Kerry's VP AS A Strong National Security Statement

If Kerry wanted to send a strong national security statement with his VP pick, then who should he pick? Of course there is Clark. Who else?

Okay, Bob Graham has strong credentials in foreign policy and national security, and Bill Richardson is a former UN ambassador and player on the international field.

I still say, though, why look past Wesley Clark?

Something about his campaign thinks Clark is responsible for that intern garbage that the press was all over right after he dropped out of the race.

Kerry calls Clark his surrogate in public.

They both know exactly what happened. Clark did not say what Drudge said he said. Every reporter in the room has confirmed it. Clark's endorsement of Kerry in its timing put the kebosh on this false slur.

Cause Campaign Desk pulled both Newsweeks' coattails and are currently writing up a piece about MSNBC (Newsweek's sister) for spreading unsubstantiated rumors about Clark spreading rumors....according to Drudge....

Here was there first write up: http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000194.asp

I don't really get Richardson when it comes to national security, not with Clark and Graham in the picture. His FP experience isn't that deep or long. His being governor of a battleground state outside Kerry's region means more, I would think.

I've said it before, I think Kerry will make his choice based on a million different things and it doesn't have to be Clark. I can live with that as long as Wes has a powerful position in which he can work foreign policy/national security. That's what's important to me. What I don't like is Clark being dismissed when the fact is he would make an excellent VP if that's what Kerry wants and what Clark wants.

The 9/11 commission will report it s findings this summer; Iraq will still be a huge issue...the situation may be worse than it is now.

The economy will still be an issue, but terrorism, national security, & Iraq will still dominate. Does Kerry choose someone who strengthens him on security, or does he go to domestic issues?

Kerry already leads Bush on domestic issues; his weakness is FP, & Wes Clark will help most.

If it's a 3-headed, purple tree frog that the voters in some key, swing states happen to like, that's who it will be. It's that simple, y'all. The 'resume' stuff is interesting to talk about, but it's the practical political considerations that will determine who he picks, and nothing else...

fund raising is a biggy and Clark is not good there.

I think Kerry's foreign policy experience is fine, he needs a good "retail" campaigner and fund raiser Edwards looks good on that score

We have to have money, and we have to have a candidate whose presence on the ticket brings EVs to the table. Anything else is merely interesting, but in no way relevant, in any practical political sense...

Edwards came in second consistantly in almost every state, so as far as primary voters go Edwards is the second most popular democrat.

He sure is popular here in MS, I want a Kerry/Edwards ticket so much I can taste it.

And Edwards is a very skillful campaigner.

I give him that.

Do some research, Clark was only in one Quarter and two weeks and raised more than any one except Bush in that Quarter. Edwards couldn't touch him and there are questions about Edwards fundraising not looking too ethical. Paralegals and their spouses reported to be giving $2,000.00 each, not likely at their pay level. Much of Edwards money was from traditional Rethug sources who might not be likely to donate to Kerry.

During the $10M/10 Day Kerry fundraiser Clark pulled in twice as much as anybody else that week, including Edwards, and without a fundraising email ever going out to announce it.

The KS Kerry campaign coordinator told us that Clark is bringing in more money nationally for Kerry than ANYone but Kerry himself.

Clark is the guy Kerry is sending to speak for him at the state fund-raising events. Part of the reason is that Clark is Kerry's surrogate, because their views are so compatible, and because Clark speaks so well to the national security issues, and attacks BushCo so effectively--a task which Kerry would rather not take the lead in right now. Now, that last appears to be changing, but it sure hasn't stopped Kerry from keeping Clark out on the trail. It's just two voices instead of one.

That said, a major part of the reason Clark is sent is precisely because he has been so successful at raising money.

At the Unity dinner, Kerry complimented Edwards for raising money. But if you ask me, it was only because he had to say something nice and that's the ONLY significant thing Edwards has done for him.

I've seen reports of Edwards' appearing for Congressional candidates, esp in states where the economy is hardest hit. But not stand in for Kerry himself yet. I suppose he will in the Carolinas, but that hardly counts.

You should have heard Clark at the Nebraska Morrison-Exon dinner last nite. Where I know for a fact that Kerry was invited, and Clark was sent in his stead. It was a record breaking crowd, and Clark had 'em on their feet a dozen times. The host said afterwards he had NEVER heard one of these things interupted by applause and standing ovations so many times.

Clark will speak at the Alabama Jefferson-Jackson dinner next month, and I have heard they didn't even bother inviting Kerry first. Now, I know that's more because they already know that Kerry won't have or make time for a solid-red state like Alabama. But fact is, the word has gotten out, esp to the party folks in more conservative states, that Wes Clark is the man who pulls in the crowds and the dollars.

The military, the families of the military, the supporters of the military, for decades they've voted Republican. Right now, a lot of people in the Republican base, military people, are beginning to wonder if they should vote for a Democrat, for Kerry, for the first time in their lives. Then they associate Kerry with Hanoi Jane and reluctantly think they have to vote for Bush.

Put Clark on the ticket and we break the Republicans. We break them for years to come. Take one vote from the other side and give it to ours; the net gain is two votes. Take two million military families and put them on our side:

we break the Republicans.

We take the White House in a landslide.

We take back Congress. We take back the Senate.

We break the back of the Republican Party, and the evil scumbags wheel around whining for decades to come.

Go Clark.

I think he'd make a great SoState he already knows all the NATO guys or SoDef would be good spot for him too

Actually we need Bill Clinton for SoState to go smooze the EU

Clark is an embarrasement just for being a Democrat. Is that anything new?

In Kosovo, NATO won it's only war without losing a single soldier. There is nothing embarassing about that.

However, if you want to hear about Kosovo, and the difficulties Clark had, watch this....and get informed.

http://www.us4clark.com/fourthmediaclips.html

go down to 18th row down......2nd clip

The General talks with Margaret Warner about his new book, Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat.
CSPAN (06/15/2001

Cuban_Liberal, I could not agree with you more. It will be practical political considerations which determine the choice. My question is based on the possibility of Kerry determining that practical political considerations require making a strong national security statement with the VP choice.

If not, then it won't happen. It's going to be about who brings EVs from swing states to the table--nothing else (except money). :)

and plug in your thoughts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/veepomatic.htm

Several have mentioned Graham. But don't you think he was a lousy retail campaigner in the primaries? And what about that diary?:)

Being a diarist is a very respectable thing to be. People get off on ridiculing Graham, but if you've never given him the time of listening to him speak on national security, you wouldn't know what a deep thinker and interesting speaker he actually is. I agree he didn't have the charisma people seem to demand on the campaign trail, but he was saying all the things that needed to be said and have since been said about 9/11, for instance, before anybody else. It's a crying shame nobody listened seriously to Bob Graham. But as far as campaigning goes, when it comes to results, the man's never lost an election he's stood for and he has had a very long political career.