of the other candidates are--they're in "Now or Never" territory...the Reagan legacy notwithstanding (or perhaps because of it!!).

If you want to talk about history repeating itself, Kennedy was heavily shopped as VP the election before he ran and won the Presidency. He didn't end up making the cut, but it was damned close. Dick Russell could have made it happen with a nod, but he decided against it.

I agree. :hi:

run for the Governorship of Illinois instead of reelection to the senate.

or going anywhere. I think a gore/clark ticket would be practically unbeatable, Edwards/clark a bit less so, and clinton/clark ok but we still have the irrational Hillary haters to contend with.

He can choose one of the others for his VP :)

Wes Clark fills in the national security deficiency many of our candidates have.

but it's good to hear he may at LEAST be VP if he doesn't get in the race.

I have always been in awe of this brilliant former military man with a conscience.

:toast:

An anti-Iraq war Dem. who's a 4-star general. It don't get no better than that! :beer: (That's iced tea).

Senator Clinton--Eh, maybe, maybe not. Her husband and Wes had a 'bit of a strain' in their relationship (I know, I was close to that situation--it was pretty unpleasant). Also, too much AR on the ticket. These tickets benefit from geographic diversity, usually. On the plus side, to please the sexist neanderthals, it gives the "little woman" a "military man" advisor. A wash, at best.

Senator Obama--It would give him the 'gravitas' card AND the 'military experience' card, while keeping the ticket "fresh faced and not-politics-as-usual." :thumbsup:

Senator Edwards: I honestly think this ticket would be viewed as "too southern." Edwards would probably do better, should he get the nomination, to break away from the white male paradigm, and choose a strong female or minority male running mate. Also, I think the visual of the two of them together might not be as good as it could be--it would look like Opie and Andy Taylor from Mayberry, RFD. Edwards can't help that boyish face--in the right circumstances, it can help, but it might not do as well with another southerner on the ticket.

Governor Richardson: No one knows foreign policy better than the Governor, save maybe Biden. Richardson is no stranger to the art of diplomacy, too. It might balance his ticket in terms of East of the Mississippi, West of Same, and perhaps consolidate the flag waving south, but they both came out of the Clinton era, so they may be viewed as "all of a piece." Sight :thumbsup:

Senator Biden: I dunno, I think they'd kill each other. Biden likes to talk, and he likes to talk on the areas where the General has no small amount of expertise. Also, the General is better looking and stronger appearing than Biden, and that doesn't always play well visually. It would only work if they never campaigned together, and stuck RELIGIOUSLY to the talking points, without any stray comments. I see the guy with the broom who is usually behind the elephants trailing after those two...

Rep. Kucinich: He's not getting the nomination. No sense in speculating.
Sen. Gravel: Him, neither. No sense in speculating.

Sen. Dodd: Unless a miracle happens, he's not getting the nomination, either. However, he's a very measured guy, who weighs his words carefully. So is the General. It would be a bit of a snooze-fest ticket--not many sparks. It would work, though.

Vice President/President-Elect (Denied by the Supreme Court) Gore: This ticket would repeat the southern paradigm that worked back in the Clinton-Gore efforts. Gore would still be the guy with the heavy national experience on the ticket, only he'd be up front this time. Frankly, I think Gore could run with a Geico caveman as his running mate and win.

So, what have I missed?

Gore/Clark is my dream ticket :bounce:

With Kerry as SecDef

Or should I say, his administration, particularly his SECDEF and CJCS. That whole business when he departed the European theater was unexpected, rife with all sorts of speculation, and made everyone feel very uncomfortable. It was one of those situations where no one knew what to say and the entire atmosphere was full of tension and false smiles. The whole Shelton-Cohen-Clark communication loop was a bit electrified, and not in a nice way, either.

Of course, last time around, when Clark threw his hat in, Bill Clinton was awfully nice to him. So perhaps he managed to mend fences around that whole business. Of course, that doesn't stop people from bringing it up again, mentioning it, and reviving all of those old comments that came from all sides of that issue--odds are good you'd see that shit coming from the right; I would only hope Bill Cohen would get out and do some stomping on them if they tried it.

But, ya never know. Hey, politicians can be (must be, really) pragmatic, just like flag and general officers must. Sometimes ya just gotta shaft someone you like personally. It happens.

During his time at the Pentagon, he was known as Sen. Cohen behind his back because he was such a partisan. During this entire Iraq War, Cohen has stayed glued to bush's policies. Don't expect Cohen, Senator weapons lobbyist, to do anything for us anytime soon.

Blumenthal who was there the night Clinton signed the papers replacing Clark, said that Clinton through a fit when he learned that Cohen and Shelton had skunked him.

I don't see Bill or Hillary shrugging off the praise for having won in Kosovo. As Gen. McCafferty has said: we could fight that war a 1.000 times and loose a 1,000 times. Wes Clark is a national treasure.

Clark currently heads Clinton's city year in Little Rock. And it was Clinton who called Clark and recommended that Wes go to work with James L. Witt. Doesn't sound like Clinton is pissed.

However, I agree with you that the Clintons think they can take AR, and I doubt that they want someone on the ticket who was against this war from the beginning.

But for the record, he was chosen as SECDEF precisely BECAUSE he was a Republican, if you remember. But he was a Maine Republican, which is to the left of many southern Democrats. (His wife, Janet, the much beloved "First Lady of the Pentagon," is a Democrat, and we all knew it, too). And the record will reflect that Cohen was VERY loyal to Clinton.

Clinton was in hot water because of his Air Force ROTC "I don't wanna go" letter and his DADT proposal (funny how the GOP now LOVES DADT, when if you take a march back in time, they thought the sky would fall and there'd be fuckin' in the foxholes if it came to pass...between that, and all the wimminfolk getting Newt-like infections in those very same foxholes, how would any military progress ever be made? Oh, the horror...). And because Les Aspin just was NOT cutting it because he had heart problems (that eventually killed him) and there was Haiti, Somalia, the drawdown, Star Wars, and the fact that the CJCS, who was Colin Powell at the time, was being a TOTAL dickhead, (side note--Les Aspin was the live-in paramour of none other than Jailbird Judith Miller of NYT fame--no wonder he died), Cohen was the perfect pick to shut the GOP up.

But that was not my point at all in bringing that up. As I said, I expect NOTHING from Cohen, (I do think he'd be honorable and correct the record if any mud were thrown, though) and why should we? He's still GOP, though liberal GOP, and older now and in private life, as is Janet.

My point was only that there was some contention surrounding the General's departure from KFOR. It could be an issue once again, if the GOP wants to make it one, and that wouldn't be helpful for a Clinton-Clark ticket. Any time explaining what happened when, and who did what, when to whom, is time taken away from the issues of the day.

Ask Kerry with the Swiftboat business.

and by those who witnessed it. There were people in the room including Blumenthal who have written about this.

I'm from Maine and I keep an eye on Cohen who is a corporate asshole.

Clinton handed over the Pentagon to the republicans because of the heat. That it is correct. However, the outcome has been very damaging to Democrats. First, when bush started ginning up the war, Cohen was in position to carry water...and he did. There was no Democratic SoD to criticize bush. Second, can you image for one second a republican turning over the Pentagon to a Democrat? No. And it reinforced the meme that Democrats are weak on defense.

Cohen and Shelton, who never wanted to go into Bosnia or Kosova, dragged their feet on equipment. Well they would; the republicans in congress voted against funding. Finally, Ralston, Cohen's buddy, was in a bind; it was up or out. Cohen and Shelton found a solution by screwing Wes Clark. They told Clinton that replacing Clark with Ralston was sop, what they didn't tell Clinton was that they were cutting Clark's time short by 3 months. All for Ralston you understand. Within moments of signing the papers Clinton learned what he had done, and Blumenthal writes that Clinton hit the roof. But Cohen and Shelton were crafty. They had already released the story to the Washington Post...before they had told Clark. Clark was being honored at a dinner by European leaders when he got the call.

Nice guys.

So if Clinton wants to hold that against Clark...that tells me much more about Clinton than it does about the General.

You can uphold this glorious impression that you have of Cohen all you want. He'll still be a rat.

Sometimes the republicans went after Clinton through the people who worked for him. As Albright once told Clark, they got me and you need to watch your back. Clark was also warned privately by congress critters that the republicans were after him. Cohen was the designated hit man.

Frankly, your scenario paints Clinton as unaware and uninvolved, and shoves all the blame on other actors within DOD, and that is just incorrect. A leaf didn't drop in the forest with Clinton not knowing about it--complaints about his leadership style are pretty much limited to his occasional fits of temper and the fact that he micromanaged EVERYTHING. He WAS the smartest guy in the room. Just because Clinton selected a GOP SECDEF (after two Dems had held the position during his tenure) didn't mean he abdicated oversight.

If Clark and Clinton both came to a pragmatic understanding about realpolitik, ex post facto, well, that's fine--but Clinton was a seasoned President by the time that shit went down. Clark would be the one forgiving Clinto, in that case. And for you to suggest that Clinton didn't understand basics like how long a four star tour lasted is just absurd. That stuff is micromanaged all the way up to the WH, and especially at the top two paygrades. It's on a tickler file well ahead of rotations--many flag and general officers go to a tour already knowing what their follow-on assignment will be.

And for the life of me, I don't fathom where you morph my essential respect for a SECDEF who performed well during his time in public service to a "glorious impression." The hyperbole is all yours. Don't paint me with your impressions, please. Just because you hate the man doesn't mean I have to play your opposite as an acolyte to him in the present day. I'm not on his Christmas card list.

You may be from ME, but I was from the Pentagon. So, whatever.

Our mileage on this one varies. It's why I don't like to even get into a back and forth about it--it's a thread derailer to no good end.

There can never be any honest discussion about the matter without invective rearing its ugly head, and accusations flung like monkey shit...it's one of those sensitive topics. However, pretending it doesn't exist or didn't happen isn't going to make it disappear from knowledge or memories.

and shoves all the blame on other actors within DOD, and that is just incorrect. "

uh...yeah...actually that is correct. You are overestimating Bill Clinton.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/Clark%27s%20Retirement-Doc2.pdf

Clark has been open about the fact that he was hurt when his command was cut short. He offered clues about why he was treated so badly in his first book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat, published in 2001, and recollections of highly placed civilians in the Clinton administration confirm what he wrote.

Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. (Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda).

According to three former Clinton aides, when Clinton approved the list of appointments submitted to him by Cohen, including the selection of General Joseph W. Ralston as the new commander of the NATO forces, it wasn't made clear to the President that this would cut Clark's term as the supreme commander by nearly three months. (Of this, Clinton later said at a press conference in Europe, "I had nothing to do with it.") Despite having been treated badly, Clark continued to serve for the following nine months. Clinton was reportedly furious when he realized the mistake that had been made, but he didn't want to go back on it lest he look indecisive, or further alienate military officials, with whom he had been on bad terms since the beginning of his presidency.

To make sure that Clark's dismissal was a fait accompli, the Pentagon immediately leaked the news that he had been fired, thus denying him the dignity of being allowed to announce his own retirement. Several members of the Clinton administration believe that Clark was treated in an extremely unfair, even cruel, manner. This treatment continues. Cohen, who had originally declined to comment, said on CNN on October 15 that "there was friction between General Clark and myself. And, frankly, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on his political aspirations. I made a judgment during the time that he was serving as head of NATO, SACEUR. And I felt that the ax, as such, when it fell, spoke for itself."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

The Unappreciated General
The General Who Did Too Good a Job
International Herald Tribune
By Patrick B. Pexton
Tuesday, May 2, 2000
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure2.htm


posted at 07:06 a.m. PDT; Wednesday, August 4, 1999
Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately, Official Says
by Dana Priest
The Washington Post
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure3.htm

Washington's Long Knives
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure.htm

Perspective on the Military: Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO
The general exposed the gap between pretended "combat readiness" and refusal to accept war's risks
By: EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
Published in the LA Times August 6, 1999
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure4.htm

More....

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/10/the_early_departure.html

You didn't miss much. I'D prefer Clark/Obama for the same reasons you mentioned, but I think you did a great job with that. :yourock:

As for this,who knows? I know Clark appeals to a lot of people and stranger things have happened.Plus,I think there's going to be a few interesting twists in this campaign still to come.

I like it, and he's already said some very "nice" things about John Edwards so that makes it all that much better!

Richardson has a lot experience, but right from the get-go in the first mini-debate he made a small slip in about hair-cuts and that did it for me. It was uncalled for at the time IMO! And I had always liked Richardson up until then. Anyway, Richardson is pretty DLC to me.

Hilary Clinton is already part of the National Security Nomenklatura, so she wouldn't need a minder.

However, if Obama is the candidate, then someone from the Nomenklatura would have to be in the second slot as his control. Sort of like Cheney is to Bush.

Always fighting the last war.

Kerry was seen as the guy with experience from Vietnam in '04.

If Edwards or any other white male wins I pretty much think that precludes Clark. Given that we have one woman and two minorities running no way we are going to field an entirely white male ticket. I could see Clark fitting well with Obama but poorly with either Clinton or Richardson. Clark would help Obama on the experience front so that is a good fit. Clinton needs someone not tied to Clinton to run with, that isn't Clark. Richardson needs a compelling attack dog presence and Clark isn't that.

I think Edwards would be WISE to choose Clark. Clark, regardless of race, has a lot of experience that Edwards lacks. I agree that he'd fit best with Obama, though, and I think he'd fit worst with Richardson or Clinton.

because it might mean he won't accept VP - even though I think he should.

...to strengthen ANY ticket. So it always sounds like a good ticket with Clark on it. It makes me wonder sometimes why more people don't add two plus two together and realize maybe it is Clark who should be the one heading our ticket.

He's far superior to any of the candidates for the top spot and should only take VP to Gore. My head would explode if Hillary got the nod and he was the VP candidate.

He sure beats people like Evan Bayh, Ind.

Very very interesting

whoever is President, not wanting to deal with such an issue. Then there would be reports of a rift between the POTUS and the VP.

Clark is a diplomat but he is not meek. Holbrook told some Clarkies back in 2004 that a General just can't be a VP; particularly a Supreme Allied Commander.

Yet, I will confess that the "who do you want to be a heart beat away?" argument fits; particularly in these volatile times. Can a VP also be the National Security Adviser?

Just what some of us have been waiting for!

YAY!!!! :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

I can't wait! :D

I may faint.

And my kids will be thrilled!

My son with the General


My daughter in her KOEB onesie

But your son is beautiful. :)

Did you see the new daughter? She looks like her brother more than she looks like me or Dad. LOL.

She's precious. :hi:

:(