I think Clark is the best VP choice. Talk me out of it (or into it).

I like Edwards, but since I don't think Kerry would be wise spending resources in the South (where, sadly, he won't do very well), that puts Edwards lower on the list. I like Dean, but a dual New Englander ticket just won't work. There are a lot of other excellent candidates, but for my money, Clark is the cream, and rising.

Am I right? Wrong? What do you think?

I gave you my take on Dean vis a vis the VP slot. Give me yours.

Dean would be the best Pres were Kerry to die.
Dean would do more for Southerns and Westerners than Edwards or Clark.
It would show that Kerry doesn't do "everything based on polls".
Dean is the most trustworthy, straight shooter.
Dean seems to be an honestly GOOD person.
Dean will reactivate the grass roots for the election/fundraising/excitement.
He led the Democratic party out from under the rock.
Dean can speak out against the PA and Iraq war without being a hypocrite.


etc, etc, etc.

on edit:
NEGATIVE:
the god-damn media ("crazy" Dean/ Dean scream over and over again)

ps-my barber hates kerry and bush but prefers bush. he would rather have Dean than either though

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

I'm with you on why Dean would do more for the South than Edwards, but Clark already HAS done more for the South than Dean or Edwards.
How, you say?
By being intelligent, clear-speaking, level-headed and highly successful in his field - the soldier of the new century: certainly NOT how most stereotypical Southerners are portrayed.
I know that I am always proud when I hear him speak both with a Southern accent and with proper ennunciation. I am also proud to hear what he says and how he can forumlate an intelligent opinion regarding the Iraqi War that, thus far, has proven to be true every step of the way.
I know that he sees the way Southern life is and how to change it from the inside out - not as an outsider (as Dean would appear to be) coming into "tell us what to do" or by over-selling my "Southerness," which, sadly, I see Edwards doing. (NOTE: this is NOT a slam at Northerners or Edwards fans. I am a intelligent, articulate Southern woman who wants to help make life better for my neighbors and, to do that, I must stay here and work and promote more progressive ideas both in how I live and in the words I choose.)

In answer to your question, Will, I think Clark should have been the POTUS, but I like Kerry just fine; therefore, my next choice - both to give Clark the political experience so many think he needs and because I think it's time this country had stable, proven and honest leadership - would be to have Clark as VP.
As a career military man, he certainly does not shy from confrontations and would take Cheney in a rout, particularly now that he's learned that political debates aren't structured like West Point debates. He will also smooth the feathers of the traditional Republicans who, while fed up with Bush, don't see Kerry as a choice: Clark is a progressive in BVDs - a much easier pill to swallow for traditional Republicans.
As a Southerner, he, however, tempers his agressive style with a soft approach in his speaking abilities. This will endear him to folks of a kinder nature, tired of "politics as usual."
As a thinker, he can help Kerry implement progressive policies and show the doubters how they WILL, in reality, benefit the masses and not just the wealthy.
Clark should be the VP - for the good of all Americans.

I tend to dismiss the new-englander theory on it's face, without any data to back it up.

A few reasons for a serious look at Dean here:

Picking Howard Dean for VP helps John Kerry win the election
1- Kerry will have great difficulty bringing Nader voters back into the Democratic fold. With his progressive record and anti-war stance, Dean can bridge the gap with Nader. Without these Nader voters, Kerry cannot win a close election.

3 - Dean brings enormous clout and connections within the Latino community, where Bush and the Republicans have a three month head start in Spanish language media and setting up field offices in key states. Dean was endorsed by Hilda Solis, Richard Alarcon, Rocky Delgadillo, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Javier Bacerra, and many other high profile Latino electeds. Dean for America also mounted Southwest Victory Express, one of the largest outreach programs among all campaigns in heavily Latino New Mexico and Arizona, and those connections can still be activated on behalf of Kerry.

4- Dean enhances Kerry's appeal to independents and moderate Republicans, many of whom supported Dean. Kerry has to get Republican defections to compensate for the defections of conservative Dems, and he has to win the independents. Dean can help deliver both.

6- Dean solves the problem with the perception that Kerry has a lackluster stump persona by turbocharging the campaign overnight. It is like having someone pour a drum of Red Bull into Kerry's herbal tea. At the same time, Kerry's steady demeanor helps temper Dean's energy. They complement one another to great advantage.

8- Kerry is a hunter. Dean is a hunter. Dean received the NRA's highest rating as Governor of Vermont. Together, they neutralize the Republican NRA advantage better than any other Kerry/VP combo. This gives them a real chance of being competitive in the South and Mountain West, and their positions on the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Gun Show Loophole, etc., are much more progressive than Bush/Cheney for urban voters.

http://draftdeanforvp.org/whyDEAN.html

You posted a thread showing Naders impact in the swing states. Who better to help counter the Nader effect - without losing the middle, than Dean. http://dontvoteralph.org/

Hey, was this thread started after the article from the Globe was posted, and if so why? :shrug:

Can't we have a thread discussing Dean for VP without the peanut gallery freaking out?

I agree with you.

www.draftdeanforvp.org :hi:

the VP will be a rich white guy.:D The debate is now which rich white guy will it be? There's a good argument to be made for all final contenders and I will happily support whoever is selected. That said, I hope Kerry picks John Edwards for VP.

John Edwards and John Kerry go together like donuts and coffee; they compliment each other. John Kerry is the statesman, the philosopher -- the individual who would willingly bear the burdens of high office with grace and skill.

Edwards is the affable man of the people, the populist who knows what being poor means and who has never lost touch with his roots. He is a rags-to-riches success story and can identify with the common man. He's also from the South and I think that would help the ticket. Edwards ran strong during the primaries and I think he has enough charisma to draw Independents and moderate Republicans particularly in states where job loss has been high. I believe that Florida can go either way so I don't think we should give up on that state just because of what happened in 2000.

John Kerry has lived a privileged life but, like John F. Kennedy, never let that influence his ideals and sense of duty. The fact that he never tried to get out of serving in the military like the Republican chickenhawks did and put his life on the line for his country is a testiment to his character.

John Edwards would learn under Kerry's tutelage, gaining stature and experience. He was too young to go to Vietnam so his military service or lack thereof would never be an issue.

They would be a dynamic duo; Edwards would be the Yin to Kerry's Yang, or vice-versa.

Wesley Clark would also be an excellent choice but I just feel that his field of expertise would best be utilized as Sec of State. The United State's reputation and credibility has been badly damaged by the Bush administration and we need someone strong who can help Kerry gain back the respect of our allies.

Howard Dean is a fellow New-Englander so I don't feel like that would make a balanced ticket. Dean would be great in any kind of administrative position in the Kerry administration and I think his talents should be put to good use. His ideas are fresh and innovative and he has a large following.

The John/John team will be dy-na-mite!

Dean was standing up to Bush when Kerry was voting in favor of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and No Child Left Behind. Kerry needs Dean to lend credibility to the notion that Kerry is against these things now.

Take Dean out of the picture (which realistically is what's going to happen) and I say Clark.

Haven't you heard.

...don't see how anyone missed that, actually.

I am a little biased because I was a Clark supporter in the primary but he has the credentials to clean up the mess in Iraq and other hot spots around the globe.

He would be a great national security/foreign policy candidate. Kerry could then focus on domestic issues during the campaign and put Clark on foreign policy issues. That would be a great team if you ask me!

I think Clark is probably the most qualified for foreign policy. BUT... if htis election is TRULY about ousting bush, I really feel it is most important to look at who can get KERRY INTO THE WHITE HOUSE so we can fix our country. Can't fix anything unless we get him in there. I don't think Clark is polished enough to be a benefit in winning the election. His campaign gafs are ultimately what did him in, and I see this happening again. Edwards... that man can TALK. I have never seen someone who can give a campaign speech and invigorate a crowd like he can. That is why I choose Edwards.

But if Clark gets it, I am there 100%.

I don't see much wisdom in it.

Not to take away from Edwards skill on the stump, but it just can't be ignored that he had nothing but positive media coverage when it mattered, right before the post-Iowa primaries. All of the post-NH primaries are about reaching big numbers, and that takes free media.

The only thing that sunk Clark was not competing in Iowa. Not that he had much choice. But after Iowa, the media turned away in favor of Kerry and Edwards (and the Dean scream)--understandable since those were the stories of the day. After NH, media was totally gone, even tho he did beat Edwards and lost only to Kerry and Dean, the closest thing to NH native sons.

I really don't think Clark's alleged "gaffs" were a factor, with the possible exception of the Nagourney NYT interview. Edwards made his share of gaffs too, altho they didn't get much coverage. Very few voters pay much attention to any of that stuff anyway--it's largely a phenomenon among the political junkie crowd (like DUers). But voters have to know who you are and what you stand for, and without free media when they're paying attention, it just doesn't happen.

Edwards is a good campaigner, I'll give him that, if a bit too slick and superficial for my taste. But Clark is VERY effective on the stump too. His rallies were always heavily attended and he fires up a crowd even now. Any comparison between the two is purely subjective--both have their strengths AND weaknesses. But if Clark were as poor a campaigner as some people here seem to think, I don't see how he could have gone from a standing start to being a top contender, and the biggest money draw, in a matter of weeks. No one in electoral history has accomplished as much in such a short time.

Sidenote: If Clark's "gaffs" were a factor, he must have been one helluva campaigner to have overcome them.

Just the other day, I was looking at total funds raised for both Clark and Edwards. Even tho Edwards started his campaign over a year before Clark, transferred money in from his Senate campaign fund, and continued raising money, big money, for the better part of another month after Clark dropped out, he still only raised about $3 million more total. As of the end of April 04, it was something like $32M to $29M (working from memory). And over $9M of Edwards' total take was from his trial lawyer buddies.

One of the biggest differences between Clark and Edwards as campaigners was the effectiveness of their campaign staffs. Clark's late start gave him only the left-overs, and it especially showed how they responded (or failed to respond) to the attacks that came from both the left and right. It also badly hurt his ability to put his broad grassroots to work effectively.

But quality of staff just isn't a factor any more since Clark's being handled by Kerry's staff now. And it shows! He's raising big money for Kerry, drawing big crowds at state party functions, speaking and writing very effectively for Kerry in the media, TV and print.

Yes, Edwards could get the womens vote.

BUT, I don't trust him.

1. he wrote the PA and then campaigns against it.
2. he talks all the time about outsourcing (that is such a "lawyeresque" stump speach) - there is very little that can be done to stop it, seems like a Rove strategy to get people emotional for the polls

Oh boy - where's AP? AP is gonna let you have it!

NOW STOP SPREADING THAT DU URBAN LEGEND!!!!!

thank you.

There used to be a press release on Edwards' website that claimed co-authorship. It was not specific as to what parts consituted Edwards' contribution, but he was complicit in the effort.

Of course, now that it's more correct to criticize the PA, the press release is gone.

Do you really need any reassurance?

Clark is the best pick for lots of reasons . . .

And it is starting to look more and more as if he will get it. Unless you listen to Edwards supporters.

I say Wes is best!

:toast:

lately.

I like him, think he'd be fine, but don't see how he's standing out amongst the crowd these days.

As for Edwards, I think he's best since the media will get all weepy and giggly about how it signals Kerry will fight for the South. If he doesn't pick Edwards, the media will spin it that he's given up on the South, and the campaign won't be able to get any other message out.

He was on NPR just last week, discussing an article he had published in Washington Monthly a month ago. Showing why Bush is NOT another Reagan, and has in fact missed the lessons of the Cold War.

He's also got a $1K/person Kerry fundraiser scheduled in DC day after tomorrow.

If Clark hasn't been around real recently as much as he was before, it's because he was out of the country for a couple weeks, meeting with politcal and economic leaders from Eastern Europe and attending a world economic conference in Marrakesh. Ummm... I don't think he was doing it to get a North African suntan.

Damn you! Also, we need as many Senators as we can get. Edwards should run again. And Clark against Cheney in a debate would be delicious.

He's already given up his own seat, but if he were VP I think he could a lot to help other Dems get elected to the Senate across the South and midwest - starting with Erskine Bowles, heading south to Inez Tenenbaum, west to Brad Carson, back north to Barack Obama, and out across the country.

Edwards as VP is our best chance to win back the Senate.

He did say earlier that he didn't want to be VP, and it took him a long time to decide whether or not he'd like to run for president. He'd have to be prepared for his critics to bring up the idea that he might not be completely decisive about it.

while Clark was still running. No surprise he spurned the offer then. Times are different now.

Do I have my facts right on that?

He'd have to come up with a good way of explaining that though.

The Dean camp says it was never offered; the Clark camp says it was.

Who knows, maybe they both are true.

As far as the VP thing, I think, and I could be wrong, that he did say he did not want to be anyone's VP, not just Dean.

Still, every candidate, Dean included, said that they did not want to be VP during the primary. It would be stupid for them to do so. Anyway, I don't think this comment will come back and hunt him if he gets the nod.

Clark was running for President, not VP, and he was truthful in saying he wasn't interested. Even after he dropped out, he only maintained VP wasn't what interested him, getting Kerry elected was. Not the same as turning it down.

But the only specific instance where he was asked point blank about a specific possibility, during the campaign (on MTP in early Jan), was with reference to Dean. He said "I will not be Dean's Cheney" (owtte).

There was a minor controversy about whether Clark had been offered the VP position by Dean, altho it was separate from the issue of whether he would have taken it. Of course, it wasn't a specific offer--as someone noted, it wasn't Dean's to offer at that point. And Clark never said it was offered, per se. But he did tell George Stephanopolis (sp?) that Dean had "dangled" the possibility when they met before Clark ever declared.

It really shouldn't have been an issue at all. I'm sure most serious candidates feel out potential VPs early on, as Kerry did with McCain way back last summer. It only became a controversy because Trippi was on the same Stephanololis show right after the tape of Clark's interview and denied without reservation that it had happened, essentially calling Clark a liar. Later, Trippi had to admit that he wasn't actually present for the conversation and Dean never weighed in one way or th'other.

ever "dangled" it.

I remember it very well, it happened shortly after Clark returned from testifying in The Hague, and it was clearly a setup arranged by Trippi, Stephanopoulos & Dean. Woodruff got her licks in too--revenge for the way Wes had put the smackdown on her from The Hague the week before.

;)

...as a bait to try to keep Clark out of running for President. He absolutely DID offer it, whether or not he technically could offer it.

:hi:

...or do you not read the news??? Check the FACTS, sweetheart. September 2003. Or I guess all the major newspapers and networks are all liars...

Clark confirmed as much by saying "well it was dangled ..." :eyes: sweetheart.

For someone who claims to be up on the facts, you seem totally unaware that Clark was a consultant to Dean. They had several "meetings."

...that was in JANUARY. I am not surprised you don't remember that seeing as how he changed his mind so often. I am talking SEPTEMBER, you know, fall time?

And no, Clark was never a 'consultant' to Dean. Clark talked to everyone, even Kerry, prior to entering the race.

Get your facts straight, darling.

Dean did consult with Clark on national security issues on several occassions. So, get YOUR facts straight "darling."

Does the name General Hugh Shelton ring a bell. Let's not get too personal here ok.

Never. He went to Dean to discuss the possibility of running. I don't doubt they discussed foreign policy (altho I know of no evidence they did). But a consultant? Like Shelton was for Edwards? Never.

And other foreign policy issues.

It doesn't make either of us a "consultant."

Give me a source that shows Clark was working for Dean (not necessarily for pay) as a consultant.

To exchange views; confer.

I didn't say he was "working for Dean as a consultant" I said he consulted with Dean on Iraq and other Foreign Policy issues. He was a consultant - ie they consulted.

"We got along well," Dean said. "He gave some good advice" on foreign policy. "I gave him some advice on domestic policy. … And I did not and have not offered anyone the vice presidency," Dean said.

...

Dean said he and Clark met several times before Clark declared his candidacy in September.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/politics/main589964.shtml

Isn't that just RICH! Hugh Shelton, Mr. Honor and Integrity himself! LOL...now you are just being ridiculous!

http://speakerseries.com/spk2003/shelton.htm

GENERAL HUGH SHELTON
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001)

A native of Tarboro, North Carolina, General Hugh Shelton received a Bachelor's Degree in Textiles from North Carolina State University and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Infantry through the Reserve Officer Training Corps.

He spent the next 37 years in a variety of command and staff positions in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Vietnam, serving two combat tours in Vietnam - the first with the 5th Special Forces Group, the second with the 173d Airborne Brigade. He also commanded the 3d Battalion, 60th Infantry in the 9th Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Washington, served as the 9th Infantry Division's chief of staff for operations, commanded the 1St Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and was the Chief of Staff of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York.

Selected for promotion for brigadier general in 1988, General Shelton served two years in the Operations Directorate of the Joint Staff. In 1989, he began a two-year assignment as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, during which he participated in the liberation of Kuwait during Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM. After the Gulf War, General Shelton was promoted to major general and assumed command of the 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. In 1993, he was promoted to lieutenant general and assumed command of the XVIII Airborne Corps. In 1994, during his tenure as Corps commander, General Shelton led the United States Joint Task Force that restored democracy in Haiti. In March 1996, he was promoted to general and became Commander in Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command.

General Shelton became the 14th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 1997, and served two 2-year terms. Throughout his tenure as Chairman, U.S. forces were in heavy demand and participated in numerous joint operations around the globe.

During his tenure, he worked tirelessly on behalf of service members, their families and military retirees by championing a number of landmark quality of life initiatives, including: the largest pay raise in 18 years, pay table and bonus reform, and critical improvements in both retirement and healthcare programs. He made great strides in improving the readiness and retention of the current force while simultaneously crafting Joint Vision 2020 - the roadmap for the Future Joint Force. General Shelton also established Joint Forces Command to consolidate joint experimentation efforts and guide the transformation of the U.S. armed forces for the 21st Century.

General Shelton holds a Master's Degree from Auburn University, and has attended Harvard University, the Air Command and Staff College and the National War College. He has been decorated for distinguished service by numerous military and civilian organizations in the United States and overseas.

Among his many military awards, he has received four Defense Distinguished Service Medals, two Army Distinguished Service Medals, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for Valor and the Purple Heart. He has been decorated by 15 foreign governments. Highlights of his civilian awards include North Carolina's highest Award for Public Service, the Eisenhower Award from the Business Executives for National Security, the American Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award, Intrepid Freedom Award, and recognition as National Father of the Year, among others.

I guess it's debatable?

...especially when you consider that his allegation against Clark, which he would never explain publically, was ultimately explained when he remarked to the JUDGE at the HAGUE that his comments were 'just politics'.

But I guess you don't remember the trial of Milosovic--and General Clark's testimony at the Hague--and how ol' certifiable war criminal Milo said that Clark couldn't be trusted because Hugh Shelton challenged Clark's 'character and integrity'. So the judge AT THE HAGUE (do I need to explain to you what the Hague is?) decided to call ol' Hugh Shelton and ask him if he would like to testify for Milosovic against General Clark based on his comments about General Clark's 'character and integrity'. And guess what ol' Hugh said? Can you guess? He said "No SIR! It was 'just politics'". And that's all he would say, ever. DO YOU KNOW WHY IT WAS "JUST POLITICS"??? Because he was working for Edwards when he said it!

So, now tell me, do you think a man who would challenge another man's character and integrity WITHOUT STATING WHY HE IS CHALLENGING SAME, is himself of upstanding character? No, someone who makes an unexplained, unsubstantiated claim against another person and just leaves it hanging there is someone himself without character and integrity. In fact, Colonel David Hackworth suggested that General Clark should sue Shelton for sullying his reputation with such unsubstantiated remarks--but the dear General Clark would never do such a thing--because he is a man of extreme character and his reputation stands for itself.

So go ahead, try to act as if the remarks were justified. It makes you just as guilty.

Damn, you're good! You left out one little thing though. . .
What does this say about Edwards' character and integrity???

ROTFLMAO!

Mua failed to research? Why because you don't like what I've found? Believe me I have researched Clark, and I'm going rather easy on him because he's a non-issue. *yawn*

Shelton (a superior officer) accused Clark of having 'integrity and honesty issues.' Or should I say "Dear General Shelton" ... :eyes:

I think your support has turned to obsession cosmo. I saw your uhm fan page. 100's of photos, and not one thing to read?! Reminds me of my crush on Donny Osmond when I was 7. I had filled my room with posters of his beautiful Osmonian self ... And, all I knew was that his favorite color was "purple" and that was good enough for me. Ahhhh, "Dear Donny" :loveya: :P

But, back to the matter at hand.

Let's remember, you started this ball of wax by accusing Dean of having integrity issues. Trouble is, you haven't made your case.

I just found you a superior officer who said Clark is a liar. Clark claims it's "politics" who to believe?

Theres much more ...

Would you like some glowing quotes from Clark on the Bush admin as well? I've got plenty. Oh, and how bout the part where he says had he gotten a call from Rove? "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Though Clark told Fineman he meant the comment as a "humorous tweak," Holtzman claims that "He went into detail about his grievances," and that "Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked."

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030925.html

Ta ta ... :hi: Let's remember not to get so personal next time 'sweetheart'... I really don't like trashing Clark or any of the Dems now that the primaries are over. YOU?

Did you not read what I wrote? Apparently NOT.

You wrote: """I just found you a superior officer who said Clark is a liar. Clark claims it's "politics" who to believe?"""

SHELTON claimed his remarks were 'just politics'--and he said this to the Judge at the Hague. Then PRESIDENT CLINTON (are you going to deny this too?) WROTE A LETTER TO THE HAGUE REFUTING SHELTON'S REMARKS.

So not only did Shelton himself say it was 'just politics', Bill Clinton defended General Clark against Shelton's remarks.

But you read what you want to read, HONEY...go on believing only what you want to believe and your world will never be filled with light...

And as for my 'fan page', SWEETHEART, it was created as a photo link for CLARK SUPPORTERS to download photos to use for their Clark pages--it is definitely not 'Donny Osmond'.

Now, do you actually have something intelligent to say????

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

researched quite a bit, you seem to have stopped short regarding Gen. Hugh Shelton.
Turns out that Shelton admitted to the judge presiding over Slobodan Milsovech's at The Hauge that his comment was "just politics." Shelton's idiotic remark wormed its way into Milosoveh's trial when he tried to use it impune Clark, who was testifying against him at the time.

As far as Donny Osmond-like crushes are concerned, the only people I see participating in that kind of behavior are fans of a certain other vice-presidential wannabe (I mean REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, "please, please, please pick me," wannabe who didn't even vote before he ran for office).

One person says one thing, Clark says another. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has the problem. So, dont let that chisled jaw line and pearly white smile fool ya.

Uhm, not sure what wannabe your referring to? What I sense is a pissing contest because Clark supporters are about to see Edwards get the VP nomination.

Shelton is slime. He did what no military officer should EVER do. He's an embarrassment to the officer corps, and now pretty much a pariah for it.

OK? What's debatable are the accusations against Shelton. Can't find one bad thing about him, ceptin he insulted Clark.

He isn't the only person who has had issues with Clark as you know.

You read what Cosmo said. Even Shelton said his remarks were "just politics."

Why are you carrying on about this? What is really up here? This is a non-issue, but you want to make it one. Whats the deal?

And whats with the personal attack? Telling Cosmo she has a Donny Osmond crush because she has a website with pics? Nasty, Molly.

Come on. Fess up. What is really up your ***?

:shrug:

and re-read the part about "just politics"... Shelton didn't just "say an unkind word", but when pressed, said it was "just politics."

Your claim is that a reputable person said something negative that reflects Clark's true character.

But when asked to put his money where his BIG mouth is, Shelton simply ran for cover, crying "just politics"... please don't ask me to swear under oath Mr. Hague People... I was just playing politics.

So - when you find someone CREDIBLE with a record of STANDING by their words, and THAT person has something that would shed light on Clark's character, then maybe someone here will take you and your Donny-Osmond-lovin' meme seriously.

...that some of these folks who supported the losing candidate who SCREAMED that we needed a WASHINGTON OUTSIDER, and SOMEONE WHO NEVER VOTED FOR THE WRONG IRAQ WAR, and SOMEONE WHO NEVER VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT, are now supporting for VP a candidate who is all of these. It is really a mark of insanity.

your browser and save yourselves some work. You all sound alike.

This all started with *cosmo* started to insult Deans character. I simply said, Dean's integrity hasn't come into question as Clarks has on a number of occassions.

Saying something is just politics doesn't take from the fact that Clark had integrity issues. Many politicians do.

Because some people won't listen to reason, even if it's in bold print. But hey, the people who spread the meme don't mind repeating it over and over, so I guess the thinking majority will have to continue debunking the vitriol.

By the way, how many more times are we going to have to hear "Two Americas" before someone complains about repetition?

...I want to be PRESIDENT." (To much applause.) I believe that was on Bill Maher. He was still in the running at the time. But it was a clear statement that will have to be modified if he is chosen. Clark's "out" was that he said "national security has to be at the top of the ticket"--which I take to mean him or Kerry at the top (since Graham was already out). Dean was the frontrunner at the time.

I think the Boston Globe editorial hit it on the head--if Kerry wants excitement he should go with Dean. It also states that Dean is bigger than a single state--Vermont, which Kerry will win anyhow--he represents a national movement. I also feel that Dean will attract left leaning dems and independents who may be tempted to vote for Nader due to the war, without antagonizing swing voters. How could he? Dean was a budget balancing moderate in Vermont and his stand on the war is being vindicated by the day. Finally a VP is supposed to be an attack dog--Dean has proved he can take the attack to Bush and Cheney like nobody else.

but I have to say it: Dean's national movement delivered exactly zero electoral victories until Vermont, at which point the deal had already gone down. I do not denigrate the movement - far from it - but I question its strength vis a vis a national campaign.

Your other points are very well taken.

We all know how the game is played Will. Iowa = the big MO.

Kerry won Iowa and the rest is history.

Dean has earned several electoral votes, but mainly the dirty tricks was truly behind it -- like swapping votes in Iowa.

That was a backstabbing effort, and I will never forgive Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, and the suicidal Gephardt for it.

Dean has been honest throughout the campaign, and he will continue to do so, even if he has unequiovcably supports Kerry.

Hawkeye-X

Not trying to start with you, but I have never seen anyone offer definitive proof of the 'dirty tricks' accusation.

Like Will I have seen no proof, only allegations on DU etc, of dirty tricks from Kerry to Dean campaign (which IHMO were REpug tricks against dean and kerry)

From what I am reading nowadays, Dean and Kerry are pretty close now, enjoying campaigning together, hanging out together, and have "bonded." The pictures and stuff I read go beyond Dean wanting BUsh out, and are about real affection and friendship between the two men. I do not beleive that this would have happened if what you suggest were true.

It was the DlC and the Hillary and on and on and on... Dean is a loser.

Dean lost Iowa--came in third with 19% and from that moment on with the shortened primary schedule it was hard for him to recover. He did well but short of victory in states like Maine and Washington. I think he made a mistake in not competing in at least one or two states on Super Tuesday--such as Arizona and NM where he did respectably for not running any ads and putting all his eggs in Wisconsin. He did solidly in NH with 26% and a second place showing well ahead of Edwards and Clark, but by then with victories in Ia and NH, Kerry was virtually unstoppable. Still Dean has proved he has hundreds of thousands of strong supporters--maybe millions. In the primaries/caucuses since leaving the race he has received almost 700,000 votes--coming in second in some of them--including Pennsylvania. I also think he has been vindicated on Iraq...today when his question is asked--Is the US safer with Saddam captured? by 2-1 people now agree with Dean. In the end, I honestly think Iraq will decide the election and I think Dean's strong opposition from the beginning will be an asset.

that was when people thought we should be in Iraq.
now, 65% think we should not be there.

Really, no one other then Kerry got many victories from their national movements.

One more thing about picking Dean, Nader was going to endorse Dean if he won the nom, so I think this could deflate the Dean factor.

I like Dean, actually wanted him to get the nom, but I do worry about the whole "crazy" thing. I know it is not true, but that is how the media is spinning him. I think he would bring a lot of energy and I think he would rip into Dick C. during any debates they might have.

All in all, I think the chance of Dean becoming VP is next to nothing.

Most people think the Dean act is silly. What BS . He takes his coat off and rolls up his sleeves. Its just like pro-wrestling. He sounds like that too. He never won anything.

I posted on the board recently that the Kerry camp has expressed to the media that Kerry will be infusing meaning into his slogan, "Stronger at Home...Respected in the World." I believe both Edwards and Dean would bring much to the table in regards to domestic-strengthening skills, but if it is indeed Kerry's intention to strengthen our borders and regain the respect lost in the last two years, then Clark is by far the most qualified candidate for VP. Wesley Clark not only has the military experience to add to ou national security needs, but a strong knowledge of economics to aid in the un-doing of the damage Bush has released onto our economy. Additionally, not one other vetted-individual has the recognition and respect (globally) that Clark does.

In adding to the mission and vision of the Kerry administration, Clark is indeed, rising in both aptitude and qualification.

I'm leaning more toward Edwards. I think Kerry excels with the foreign policy/veteran issues Clark offers already, I think he needs to find someone with different strengths. Edwards resonates with working class people. He's not a blue-blood, and although Clark isn't either, he's not as much a populist as Edwards.

I see Edwards having strengths with economic issues and he's popular with women (he appeals to women, anyway). I think as the second most popular Democrat as well in most states, his popularity is a plus.

No one can deny the power of having two brilliant handsome young men on the ticket like Clinton and Gore. Putting Edwards on the ticket will remind people of that ticket back in 1992.

Edwards creates excitement. He and Kerry look great together. Remember the electricity of the Clinton/Gore early days? Kerry/Edwards will recapture that magic and ride it all the way to the White House.

on the tube regularly during his stint as NATO commander in Kosovo. (no, I am not a stalker) The first time I saw him I nearly fell off my chair thinking. . ."Wow a military guy with a soul and an intellect. . ." Normally those guys just seem like preprogramed talking heads. I've extensively read everything I could find that he's written. I think he knows more about history, national security, and common sense than most of the other contenders. He's from the south, and is highly respected amongst our former allies.

I wonder if NATO's message to *, saying "contact us after the election, " has more than a little to do with their intense loyalty to Clark.

The only thing that worries me is that he's not as telegenic as Edwards, but Clark has Edwards (who I do like) totally trumped in terms of foreign policy experience. We will need that experience desparately in the coming years after the anti-Americanism that *'s arrogance has brought upon us.

Of course folks will bring up that Kosovo airport incident, but up against Mr. "Dipstick" "robo-heart" Cheney's 5 deferments. . .no contest.

on edit. . .Clark would draw from a bipartisan base. Not sure that Edwards would.

But I think that a lot of other picks also bring just as much, but in different ways.

I'm not trying to talk you out of Clark, but my concerns for him are:
His lack of campaign experience and his lack of holding an elected office.

To explain a little more, I was not overly impressed with Clark on the stump or in the debates during the primary. I know lots of people thought he was as good (or better then) Clinton, but I never felt it. I thought he was alright, but of all the events I watched, and there were many, I never felt connected with him. As far as the elected office, there is a difference between elected office and the military. Again, he does not have a record, so I do not know how he will do.

Please don't take this as an attack, I like Clark, these are just my concerns.

I saw him stump several times and he was effective and energizing - the EXACT opposite of each and every one of his debate experiences. Was it the questions asked? Inexperience? I honestly don't know, so I won't make excuses for him.

However, the ONLY candidates that ever stood out for me in the debates were Sharpton and Kucinich. Unfortunately, though they received rave reviews here and elsewhere, their performances didn't transfer to votes cast.

I'm not inclined to worry about how Clark will do in the upcoming debate against Cheney. If Clark is being vetted seriously, I'm sure he's already working out the kinks.

And for the record, NOBODY is better than Clinton, but WHAT exactly did he mean by, "a pickle stepping back in time" ?

I was wondering about the "pickle" comment also, but was afraid to ask.

I do wish I knew what the hell he was saying.

As far as Clark on the stump, I agree, I think he was better there then in the debate, but even there, it just felt a little off to me. Still, he has had more time so maybe he has improved.

folksiness, I guess: the portrait is his version of being pickled/preserved.

A cucumber? Is that some sort of cigar parallel? BWAHAHAHA! *sorry... using laughter to hide my ignorance of cucumber-referenced commentary*

and forgot to add LOL to the post. I have no idea what he meant and never heard about that question. I was just being a smart alec! :silly:

Clark is a great attack dog, as proven through the Primaries and after. Edwards never really got aggressive and he's faded into relative obscurity since he dropped out. Clark, at least, has kept in the public eye, making speeches, attacking the Cabal, etc.

History has already shown us that Edwards doesn't put up much of a verbal fight, and that's what Kerry needs. He needs someone to aggressively go after Bush and Cheney. Moreover, Clark actually has the reputation to attack with, he's a frickin' General! Edwards, sadly, still supports many of Bush's positions and, IMO, he's got little to no major credibility on the hot-button issues.

Clark should be Kerry's choice.

career politician

He was busy attacking Bush.

It was his first run. Consider it a warm up.

Besides, "deer in the headlights" look trumps "chimp in the headlights" looks. Or in the case of Tricky Dick, who Clark would end up debating - "burglar in the spotlight" look.

Dean looked like road kill. What a loser.

Are above Deanhole cheap theatrics. You bet on a lame horse.

Is that what you're saying?
:eyes:

I love Clark, but we need someone who is a more polished campaigner, more affable and easy-going than Kerry, and someone that will make Cheney look like the ogre he is.

Clark can do these things, but I don't think he instills the same optimism and excitement that Edwards does...

the mess in the Pentagon. Who else has experience start the mending process of these war torn nations of Iraq, Afghanistan and unfortunatly America.

I think Edwards on the ticket makes that more of a reality.

Edwards makes winning more of a reality? ahhahahahah


All of Kerry's polling vs. Bush shows his weakest area to be that of National Security/Foreign policy. He beats Bush on all the domestic issues. Now tell me again EXACTLY how JE helps in the area of foreign policy/national security when he didn't even know who Itzak Rabin was?

You are forgetting that the moderates and indys don't give a flying fuck about 'feeling good'. They want to 'feel safe, secure, and unthreatened'. Sorry, but that ain't Edwards. He doesn't help the ticket AT ALL.

1. Clark
2. Edwards
3. Dean (distant third)

Clark is soft spoken and contemplative for a military man (especially compared to the current crop of bellicose pig-headed chickenhawks) and is sometimes perceived as "wimpy". However, I think the biggest weakness of the Bush admin is the military/ counter-terrorism/ foreign policy. Clark has the best resume for that.

Edwards might bring in the south, and while smart & good looking lacks physical "gravitas".

Dean just plain RAWKS!! (but is geographically undesirable)

Will: might the primary criteria be not what the mas has to offer, but how resistant his past/ personality/ hairstyle will be to the RW spin machine?

BES

am totally unbiased... and I just think you are a brilliant man!

There's nobody stronger than Clark for national security - not only does he have the military expertise, but more importantly, he has the diplomatic experience to help to bring the standing of the United States back up from the gutter and get some worldwide support. He was endorsed by fifty-some (some Clarkie will fix my statistics here) diplomats and ambassadors during the primaries - people who have worked with him all over the world, through several different US administrations.

He is right on target for social issues, though for some reason, people perceive him as being more of a centrist. That, I think is a benefit, because he can attract a lot of those swing voters or Republicans who are fed up with bush (like my R bro-in-law who voted Clark in the primaries).

He's a fiscal conservative - definitely what we need now, and more attractive to the center.

He and Kerry get along great. They are supportive of each other and have a mutual friendship and respect. He came strongly to Kerry's defense when people were bashing Kerry's post-service War Protest. He said that he was proud of Kerry for standing up for what he believed in - that that is what patriotism is, after all! That could help with the Veteran and Repub. voters.

He is ready to step into the Presidency if something were to happen to Kerry. He doesn't need on-the-job training, he's ready TODAY.

And Gert would be one kick-ass First Lady! :D

Don't know what states he'd swing our way, would like to see more data.

Also, do you have any analysis beyond "the cream and rising" :P

I also think Nader is an issue that needs consideration - I don't know that Clark is helpful in dealing with the Nader factor? :hi:

I'll support Kerry/X whoever that X may be. Provided it's a Democrat who's name is not Zell Miller.

an opportunist. If Gore had won in 2000 Clark would have tried for the Republican nomination. His unabashed praise of Bush, Cheney , Rice and Rumsfeld should be enough to disqualify him. Either he was lying when he said those things or he had horrible judgment. Either way , Clark on the ticket would be a huge mistake. Outside of DU , I don't know a single Democrat who supported him in the primaries. If his praise of the bushies and the following complete reversal of his values isn't enough of a reason to drop him from consideration there is always his dismal performance in the primaries. Democrats don't want him. How would putting a loser on the ticket enhance it? There is no doubt that Rumsfeld has reams of negative information on Clark at his disposal. His performance in the military wasn't exactly stellar at the end of his career. There are so tons of negatives with this guy and as far as I can see, not a single positive.

I had to check my URL to make sure I was still on DU. For a second, I thought I'd wandered over to Rush's blog, what with that same old tired spin.

he's been posting CRAP like that at every opportunity that he can get...on every single Clark thread! Many people have tried to show him where he is wrong or misguided...but to no avail! Don't even bother trying...it's like beating a dead horse!

Just let me at 'em!

:nuke:

I didn't think so. :eyes:

:wtf:

How dare you speak for 'most democrats'. Check the facts before you post tripe.

was, if memory serves in May of 2001. This could easily be construed, after such a devisive election, as the patriotic thing to do. . . to give them the benefit of the doubt. I tried to too. . .until about the second month of their misadministration when I'd watch them talk and think, "they're lying." Ughhhhhhh.

Bottom line is, he woke up and stood up against them after innumerable foibles, took a tremendous risk to expose them for what they are.

What's the deal? You got any statistics to back this up, bowens, or are you just blowing smoke up our ***?

Let's see some facts. Sources. That haven't already been refuted five million times on this website and other websites . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=548198&mesg_id=548671

You got any new information? I didn't think so . . .Just rehashing the same old BS.

:shrug:

Give it a rest.

are political outsiders. this, i believe, will be the trump card. only clark, dean, and kucinich opposed iraq war. clark only candidate with command experience in war, and decisively winning that war with no casualties doesn't hurt either.

P.S. clark is clairvoyant just read this and you will see
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/sasc-092302.htm

Economics and PoliSci major, forward thinking on energy technologies, SACEUR, CIC of Euro Command, CIC of Southern Command, diplomat and chief negotiator of the Dayton (Bosnia) Peace Accords, decorated Vietnam veteran, 1st in his class at the War College, successful business man...
Arkansan (which Arkansas is actually winnable),


NO, I think you have it exactly right, Will. He is a very fine, pure, cream and is rising to the top, above all others.

but WE ARE in a war now

Funny...you think it is actually going to end? And what part of the non-military resume did you miss?

i want the military qualifications of Kucinich

i want a guy that gets us the fuck out of there

i don't care how versed he is in military strategies

Clark can be Sec. of Defense - okay...happy now?

One of the requirements to be Sec. of Defense is that the candidate must be out of the military for TEN years--General Clark retired in 2000.

And as for Kucinich--pipe dream.

I don't know about you, but I vote on the reality of the times. Regardless of how wrong it was for Bush to go in to Iraq (and Clark agrees that it was wrong--always has), we cannot go in a blow up a country and then leave it's children to starve. THAT would be wrong.

If we want to 'fix' the fuck-ups of the Bush Regime, immediate exit is not the way. General Clark has a very clear, concise, realistic plan--Kucinich does not.

I am a peacenik just as much as anyone else. I despise war. I despise violence. I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't believe in mandatory sentencing laws. I believe in a free society and free speech. But I am well grounded in reality, and this is not Utopia.

I think I've heard that one before... cry me a river, hang me a banner, but stop blowing smoke up my ***, will ya?

i pray you are right about that, but fear this sham handover will only make things worse.

PoliSci and Economics major... Rhodes Scholar...

A bit more than the average career military man carries on his resume, wouldn't you say?

I DON'T want to be led by a military man

I want someone who has lived in the real world for the past 50 years,
not someone with rules, discipline, codes, torture, killing, pain, sufering, bombing, nuking, massacre-ing, orders, machine like precision.


i would prefer a doctor - someone who helps life rather than kills it

for many of our citizens locally and globally. If you live in a world without rules, discipline and codes, where no one is ever tortured or killed, no one ever suffers, feels and/or inflicts pain... where bombs don't exist and nuking isn't a peripheral threat lingering in the backs of minds... well, send me a one-way ticket, please.

experimentation, open-mindedness, creative thinking

not found in the military

also: music, art, getting a job, shopping, dating, love, human stuff

not in the military

What planet ARE you living on? I changed my mind... keep the ticket.

both are cults of DEATH

:eyes:

Hatred is a cult of death, not the church and not the army. Closed minds are a cult of death.

that is CERTAINLY a cult of death... man boobs... THAT's a cult of death... don't forget cheeze whiz... BIG cult of death...

:evilgrin:

You have no understanding of it. Just as you have no understanding of the man, Wes Clark.

Clark is the epitome of "experimentation, open-mindedness and creative thinking."

Fwiw, he's also quite musical. Sang in his church choir as a kid. LOL. But since you "hate" the church too, I guess that doesn't count.

God only knows where you get your ideas of what military people are like. Much have watched too many John Wayne movies in your youth. Here's a hint: they're people. They like music & art, they interview for jobs, they date, fall in love... human stuff.

When's the last time you heard Dean or Edwards quote Plato or Hume on the stump? Clark did. Perhaps you missed that he has a PPE masters from Oxford Univ. That stands for politics, philosophy, and economics.

What this country does NOT need is a greater emphasis on militarism, being "tough on defense", and waging some ill-defined "war on terror" that claims $.50 of every tax dollar this country takes in.

If the Democrats insist on playing into the whole "war on terror"/"toughest nation in the world" thing, they are screwed. They will only be giving into the Republican talking points that somehow we are "at war" and we need a strong military to prevent attacks.

On 9/11/2001, we had the world's strongest military. It did NOT prevent nineteen crazed terrorists from crashing three commercial jetliners into buildings and killing over 3,000 people.

By trying to play "mine's bigger" with the Republicans on who is more militaristic, we're letting them dictate the entire terms of the debate. We're buying into the fear of their color-coded terra alert system, their simplistic duct-tape and plastic wrap defense, and their Neo-McCarthyist foreigner-baiting that somehow is supposed to make us "safer".

The last thing we should do is drop to their level. We need to address the REAL problems behind the "war on terror": our government's support on undemocratic, oppressive regimes, and the abandonment of the global community by BushCo.

Let's talk about how we'll cooperate with the global community to prevent terror, not how we'll use our military strength to invade everybody we don't agree with.

I couldn't have made a better argument for Clark as VP if I had tried.

:toast:

Couldn't a lot of the things that are said about Dean also be said for Nader?
& Clark is actually fairly liberal- couldn't a lot of things that are said about Clark be said regarding Nader?

& by "things" I mean positive things, not negative things.

In terms of actual positions, why is Nader's name not brought up?
He would bring the "left" back into the fold.
He has shown integrity over the arc of his career, whatever one thinks of what he is doing right now & I understand why people would be very irritated with him right now.

Of course, Nader would have to become a Democrat, but Clark not so long ago wasn't a Democrat either.

just asking.

has been to destroy the Democratic Party.

Isn't that a matter of interpretation?
I thought his stated goal was to destroy the 2 party system.


& just hypothetically, wouldn't all be forgiven if he joined the Democratic Party?
I'm not saying he'd be willing to, but what if he was.
If his ego is really as big as it sometimes appears, don't you think he might just not mind at all being vice president?
Hell, the Republicans took Reagan into their party when he had started out as a Democrat.

you haven't been paying attention.

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

"That might make it sound like Nader's goal is to defeat Gore in order to shift the Democratic Party to the left. But in a more recent interview with David Moberg in the socialist paper In These Times, Nader made it clear that his real mission is to destroy and then replace the Democratic Party altogether. According to Moberg, Nader talked "about leading the Greens into a 'death struggle' with the Democratic Party to determine which will be the majority party."

http://slate.msn.com/?id=1006380

Google is a free site, BTW.

Also, sorry I got mixed up about which poster you were. I thought you were the one that posted the comments about people who know Nader personally who I asked for a link.

I take back my editorial remarks.

Yes, I have heard stuff similar to this from Nader, now that you refresh my memory. It still looks like it's being filtered -- "according to Moberg" I'll go check the article when I have time.


However, back to my original idea -- does this preclude him from being a vice presidential possiblity? Hell, people have been floating McCain's name!!! a republican.

who have had personal involvement with Nader (unrelated to the elections), and have lived to regret it. I wouldn't vote for Nader unless he were the ONLY alternative to bush. My personal opinion is that Nader's 'life of integrity' has deteriorated into a miserable facade, and even that is beginning to crumble. He used to stand for something good, and now he just stands for his own ego.

but
however---
link?
anecdote?
hearsay?


Otherwise it's still kind of not an answer also.

Excuse me for providing 'kind of not an answer.' That's why I stated that it was MY PERSONAL OPINION, though if I were at liberty to publicly discuss other people's business and legal dealings, I could provide anecdotes, as well. As far as I know, personal opinions are still welcome at DU, as long as they're expressed as such.

But while you're looking for links, look for the one that recently discussed Nader's possible violation of Campaign Ethics Laws.

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

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion.
You're not helping.

Us Democrats?
I'm a Democrat too.

why write off the South??

OK, maybe Kerry shouldn't bother with Mississippi or Texas or Alabama. They'll go for Bush no matter what.

But there are an awful lot of people in Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina who have lost their jobs and are not happy with * (and many of them are military families with children in Afghanistan or Iraq) With a little push, they could defect to Kerry. Same thing for West Virginia.

We should make the Bush people piddle their pants over these states. They can't take the military vote out there for granted anymore.

:kick:

i think with clark kerry could win these two southern states

Makes the most sense to me.

Clark will balance the "Kerry's too liberal" charge. He will balance the "Kerry is too dull" charge.

He is a "southerner."

He is a double dose of "gravitas."

He is eloquent, articulate, battle-tested, and has the "look."

And who isn't loving the military creds of both these guys going against the Chickenhawks.

Kerry/Clark even has a nice, catchy phonetic ring to it.

I think it's a killer ticket. Most pundits think the VP choice is fairly inconsequential. Usually true, but in this case I think such a choice definitely shakes things up. Including conventional wisdom.

And I think that Kerry doesn't have to do too well in too many states in the south to make a difference. I think that the best strategy, given that people who participated in the primary think Kerry is the most "electable" is simply to put the person that people determined is the second-most "electable" person with him.

I think that Clark is the "two-by-four-upside-the-head-damn-it-Democrats-are-more-breathlessly-warmongering-than-Republicans" choice and I think that too many things are going to change between now and November to make a double-Democrat-war-hardon ticket very attractive.

Choosing a "general" as the VP choice will be the final nail in the coffin for the third-party folks and the shrill "they're the same" people, who are already looking for a reason to vote third-party or sit out the election. If Democrats think the numbers of these folks are more than offset by the numbers of the mind-bogglingly antagonistic take back the aggression plank! switch hitters who might defect from Bush, go for it.

I think it's a loser strategy.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

2004 Democratic National Convention Delegate for Dennis Kucinich

Dean has been marginalized for most Americans who don't know him well, thanks to the incessant replaying of "YEAH!"

Edwards is rather "green" in the political arena, has the baggage of being a lawyer, so can be skewered by the Repubs...

Wes Clark is also a new comer to the political scene, but he has more of the political outsider feel, not "untested." He is a proven leader and comes from the south.

Plus he has a great grassroots group behind him. Frankly, I would think Kerry is nuts not to go with him. He didn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the primaries and jumped in to endorse Kerry as soon as it withdrew....

Wes is the man.

On edit: For those of you who look at the stars on the man's shoulders an never read his position papers,let me clue you in:
HE IS MORE LIBERAL THAN DEAN!

"I don't much like either Kerry or Bush. If Kerry picks Clark for VP, I will vote for him"

This fellow was a strong supporter of Bush in 2000 and is a Republican all the way otherwise.

Clark is a very appealing candidate to those "on the fence" who can be tipped our way. Other VP candidates do not seem to have that appeal-at least in my experience....and I live in a virtual sea of Repubs.

Nearly all of my Republican friends told me that they would not be upset if Clark was the Democratic nominee and our new president. Most would not vote for him, but they were not opposed to him.

Does that make sense?

Kerry/Clark is the only way to go.

Especially since he was a FLORIDA Republican, my home state.

I hope all the Republicans here feel the way he does, but that would be way too much to hope for.

is that he is too militaristic. He seems like a decent bright guy, but I fear that many will not get past the military uniform.

I know a lot of MN peace activists who are having a hard enough time coming on board with Kerry given his recent tack to the middle. Many are saying they will not vote for Kerry because of Iraq positions--they do not support trading a republican war for a democratic war. I trust that in time some portion of these folks may come to their senses and support Kerry. I'm doing my best to help them get there.

Having a general on the ticket will only further alienate the anti-military peace crowd. Clark will be viewed as an apologist cog in the military industrial complex. His statements in support of the School of the Americas in particular have not and will not be forgotten.

I know many think that paying attention to the peace wing of the democratic party is foolhardy but I think quite the opposite. Nader got 5% of the vote here in MN in 2000 and I see nothing to suggest he won't do as well here again this fall.

In short, I fear that Clark will not help Kerry win Minnesota. Edwards on the other hand had a strong second place here in MN after most to the local Dean machine got behind him. Edwards would help Kerry win in Minnesota. Talking about poverty and a vision of one america rather than two, will help bring new and disenfranchised voters to the polls for Kerry. Its about hope, not fear.

I know few here will agree with my view, but it is what it is.

Edwards supported the war, while Clark opposed it.

Who is too militaristic?

Clark has a fantastic resume, and I was ready to support him when he got into the race and poor Edwards seemed to be going nowhere. But Clark came in with a splash and went downhill from there.

I think he is fantastic public servant - and I'm glad he's a Democrat. I think he can serve the Kerry adminstration in a number of important ways.

But Edwards brings the dynamism that will excite the voters and PUT THE SOUTH IN PLAY. He also does well in the Midwest - he gives you everything Gephardt would - with a whole lot of juice.

Kerry would make a real statement of confidence in his own knowledge and experience and abilities by picking the bright, rising star from the South. Senators want Edwards - especially candidates running for election for re-election.

Edwards is THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER SPEAKER/FUNDRAISER of all the candidates. He's just kicked off a 2-3 week stretch of non-stop appearances for Kerry and the Dems.

Dean - I like him better now than I did before. But I think he's got too much baggage for VP - and is not temperamentally suited for the job. I look forward to seeing him out there campaigning for Kerry - and I'm very happy to see the 2 of them getting along so famously, after that stretch of bad blood. I like Dean for DNC chair.

The Dems have AN INCREDIBLE BENCH right now. I feel confident Kerry will figure out the best way to use the talent that is available. We can take the White House - and the Senate - with the right moves. I hope Kerry will announce some of Cabinet positions well before the election.

It's a new team - coming in to clean house and put America back on track again. We're gonna make history. In a good way. Glad to be aboard this train.

Then why didn't he win?

Hmmmmm....

And as for appearances and being 'sought after', I don't think so. Back up that assertion with FACTS--you can't.

Appearances for Kerry since Edwards dropped out:

Clark 45

Dean 22

Edwards 20

Oh, and I have yet to see JE appear on network television for Kerry in response to questions about the Iraq conflict. Why? I know the answer, but do you? Because he can't effectively speak on the issue--that's why.

This argument is just like your assertion that Edwards was widely popular in Ohio, wherein you say the votes proved he was widely popular. You didn't back it up with facts--but I refuted it with facts. Edwards didn't win a single congressional district in Ohio--Kerry toasted him in a landslide victory. Check the data at the Ohio Secretary of State site--your assertion was wrong on that issue, and it is wrong now.

Make that FORTY-SEVEN 47 appearances for Kerry...he just added two more tonight...

with being militaristic, and once the voters actually get a chance to hear what Clark has to say, I don't think most of them will either.

After all, we currently have an administration that has almost no military service at all between all it's members, and that hasn't stopped it from being the most militaristic administration in this counry's history.

As someone who was myself, profoundly opposed to the Iraq invasion, I can't see supporting someone (Edwards) who was and still is wholeheartedly in favor of it, over a 4 star general who opposed it.

By the way, here in Colorado, I voted for Kucinich and was a delegate for him all the way to the State Convention. I went to several Kucinich meetups, and other events, and also interact with alot of Kucinich people working in the Mike Miles campaign. I have always been very open about being a Clark supporter, and have never gotten a negative response. In fact, many of the local Kucinich people have told me that they really liked Clark, and would have preferred him as nominee, over Kerry.

By the way, Mike Miles is heavily favored among the Kucinich and antiwar people here, and he is a West Point graduate and former officer in the Army Rangers. No one here seems to think that makes him more militaristic than his opponent for the Democratic senate nomination, who as far as I know, has had no military experience at all.

I hope and believe that people will be able to get past their prejudices and look at what the candidates actually stand for.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with Clark. At first I was wary that he appeared to be a recent convert from Republicanism, but his positions have generally dispelled that concern.

And Mike Miles is indeed a great candidate!

Its just that I know a number of Kucinich supporters who are long time peace activists who are having a hard time supporting Kerry, and will certainly have an even harder time if Clark is on the ticket. In particular, the School of Americas issue is a hot potato that Clark fumbled IMHO when he enthusiastically backed its activities.

"enthusiastically" backing the activities of the SOA. In fact I don't think his position on it differed appreciably from most of the other candidates, although it did get more attention here.

As far as the people under consideration for VP go, I don't think that there are any who's positions on issues of concern to peace people are any more progressive than Clark's. That goes for particularly for Edwards and Gephardt who both unequivocally supported the Iraq invasion, more so than Kerry, and as far as I can tell, still do.

I'm not saying that Clark's positions are perfect. I've never thought they were, but I think they are the best that we are likely to see in a VP candidate.

Clark has defended the school that was formerly known as the SOA. He also stated on the campaign trail that should any evidence be brought to his attention of problems at the school he would back an investigation and reforms if problems were found.

After many discussions here at DU with those opposed to the school, I have come to believe that no reforms would satisfy them. They seem to be against any type of training of foreigners by our military.

Clark's belief is that the school does a good thing by training foreigners in the same methods that are used in the US military, and spreading our democratic ideals.

Also I think it was after the nomination was basically decided, Kucinich came out and said the school should be closed.

http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_112103c.php

Kucinich: I Will Close School of Americas
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 21, 2003

Over the next three days, thousands are expected to protest the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Ga. (The school has been renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.)

Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich today released the following statement:

"I stand against terror and violence and in solidarity with the victims of the School of the Americas graduates. I support nonviolent demonstration against the SOA. The United States' ability to persuade other nations to investigate terrorism will be strengthened by the closing of a US school that has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers to wage war against their own people, against union organizers, religious workers, teachers, and student leaders. As president I will close the School of the Americas."

Rev. Roy Bourgeois, MM, Founder of SOA WATCH and Dennis Kucinich endorser, said:

"Today our world is filled with violence and people are looking for hope. I am supporting Dennis Kucinich for President because he is the person who can bring more peace and justice in our country and in our world. These are challenging times and Dennis Kucinich has the wisdom, integrity, vision and courage to give us the hope our country is seeking today."

For more information: http://www.kucinich.us

thanks for the correction.

I don't intend to get in a debate over the SOA, as I stated thats been done and I generally find people's positions intractable no matter what the evidence really shows.

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=721

General Clark, the School of the Americas, and U.S. Values

By Sean Donahue

When Wesley Clark was in charge of the U.S. Southern Command in 1997, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was proud to oversee the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA), which trains soldiers from Latin American countries, saying that “This school is the best means available to ensure that the armed forces in Latin America and the armies in Latin America understand US values and adopt those values as their own." Today, the school has changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), but its mission remains the same – and Wesley Clark remains one of its staunchest supporters.

* * *

All of this raises the question – what U.S. values does Gen. Clark believe the SOA/WHINSEC instill in their students? Certainly U.S. foreign policy in Latin America seems to be guided by the philosophy that violence is sometimes necessary to maintain the economic conditions that allow a higher standard of living in the U.S. – and in this cynical sense, perhaps the SOA/WHINSEC does instill the values of the State Department and the Pentagon and a perverse value for the U.S. way of life. But these are not values most people in the U.S. share – people here value compassion, justice, democracy, and human rights. Gen. Clark is seeking the votes of people who hold these higher values. And supporting the SOA/WHINSEC flies in the face of everything that these voters want our country to stand for.

Sean Donahue directs the Corporations and Militarism Project of the Massachusetts Anti-Corporate Clearinghouse (http://www.stopcorporatecontrol.org.) He can be reached at info@stopcorporatecontrol.org.

He is a fantastic orator who knows how to speak the languages of both the working class and the religious types, something Kerry sorely lacks. He would be a great asset to the ticket because of these qualities, not just because of his geograpical origin.

...didn't focus the same energy on writing about the economic assault on Americans that you focus on writing about Iraq.

Your reply was that you needed to round out your game a little better. But Iraq seems to have remained the lens through which you see the world.

I don't think most Americans think that way.

I think a Kerry-Clark ticket says to people that the government cares more about what happens on the other side of the globe than it cares about what happens to you in your worklplace, in your family and in yoru life.

I think that plays into the hands of Republicans.

platform of any of the major candidates (Kerry, Gep, Edwards, Dean). I get sooooo tired of people slighting the Generals economic platform. Did you ever look at it with any effort?

...Although Clark's platform was very progressive, Edwards' message was embraced by the media and by voters in the more rural areas of the country. Clark had it down on paper, but Edwards told a story that more people liked to hear.

Whoever is chosen, they will be running on Kerry's platform, and I believe Edwards will be much better at selling the domestic side of the platform. Clark will be much better at selling the foreign policy agenda. Both men would be fine choices.

and furthermore, he's a very progressive vehicle too -- if FDR could see John Edwards, he's proabably say, "now THAT'S what I'm talking about!"

Clark entered late and did very well all things considered. Edwards benefited tremendously from a strong Iowa showing. I think you would agree had Clark been a presence in Iowa (and had entered the race earlier) that things would have been quite different. Clark did amazingly well all things considered. And that includes selling a great vision both on domestic issues and foreign. Problem is not enough people heard him on the free media.

We need to frame the argument. And what is our number one priority? Improving the lives of working Americans. Iraq is important - but it cannot overshadow what is close to home and heart.

"A Kerry-Clark ticket says to people that the government cares more about what happens on the other side of the globe than it cares about what happens to you in your workplace, in your family and in your life."

Coming from you AP, I take it seriously. It is an very interesting perspective.

The administration blusters that we'd rather attack them "over there" than fight them "over here" Except whether we fight them here or there, Americans are dying, our deficit is growing and life becomes more unstable everywhere.

If Clark can demonstrate that he has the relationships with other countries to share the responsibility in the "war on terror" both in $$ and in troops and he can contribute to a redesign of the Iraq situation to get us out and but Iraqis into real power -- that might be just what people want to hear. If the battle for the presidency is NOT going to be about the economy, but IS going to be about Iraq and our global relationships - then Clark is the answer, IMO.

This week a number of ex-military and diplomats are coming out with criticism of Bushco. This will be a great time to concentrate on Bush's failings. The problems at home are directly connected to the Iraq War. The war adds to the polarization of our society. It increases our Ronald Reagan National Debt. It masks the unemployment slightly by removing workers from the roles and is powered by a defacto draft. Clark offers the best remedy to the War. Edwards supported the War and actually echoes Cheney's opinion that there is a link between 9-11 and the Iraq War. Clark does offer some strength in the battleground states. Clark is a self-proclaimed liberal and has pushed the Party back to the left in the debates. Clark has given unwaivering support of Kerry's candidacy and understands how to be a team player.

In my opinion, he would run well in every part of the country. He is also a very down-to-earth guy.

Edwards and Kucinich would bring in the activist crowd that doesn't like Nafta and the WTO. Kucinich would be a good choice. He only needs the publicity of being a nominee to get his message across. His message is what people want.

I'm expecting Bush to try a coup and that is the reason I think Clark might be good. If the military has to intervene, Clark is the only most likely to rally them to help stabilize demcocracy. I suspect that this and the desertion issue were the reasons Moore backed Clark. I am really unclear where Clark stands on the issues - despite having seen every debate.

very much in the debates. He has statements on the issues on his website. He's socially liberal like Dennis. They do not agree on the solution to the Iraq War or on NAFTA but those policies will be set by Kerry anyway.

Just kidding.

I say Clark is the best candidate for VP, but then I supported him for President, so I'm biased.

I think he brings more to the table, particularly in the national security and foreign policy arenas, than the others being considered. These issues are on the minds of many Americans, including the people we need to convince to vote for our guys - independents and moderates. Clark trumps everyone in these areas.

I agree that two Northeasterners won't work on the ticket. It's been hard enough for us to elect ONE Democrat from the NE in the past few decades, much less two.

The role of a VP candidate during a campaign is often to be the bad cop in the good cop/bad cop scenario. I think Clark is already fulfilling this role in a lot of ways. He's making appearances on behalf of Kerry, and he's making very pointed and targeted statements about the Bush Administration's policies.

I also think he further solidifies the ticket's counterpoint of Bush's false military bravado. Yes, Kerry somewhat fulfills that role by virtue of his military experience, but Clark knocks it out of the park.

One last thought. Who would you rather see debate Dick Cheney - Edwards or Clark?

We of DU who were so wrong on the primaries? I am wondering if you just un-jinxed the General. :D

How does General Wesley Clark compare to legendary West Point Generals? See for yourself.

1. General Robert E. Lee - Class of 1829 #2 in class of 46
(Civil War)
2. General Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 #21 in class of 39
(Civil War)
3. General John J. Pershing - Class of 1886 #30 in class of 76
(World War I)
4. General Douglas MacArthur - Class of 1903 #1 in class of 94
(World War II + Korea)
5. General George S. Patton -Class of 1909 #46 in class of 153
(World War II)
6. General Dwight Eisenhower - Class of 1915 #61 in class of 164
(World War II)
7. General William Westmoreland - Class of 1936 #112 in class of 276
(Vietnam)
8. General Norman Schwarzkopf - Class of 1956 #43 in class of 480
(Dessert Storm)
9. General Wesley Clark - Class of 1966 #1 in class of 579
(NATO/Kosovo)

Definitely one of the smartest generals in U.S. history.


Here's his 100 year plan for our country.....How many people do we know who have a 100 year plan for this country? I know of 1.


by Wesley K. Clark
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.

If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities - for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education, health care, and retirement security. And these are thirty year challenges - educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives; promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits; and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living, and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long-term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency.

We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. They need not be enumerated here, except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.

To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" is a universal tool - each must be used appropriately, whether the issues are in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long- term public debt. Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.

As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand. Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately. This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools, but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower. In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world - using a variety of positive incentives to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business. These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.




!. He believes in equal pay for women. If a man and a woman work the same job, they get equal pay.

2. He believes that women should have control over their own bodies. He's pro-choice.

3. He believes in affirmative action and defends it.

4. He believes in stem cell research. Human embryonic stem cell research has the potential to alleviate and perhaps even cure many debilitating conditions such as juvenile diabetes, heart disease, Parkinsons disease, Alzheimers disease, severe burns and spinal cord injuries. read more here....http://clark04.com/issues/stemcell/

5. He believes in providing EVERY American citizen with quality healthcare. Read more here.....http://clark04.com/issues/improvinghealthcare/

What "I" think is one of the most important things Wes Clark brings to the table is his relationships with world leaders. He knows them already. They LOVE and RESPECT him. If we want to be respected again as a Nation, Wes Clark is the man to make it happen.

If you go to his web site and look under "Issues" you can read EVERYTHING he's ever written on every issue. http://clark04.com/issues/

Both have some common traits...

Both are from the South.
Both come from humble backgrounds and worked their ways up to the highest levels of their professions.
Both are seen as more Moderate
Both men can appeal to independents and swing Republicans. Edwards brings more of the conservatives, but we loose on the Liberals. Clark might loose on the conservatives and gain on the Liberals.(This is regarding the war issue)
Both are excellent fundraisers

I think it is wrong to give up on the South. Even if you don't win there you need someone in office who can help gain you seats in the Senate and House down there. Kerry will face a GOP controlled congress and get nothing done unless he has someone to help him change that.

With Edwards, you give up some of Foreign Policy issue in favor of youth, Domestic issues and someone who can work for you in the Senate.

With Clark, you give up Domestic issues and the Senate, in favor of BIG Foreign policy creds.

Either direction is good...I'm more interested in Domestic issues and I feel that Clark will have a position in the Kerry administration one way or another.

I disagree. He IS an Economics major and use to teach it at West Point. No, you give up NOTHING with Wes Clark as VP.....PLUS..he has a Mach 5 learning curve. If he doesn't know something, he'll learn it FAST.

I'm fully aware of Clark's Economic background, but that is not what he is considered for regarding the VP position. Edwards is able to present the domestic policy to a mass audience better then Clark. If Clark had been able to get that message across then Kerry would have been sending him out to speak for him on Domestic issues.

Listen to Kerry's message now. It is a good comparison to what Edwards has been saying. They really click together on the Domestic side and they even had the same plan for taxes and reducing the deficient. Edwards would be excellent at bringing forth the Domestic issues.

Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He has meet foreign leaders and seen situation personally. He also has a very high learning curve and goes to experts if he has questions. He can support Kerry on the fund raising side.

And to be honest, I would feel much better if Clark is NOT wasted in the VP position. I want to see him speak before NATO. I want him out there speaking to other Foreign Leaders and doing the stuff that Powell does. I don't want him locked into the VP position being the tie breaker in Senate and doing the fundraiser thing for other Democrats and checking on Kerry's health in the morning.

I want Edwards for VP and Clark for Sec. of State or National Security Adviser. I want the best of both worlds...and to me that combination is the best of both with Kerry at the head.

And more then anything I would love to see that Picture of Edwards on one side, Kerry in the center and Clark on the other side...truely a Unity ticket...and a Team that would Kick Bush/Cheney and gang's butt...

But Clark was just on CNBC talking (horrors) domestic issues.

It's not the first time. I remember a press conference Clark conducted for Kerry on education back about 2 months ago. And of course, he talks about domestic issues every time he goes out to stump for Kerry. Which so far has been more often than Edwards.

It's true that Clark is not "perceived" to be strong on domestic issues, partly a product of how the media treated him. But there's only one guy whose perception matters, and I think he knows very well what all of Clark's strengths are.

Once Clark is the VP nominee, people will get to see, well, whatever Kerry wants them to see, I suspect.

I don't know why you think Clark would consent to Nat'l Security Advisor. It would be a demotion from what he's done already.

:)

Remember, economics degree (from Oxford no less) and professorship at West Point (even given the military connection, widely recognized for its academic standing)? Many years experience in providing health care, housing, education for more families than are found in many states? Working hand in hand with the Senate (and House) for funding those same things? How do you think Clark and Kerry got to know each other so well? Hint: because Clark worked with the Senate closely. It's a major part of what 4-star commanders do.

Not that Kerry really needs Clark for the domestic side, election-wise. Kerry already leads Bush on every aspect of that score. And as for after the election, based on what Kerry has said about the role he envisions for his VP, I get the idea that Kerry may be thinking of using Clark to work the foreign policy issues so he (Kerry) can focus on so much of what is broke at home. Without a second strong on the foreign side, Kerry is not gonna have near as much time to work on the economy.

In any case, to say anyone "gives up Domestic issues and the Senate" with Clark is just plain ludicrous.

If, otoh, the reverse were true for Edwards, if he had a hundredth of the foreign policy/national security chops that Clark has on domestic issues, I might not be near as strongly against the possibility of his selection.

After the flaming dies down some, will you give us some feedback on the rational analysis contained within the thread? I'm sure if you work at it, you can find some. ;)

While McCain insists on remaining in the Republican party and trying to remake the GOP in its Teddy Roosevelt image from within--a lost cause, if there ever was one--Wes Clark exudes intelligence, integrity and decency. He was my second choice for the nomination, and I would like to see him as VP for this reason.

The slogan of one of our DUers--"Two Patriots, One Mission" is unbeatable in my opinion.

Wes Clark brings the strong potential of votes to John Kerry from Republicans who feel they cannot vote for John Kerry, whom they have decided is "too liberal."

That said, Wes may truly not want to be VP, altho he may feel he cannot turn down the call to serve his country.

Edwards has youth, charisma, and enthusiasm, which are not to be lightly dismissed, and has shown that he can also attract crossover votes. Edwards would be a good pick, but, on balance, I prefer Wes Clark.

Virgina, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina , Arkansas and possibly Kentucky are worth going for.

Whether folks on this website want to acknowledge it or not, we cannot write off an entire section of the country every time an election comes around or we will never get it back. Both Clark and Edwards will help because of their backgrounds, education and ability to speak to Southern voters without sounding like they are condescending to them. A mistake many politician make.

There are pros and cons to each gentlemen being on the ticket, but please don't perpetuate the meme that Democrats must give up on the South. There are plenty of us passionate, progressive, liberal activists down here trying to reverse the past 20 years and this isn't helping.

likely to get John Kerry elected, or do you believe he is the most qualified person for the position?

Or both?

:hi:

And thank you for saying so.

Clark will carry Arkansas and Missouri.

Edwards will not bring North Carolina over in the General Election.

More importantly, Wes Clark is ready to be President and I hope to God that John Kerry picks Clark.

William, I hope that you are right: that Clark is rising.

:thumbsup:

And I think the possibility of strong showings in states like Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida.

David did you once create a thread about Clark's "Q" factor? If so, trust me this stupid...bad on the stump meme brought to us by our local gatekeepers at CNN are spreading their usual bs.

I saw him several times, but one time stands out especially...it was like watching a panther. He's got the goods.

If it wasn't you, oh well, I just love saying "he's got the goods."

of course you knew how I felt about Wesley Clark.

But it is still up in the air, and seeing Clark on TV with Wolf on CNN, he answered like he would not give away the answer when questioned if he'll accept the VP, he talked about being back in private business.

Last weekend at the Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner being at the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa on Hollywood Beach, Fl.there was a rally with Senator John Edwards for morale.

As much as I love Clark I believe Edwards has a very good possibility accepting it if he's chosen.But I'm with you on Clark but I do like Edwards too. Clark would like the Secretarty of State and would be very good there too.Both are very good men and bring alot to the our party. Number one question on everyone's mind,when is the announcement for VP?... Before or During the Democratic Convention...:-)

The prime directive:

The most important qualification for any one being considered for VP is can they fill the “shoes” if as they say, the unthinkable happens? That means the person must have leadership skills. Those not familiar with the role of played by the upper commands of the military might imagine a life time devoted to weapons, marching, shining one’s shoes or practice the terrible arts of war. Actually, tax payer dollars are spent on training those men and women in leadership, team building and management. Our nation has known 11 of 42 presidents who were generals; some have been good and some have been bad, but there is a reason that people who rise above the ranks make that journey. Today’s upper echelons are more highly trained in the qualities demanded by the oval office than any other segment of our society. Of those, only a few would have the temperament, the humility and the understanding of our “domestic” country to fill the role: Wes Clark is that kind of general and he is a Democrat and a democrat.

For Kerry:

Many of the more bullet-headed generals have voiced discomfort about Wes Clark describing him as having “sharp elbows.” And yet, when asked why they chose him for their team, their replies were fairly unanimous: “You want Wes because he makes you look good.” As an aside, Elizabeth Drew said in an article she wrote for “New York Magazine” that she took the time to track down the rumors of sharp elbows, something the other reporters (sic) didn’t bother with. Her conclusion was that all of the blow hards suffered from jealousy. Many of his comrades had glowing reports of their days with Wes.

Kerry, who seems very comfortable around Wes, would find himself with a team player extraordinary. In the words of someone who has known Clark for 40+ years:

If you've read this far, please don't think I am some old fool; I've been with, seen, and experienced the most incredible life that is Wes Clark's from up close and personal.  He's stayed with me long after I'd disappointed him by my own displays of avarice, cunning, and greed  more times than I care to remember, all of which are so incredibly absent from his being.

Wes is no savior, far from it. But Wes does have a singularly unique ability that I've seen for all these many years to influence if not direct outcomes that encourage success in others. 

Clark once said that it does not matter who gets the credit, what matters is getting the job done. If I were John Kerry, it is exactly that attitude that I would want at the table. That is comes with an amazingly brilliant and cultured person whose interests range from the philosophy to music to Sun Tzu to the Kabala to hydrogen engines.....Anyway, Kerry would have a team member he could count on for council and loyalty and knowledge.

For me and you:

I teach American Literature. That means that each fall the curriculum turns to those pieces of writing that articulated the hopes and dreams for our country: The Declaration, The Age of Reason, The Autobiography of Franklin, the Constitution and more. At some point during the unit, I always find myself choking up. Why? Because I believe in this country; because in the words of its founding, I see thousands of years of struggle of humankind rising in an effort to find a fair and just way for us to live together. To have “The Age of Reason” met the shores of this beautiful land was a miracle of coming together.

That is what Clark awakened in me. My little avatar is not meant to label me as a groupie, it is meant to signify that whatever it is about the dream of democracy that brings tears to my eyes, Wes Clark has spoken to it. He gets it.

His anger toward those who are currently turning American into the United Nightmare States is because he too wants us to “live our values not just preach them.”

He will serve us in need; he will serve Kerry as best as any one ever could; he will bring our hopes to the table. ‘Nuff said.

conventional thinking: How many Southern smart four star Rhode scholar war winning affirmative action pro-choice master in economics foreign policy expert treaty writing purple heart anti-war generals do the Democrats have? How many will they ever have?

Clark did and does the same for me.

He made me feel proud to be an American.

He represents the true product of the American dream.

Clark is a visionary, an intellectual, and an internationally respected individual. He "gets" what made this country great and I believe he has a plan to get us back there again. He also "gets" what has gone wrong in this country, has a profound understanding of the MIC and how to reduce our ridiculous military spending without compromising national security.

He's da man and Kerry would be a fool not to offer him the VP spot.

I'm sold.

Excellent post. This might be the best sentence I've ever seen on DU:

"conventional thinking: How many Southern smart four star Rhode scholar war winning affirmative action pro-choice master in economics foreign policy expert treaty writing purple heart anti-war generals do the Democrats have? How many will they ever have?"

:toast:

Believe I am humbled. Thank you to a true word smith.

that even if I was not already a supporter of Clark's I would become one. Very nicely done. Thank you for putting my own thoughts into words better than I could ever do.

:hug:

Take it from one who knows! ;-)

I like him as Sec. of State, but LOVE him as VP!!

That sounds weird, but I was slow to accept him. He seemed so straight laced, so good to be true, so unapproachable. I was always impressed by him though. Then one day, I was watching Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, and her colleague, Jeremy Scahill, was pursuing Clark through the streets, badgering him about atrocities Clark had supposedly committed in the Balkans. This was during the New Hampshire Primary, I think. The questions were hostile, which was fine with me. I think any politician who can't stand up to a journalist (ie, *) is a wimp. S'anyway...Clark was trying to do his meet and greet thing with the people on mainstreet, and this guy was tailing him, accusing him of everything is the book. Well, the intelligence and kindness and sincerity of his respose to Jeremy won me over. He was truly impressive, as he struggled to answer every one of this very liberal reporter's questions. He oozed sincerity and humility and thoughtfulness. He even impressed my slightly more liberal husband that day.

It was in NH and Wes didn't try to avoid ANY of the questions, did he? He IS the most sincere, kindhearted, giving, generous soul I've ever seen in politics. He's real. What you saw is THE Wes Clark.

that interview! I wish everyone on Du could see it. I think it might change a few minds. Aa you say, it showed the real Clark.

this and then let's talk >>

A June 8-9 national poll taken by Opinion Dynamcs Corp. for Fox News provides food for thought regarding a Kerry-Dean ticket. Overall, a Kerry-Dean ticket garnered support from 45 percent compared with 44 percent for Bush-Cheney. In the so-called battleground states, Kerry-Dean beat Bush-Cheney 48-42. The poll defines battleground states as: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/15/how_about_howard