"I'm going to lay out my brief case for why I think Clark would be the best candidate for VP. There are a number of possible candidates for Vice President being bandied about. The most prominent is the one for Jim Webb, with Webb himself leading the charge against anyone not in elected office. As the only elected Democrat in the Senate identified as a strong military leader, this argument inherently leads the field open to him on national security grounds. Webb's argument is that, "Other than Eisenhower, the great military leader in that incredible World War II experience, you're going to want someone on your ticket who's demonstrated he can get votes."
I've already laid out my case against Webb. On the plus side, Webb was forcefully against the war from the beginning, and he pushed through the GI Bill in the Senate. He won in a swing state, and has an appealing background as an ex-Reagan official turned Democratic populist Senator. On the downside, Webb has huge problems with women, and it's not clear that he offers anything in terms of getting votes. His base in 2006 was white liberals from Northern Virginia, hardly a constituency group Obama is likely to need help with. And he doesn't help heal the Clinton-Obama divide; he isn't identified with the Clinton wing of the party. He's an island, an independent power source, which maximizes his leverage in the Senate, but isn't helpful in unifying the party.
Contrast that to Wes Clark. Clark, though not in elected office, has a better sense of what it's like to run for President. He has after all done it before, and for a neophyte, he did very well. More importantly, he has excelled at the real job of a VP candidate, which is not getting votes for the top of the ticket, but being a surrogate for the campaign and for lower ticket races. In 2006, Jon Soltz of Votevets tells me, Clark was the single most requested surrogate in the country, with the possible exceptions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clark is heavily involved in both his own PAC and Votevets, raising money and supporting Democrats up and down the ticket. He has huge credibility with officials all over the country because he was reliable and helpful to groups, candidates, and activists. There is simply no one else who comes close to his ability and track record of delivering a persuasive and progressive argument on national security on behalf of Democrats."
More at:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6119