Just five reasons I think General Clark should be Obama's VP!

1. He isn't a lawmaker. I don't think a Senator should run with another Congressman or Congresswoman. The voting records are too easy to make hay with. Someone with a lot of experience would have a long voting record; someone with a short voting record would be dubbed inexperienced. Neither makes a good comparison or complement for Obama. In addition, there's the issue of the IWR vote in some cases.

2. He's got major national security/military creds. A four-star general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a lifetime of service -- the man knows his stuff, and that would strengthen the ticket enormously. McCain's military experience would pale in comparison. In addition, Clark is no "ordinary four-star general" (said tongue-in-cheek as if there were such a thing)-- he is a brilliant intellectual, first in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, etc.

3. He's a southern white man. I know, I know, I know I know I know -- it shouldn't matter, but in political reality, it does. I know there are other southern white male Democrats, notably the ones in Virginia everybody's talking about. But as I've long said about them, they are needed right where they are, and they aren't necessarily the stuff of national politics. They are conservative for one thing, and we might well lose their seats for another, and we need them! (I'm talking about Jim Webb and Mark Warner, who should become Senator.)

4. He's liberal. And, he appeals to moderates because of his biography. He can quote Bible verses, speak of his profound patriotism, connect with the rural south, explain military strategy; and in the next breath, defend civil liberties, attack Republicans, and promote progressive ideals in ways that reach beyond the stereotypes the GOP has spent three decades and billions of dollars to plant. He will talk tough when it's called for, but he knows when it's called for and when it isn't -- he doesn't need to talk tough as a posture for himself.

5. He's from Clinton's camp. His association with the Clintons used to be an albatross -- now, whatever one thinks of those characterizations, they can be a plus. I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, and think she'd have been great at the top of a ticket, but I don't think she's the best pick as a balance and complement for Obama. Bringing General Clark aboard could help unify the party, while still strengthening the ticket.

I hope Obama and his team give him full consideration. I can't think of ANYBODY better for VP!!

he has been one of the names on my short list..lol ...not that my list matters

“General Clark said today that he would hav e supported the congressional resolution to invade Iraq.” NYTimes (09/19/2003)

extraordinary and his devotion to this party and candidates truly wonderful. go, wes!

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.

On the other political point, Clark is a Clintonista through and through, and so putting him on the ticket would be a key signal to the Clinton world that they will have influence in an Obama administration. You may not like that, but the Clinton people need an incentive to work aggressively for the ticket, and Clark is that incentive. While Obama backers may not like a Clinton person having such an important seat that the table, Clark is actually a supremely progressive advocate, and probably the best Clinton loyalist on national security issues that progressives have.

I'd be happy with Wes Clark. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he's in the top 5 names or so...

div class="excerpt"]
"JUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY?"
PoliticsUS.com
September 18, 2003

Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who today announced his candidacy for President, joined the field of contenders competing for the Democratic nomination. But as recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office -- as a Republican.

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat....(http://www.politicsus.com/ )

That rightwing "common wisdom" been shown to be wrong SO many times, you should know better.

when Democrats went in hiding from the GOP bullies when the Swift Boat lying fools made the rounds.

I wouldn't mind him being O's VP. He should have been Kerry's VP in 04.

Also, he has done a lot of work around the country campaigning and fundraising for Democratic candidates.

.....as often as I see some people talk about how bad at campaigning Bill Richardson is and how that should disqualify him for consideration as Obama'a VP, Clark is actually worse in making campaign speeches.

The guy is smart as hell, but boring as hell too.

Bill Richardson's problem goes beyond speechifying -- he's seemed downright confused lately.

I don't watch much Meet the Press, but it seemed like when he appeared on there, he looked droned. Like the General, he does have a strong Foreign Policy background, if that's what Obama is looking for.

got confused in debates -- he was much sharper four years ago. He'd be a disaster at this point.

(Edit -- I meant not just in any one appearance or interview, but many...)

the so-called zipper problem and other things resurface now.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you. Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It’s a choice. It’s –

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don’t know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I — a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, “Ooh, I want to be gay”?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I — I’m not a scientist. It’s — you know, I don’t see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don’t like to categorize people. I don’t like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don’t understand.

Later, he did a big "Ooops." :eyes:

You're right. There some baggage there.

and I like your reasoning. :)

“President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.” Times of London (4/10/2003)

One quote doesn't give the meaning of his editorial. There was an enormous "BUT" to that sentence that people with an agenda like to omit.

I wasn't a fan when he ran ... but I have respect for the man. I have confidence that, IF HE PASSED MUSTER, he'd be the right person at the right time.

Besides, McCain would swallow his tongue. :evilgrin:

“I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.” January 2003, to two Republicans at a conference held in Switzerland.

If you had a real case, you wouldn't have to resort to old BS like this. :rofl:

There's always an "incident" somebody "has to explain," isn't there? I hadn't even heard of this one, so do tell: What "motor pool incident?"

Don't know whether to :eyes: or :rofl:

PLEASE.

I love that thread, although it may not be suitable
for those without a sense of humor about the General's
peccadilloes.

That was the BDTE

Best Damn Thread EVER)

Why West Clark is Unsuitable for the Obama Administration, either as a VP or cabinet position.

1. He has been a loyal Hillary supporter, including all of her divisive tactics in this campaign. Clearly, he is unsuited for an administration where change of the way politics is played is the very foundation.

2. Obama's administration is to challenge the status quo in Washington. Clark has been a loyal Clinton supporter, and the Clintons are the King and Queen of status-quo politics.

3. Obama wants to help the working-class people who have lost their jobs to other countries. Clark supported Hillary for president. Hillary is perhaps the biggest congressional benefiter of sending jobs overseas, certainly sending jobs to India. Clearly, Clark's mindset is not suitable for this administration that wants very much to stop the hemorrhage of American jobs to other countries.

4. Obama is half African-American. Hillary used African-Americans as the bait in her bigot-pandering strategies. Clark supported Hillary's campaign efforts, which indicates he must on some level agree that its okay to target African-American for bigotry. Clearly, this this precludes Clark from Obama's admiistration.

5. Clark has no background in serving a constituency by being elected to an office.

6. Clark is a loyal Clinton backer. We know the Clintons are relentless in getting what they want. Obama would be risking giving the Clintons a pipeline to Obama's inner-circle strategies, includng a chance to undermine his administration and/or his reelection campaign.

7. Clark is so loyal to the Clintons that he joined Hillary in her praise of Karl Rove's slimy-math on Hillary's chances to win the primary. Clark, on May 28, appeared on a news show where he again praised Karl Rove's manipulation of the numbers. ANYONE who praises Karl Rove, especially while serving as a Clinton surrogate during the primary, is not suitable for the Obama administration.

Numbers 1-4 and 6 have to do with Hillary Clinton. Despite your opinions, nearly half of Democrats supported Clinton in these primaries. This is a PLUS for Clark.

Your only concern apart from Clinton is #5. Not being a politician is a PLUS in my book, as well.

This is a silly reason to discount someone. Same with Strickland, for instance. Lets end the nasty vibes...yes we may be personally bugged, but I never saw Clark do anything nasty. Did you?

Karl Rove tactics when there are plenty of qualified people who did not?

What kind of a message does that send to the OBama supporter politicians who took a risk and endorsed Obama, while avarists like Clark were supporting Hillary's pandering to bigots?

toward Obama's supporters on Ed Schultz's show. He was pompously lecturing the audience on how we "aren't electing someone for class president" and seemed to be heavily drinking the "Obama supporters are a cult" kool-ade the Clinton campaign was serving at the time.

He clearly doesn't "get" Obama and I don't think Obama is going to pick anyone who isn't completely in tune with him, his approach, and what he is trying to do.

In my book, that negates about five and a half of your seven reasons, which amount to reiterating that he endorsed Clinton. Your #7 includes about half a reason's worth of new matter, namely comments by Clark himself (as opposed to Clinton or other Clinton supporters). Nevertheless, his "praise" of Karl Rove amounted to saying that Rove is a skilled political tactician, which is true.

I do, however, see a lot of merit in your #5. I like Clark in many respects, but we don't have a good basis for knowing how he'd hold up to the intense two-month scrutiny of a national campaign. Would he be gaffe-prone? Would he, as at least one other DUer here has suggested, be a boring campaigner? That's not an automatic disqualification (no candidate is perfect), but it is a concern.

By the way, as to your #2 about challenging the status quo: That's actually where Clark's nonpolitical background would be a plus. I think that, in the last half-century, Sargent Shriver is the only major-party nominee for President or Vice President who hadn't previously held elective office, and of course his selection was under unusual circumstances. Politics as usual is to pick a current or former Governor, Senator, or Representative. In that respect, picking Clark would be a change.

But most DEFINITELY not now! But a supporter of her, including a loyal supporter, would be another matter. It would depend totally on how much strength he could bring to the ticket. And as pointed out elsewhere on this thread, he would NOT be an empty suit. He's QUALIFIED.

pnorman
On edit: I'll have to admit that it was only AFTER I had learned (here at DU) that Clark had Noam Chomsky's books on his bookshelf, that I began to take the good general seriously.

Chill out, get a grip, and lighten up.

Wes Clark would be an excellent choice for VP.

:thumbsup::)

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

He has a Master's degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, and taught economics at West Point.

Our main area of percieved weakness tends to be national security.

I still think Edwards would have been cuter (tee hee)

He's more than that.

He's the man for the job, IMO. Not an easy one at all.

nt

his time as NATO commander makes him an excellent fit, IMO.

At LEAST Secretary of State. (And, SecDef is supposed to be a civilian position. He'd have to be out of the military for 10 years or get a special approval from Congress.)

To be considered for the post you have to be retired from the military for 10 years.

Thus offsetting McCain's claims that he's better prepared militarily than Obama.

He would have voted for the IWR. He used very poor judgment in Bosnia.

The list goes on and on....

Really, Obama can do better than Clark.

is the "candy and flowers." It sure looks like Clark was schiling for the Bush war machine here.

"What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
by Wesley Clark in the Times of London, April 10, 2003

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph
…" ( http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm)

:*

"It all looks great and of course at this point it seems exciting, BUT, this isn't the whole story and now there's a big problem to deal with."

I feel the party is unifying just fine. I think the only ones not unifying are the "operation chaos" supporters and first time woman voters voting for a woman "only". So who needs them? But Clark because of his military background wouldn't be a bad idea. Then I like Biden as well. But whoever Obama chooses, I'd be fine with.

I'm wondering where Clark is on the 70 major military bases and 700 installations overseas.

That's a lot of folks in harms way and what's the benefit. If we had a Manhattan Project for
an alternative/substitute for gas, we'd pull it off in 2-3 years, no doubt about it.

Clark is a bright and capable guy. Maybe he's going to be to the military over reach what Nixon
was to China?

Very interesting post

He's not for over-extending or misusing the military. On the contrary. Democrats have been united about not having permanent military bases in Iraq beyond guarding ambassadors etc.

I've seen since then was the endorsement. He was forthright on Iraq when it wasn't popular, which
I appreciate. I'm talking about the bigger issue - why all the bases and installations? We're out
of money which means we don't get to do what we don't have to.

I'm really watching Congress. The burden in the House is not that bad. Get a new real Democrat
for each of those Blue Dog - Fake Democrats so they're no longer power brokers. The Senate is a
bigger battle since about about 18 of them consistently vote against civil liberties and pro war,
even Milulski and Levin. Hopefully, they'll be a huge win and the Blue Dogs and Senate Sweet Sixteen
will actually shift gears.

A little history of Sen McCain:

Here's some oppo research for you, right from here

http://electionfraudnews.com/News/US/McCainCrimes1.htm

http://electionfraudnews.com/News/US/McCainCrimes2..htm

http://electionfraudnews.com/News/US/McCainCrimes3.htm

He was on Bill Maher's show, anyone remember that? And that was back before the blue wave started cresting over America. He's a good guy and I think he'd be a great vice president. I hope Obama is considering him.

No sabres he has to rattle, no postures he has to take...

He took a lot of flack for being on the cover of The Advocate, too. I was proud of him for that!

Either one and we would mop the floor with McNasty.

Webb is quite conservative, and is perfect where he is in Virginia!

I still like feingold or schweitzer

He had Head of State status. He's got experience in the highest halls of government and in nations around the world. NObody's got more gravitas than he does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6300680

I'd love to see Wes Clark too, but I don't want to put all my eggs in one basket like I did last time, and would be about equally pleased with Webb. I think either one would add just what the ticket needs as far as national security creds and people who can speak to more consevative/Southern voters, while still retaining strong progressive credentials.

and I think he's not liberal enough, and wouldn't appeal to Clinton's base. Fair or not, his "Women Can't Fight" would not go over well. (Plus, fair or not, his red hair dye is horrid.)

But I believe Mr. Clark would serve as a bang-up veep, too.

k/r

Confused, befuddled, "didn't hear" or "didn't understand" too many questions, etc...

Biden would be my next choice. And Edwards for AG post haste.

isn't necessarily a good complement for Obama.

He's another legislator, with a LONG voting record to pick apart; the length of his tenure in the Senate also makes Obama's career seem light in comparison; and he doesn't have anything in particular to bring to the challenge of pulling Clinton's base toward Obama.

Me thinks Kucinich should be in the political mix in some way shape or fashion.

dammit

Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity, that's my claim and I'm sticking to it.

So mote it be. (*?*)

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

You think Clark needs schooling on Iraq?!?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

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

Evidently, you don't know much about General Clark.

Kosovo and commanding NATO forces to the way the military has been handled in Iraq. That still stands in 2008, sadly. I think he brings a lot of pull in the National Security arena. Not to mention Clark's class standing versus Grandpa McCain's class standing just adds to the fun. This comes from someone who isn't all that fond of Gen'l Clark either. I've warmed up to him, but he's not my "dream" pick either. I think your other points hit on the other benefits of having him on the ticket, he'll appeal to the South.

My "Dream" pick for Senator Obama is still Gov. Schweitzer, but I don't see that happening just yet either.

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

:D

The war in Kosovo and Bush's Iraq war. In Kosovo, zero American casualties, fairly successful and over quickly, if I remember correctly.

But he didn't run. Obviously, VP is just fine with me. It's a sure winning ticket.

He's in a class by himself, as far as I'm concerned.

And I must admit, Obama/Clark seems a little lopsided to me -- Clark/Obama would make more sense. (Commander-in-Chief Clark, president of Senate Obama.) But whatever!! It is what it is, and nobody's even a close second for VP that I can think of!

not Wes Clark. For you to not realize that Obama has earned the spot where he is, and Clark clearly did not is not a good thing, IMO. As much as I love and supported the General, Obama clearly is where he is because of his skills, and he should be given props....

Wes Clark needs to go and clean up his blog, and then we'll talk. Many of his supporters over there are stating that they will not vote for Obama. Guess the ever so divisive Hillary kind of took them to a point of no return. Wes can show his leadership there ASAP.

I love the General, but it will be Obama who will decide.

It's absolutely shocking and shameful what that place has become. :(

And he could also decide to step aside in 2016 opening it up for Hillary.

If not VP he should have a major Cabinet post like State or be the NSA. He's not eligible for Secretary of Defense yet.

I supported him back in 2004.

5. He's from Clinton's camp.

OK—I am biased, since Wes Clark would have been my first choice for POTUS if he had run this time, but I think he would be the perfect VP choice.

First off, I think we need a Southern white guy with a strong military record to counter the McCain advantage. And as another poster said above, we probably shouldn’t go for both a woman and a Black man this time around, since that really might freak a lot of white male voters.

Clark would appease the Hillary voters, since he has been a staunch supporter of hers all along, but he wouldn’t offend the Obama voters, because he has never gotten down in the dirt or attacked Obama as other Hillary campaign operatives have. Also, he has been absolutely selfless about campaigning and fundraising for all sorts of Democrats since 2004, so there are a lot of favors to call in.

He is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar, and also from Arkansas, which carries the cachet of Bill Clinton for those who were hoping this would be Bill’s third term.

He is a handsome son of a gun, which does count with a lot of people.

He has been a FOX News analyst, so he is known and admired by a lot of the voters we might otherwise never attract, and yet he has always smacked the FOX Fools down whenever they tried to pull any of their BS in his presence.

He speaks well in public. Two great public speakers on the ticket would highlight McCain’s clumsiness and gaffes.

Notice that he brings all the same advantages Webb would bring, but none of the disadvantages, since he isn’t DINO, but rather a genuine progressive. Also, he has served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and he has the ear and the trust of much of the military brass, who spoke to him when they wanted to make stuff public that they did not dare to say themselves in public.

He has even been a Republican in the past, but has left that behind. But he still has connections to that side of the aisle and can work with them, as well as fans among Republican voters.

His heroism in trying single-handedly to save, at great risk to himself, those men who were killed in Bosnia when their Hummer went over a cliff would be a nice counterbalance to McCain’s MSM-pumped up war hero persona.

Also, his military experience includes command positions--i.e., executive roles--whereas much could be made of the fact that McCain has never had any executive experience.

Clark for VP!

**BTW, Edwards (who was my second choice, after Clark, for POTUS this time) probably would not take the VP slot again, and I want him to be named Attorney General, to clean up that snakepit over at the DOJ and to do some real investigating of the Bush administration's crimes.