John Kerry, Wesley Clark and Hillary Clinton

I think that Wesley Clark is by far the best choice for Vice President in this election given the military politics of BushCo. He is brilliant and strong, and unafraid to go after BushCo; something Kerry could use.

I'd like to see Clark chosen to serve as VP for four years of a Kerry presidency with the understanding that he will move over to Secretary of State during a second Kerry term.

Providing a path for Hillary Clinton to serve as Vice President in a second Kerry term. This is the perfect step up for Hillary, and makes tremendous use of Wesley Clark, who could pick up his VP second term under Hillary.

Wesley will be ready to easily become President himself after that experience.

This isn't meant to be whimsical - I think the politics of it work well, both in broad terms and for this election.

His foreign policy experience and the rhodes scholar brains I'd like to see there...

On edit: I'd like Clark for both terms.

And no one will ever change my mind.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Christian Science Monitor today:

Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2002: "I think that there is a substantial risk in the aftermath of the operation that we could end up with a problem which is more intractable than we have today." Reading Ann Scott Tyson's report today on your website, I can't help but wish Gen. Clark's warnings had been heeded. "When we go in there with a transitional government and a military occupation of some indefinite duration, it's also very likely that if there is an effective al Qaeda left -- and there certainly will be an effective organization of extremists -- they will pour into that country because they must compete for the Iraqi people; the Wahabes with the Sunnis, the Shi'as from Iran working with the Shi'a population. So it's not beyond consideration that we would have a radicalized state, even under a U.S. occupation in the aftermath." On this bloody day, April 6, 2004, we might remember that Gen. Wesley Clark saw this clearly, while the Bush administration did not. Had we not aborted the mission in Afghanistan in the war on terror, had we not taken this neo-con misadventure to Iraq, so many of our dead soldiers would still live.

Sincerely,

Here is the article:

As US shifts to a multifront war, risks rise for troops

Pentagon has a delicate task in taking a tougher stance in Fallujah and Sadr City without inflaming wider violence.

By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – As US troops fight a multifront war in Iraq - battling radical Shiite militia, insurgents in Sunni strongholds, and terrorist cells while continuing rebuilding efforts - the American military task is arguably more complex and risky than at any time since the fall of Baghdad.
With the recent spike in violence, US military operations in Iraq have reached a critical juncture, requiring a more robust, aggressive posture rather than the gradual withdrawal the Pentagon originally planned for. The shift also reflects the weakness of Iraqi police and civil defense forces, which have repeatedly given ground in the face of armed attacks in recent days.

Yet a tougher US military response, while dictated by the gruesome killings in Fallujah and uprisings in Shiite cities, also carries a Catch-22. A crackdown on core opponents, if mishandled, could inflame Iraqi opinion against the occupation. Ultimately, only a political solution is likely to end the violence. "You can't win it militarily, but you could lose it," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN. "There is no magic military strategy to keep people off the streets. You have to take the steam out of it by dealing with it politically."

~more~

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0407/p04s01-usmi.html">Christian Science Monitor 4/7/04

everyday it becomes more and more clear to me that in order to neutralize this mess Bushit & Co. got us into, Wes Clark IS the man of the hour.

Besides, I miss seeing him on TV all the time. I won't take down my Clark shrine until the humble panther is on the ticket!!!

:eyes:

I really like Clark. But don't blame America for Clark's mistakes.

were the Kerry supporters. It just didn't look that way here on DU. Goes to show, what do we know? ;)

DU is in now way representative of how either Democrats or the real-world electorate feels on any given issue.

I am curious why so many think she deserves a shot more than other people in our party who have been here longer.

And as for other people being in the party longer? Does that automaticly give them the right? I could name one right now that doesn't deserve it, but it would only start a flame fest.

1) She's earned it, putting up with the vicious attacks of the right wing and doing it with grace. As bad as it's been for the rest of intelligent America, she endured a thousand times worse, and kept fighting.

2) We deserve it. This country was robbed of probably three out of eight years of Clinton Presidency by the venality of the right wing in this country.

3) and most importantly, she is simply the best.


Oh, and you get two for the price of one.

second term, sorry.

edited for punctuation

I think using his considerable experience and brains as VP would be invaluable. Of course, secretary of defense, or secretary of state would be OK too.

Until he is out of military for 10 years.

BUT, I think against Cheney, he'd do well.

Did you catch Wes Clark on Scarborough tonight? Smackdown!! It will rerun at 3AM EST if you can watch or tape it. He was not only superb on Iraq, but gave an amazing defense of Ted Kennedy.

Couldn't take Scarborough and changed the channel. Damn! Little did I know what I was missing.:cry:

of Hillary being the 2nd term VP candidate. She's more in sync with Kerry on the issues than most of the other people mentioned - environment, women's rights, animal rights. These aren't "hot" issues right now, but hopefully once we make progress with the economy, these issues will rise in importance.

I used to think Clark for national security/Florida and possibly the south, but Florida is so iffy. If the polls and predictions are true, then the election may come down to the midwest. I personally favor someone like Edwards or Gephardt who is strong on the job issues over someone like Clark who is strong on national security.

should be a consideration regardless of who is chosen for the VP slot in this election cycle. Hopefully the DLC is working towards this.

I had originally thought that a Wes Clark/Dick Gephart ticket was a good option. Now that John Kerry is the presumptive nominee, though, I think that someone who can take the national security issue and shove it down BushCo's throat is more important than a labor voice on the ticket.

Clark is the man for that, and the candidacy for Vice-President is the perfect position to do it from. Clark has shown that he can and will attack BushCo on domestic security and foreign and military policy. Kerry's need for that is becoming more and more apparent to Democrats.

Labor appears to have woken up on its own. It is the panicked sheep that need to see BushCo's self-promotion as 'strong on national defense' for the charade that it is. That's Wesley Clark.

With Hillary on-deck.

He is my man!
Kerry/Clark is so poetic, I love the sound of it and the wisdom of making them a Team for '04.

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:
:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:
:toast:

That said...the Mentioners are decidedly not mentioning him yet again....just like they did during the primary.

I don't have a lot of hope...but thanks for letting me indulge myself in a beautiful dream...again.

I could see just one VP Debate with General Clark vs. Cheney... If only... Cheney'd get smashed...

We can keep hoping...

I'm Still from Clark Country (Oklahoma, no doubt :) )
and I'm still a Clarkie for Kerry!!