Nonetheless, that said, I do think the 'unity pony' would run well, even though Clinton as candidate for VP would very much upstage Obama at the top of the ticket -- still, it seems the only winning solution in November, with so much blood under the bridge.

I did not dislike Obama at the start of primary season, but I have come greatly to do so, and although I consider myself a loyal yellow dog Democrat, I have considered sitting out November if he is the nominee and Hillary is not the VP candidate.  I wouldn't vote for McCain dogcatcher, but Obama is the first Democratic presidential contender to have awakened such distaste in me, and I have been voting Dem since McGovern.

At this point, the party is so divided that Obama needs to sink or swim on his own.  

Most of his supporters are old politicians, and some of the biggest losers and most divisive figures in politics. I will not name names but just let your imagination run back a couple of decades.

When, and if, he becomes President, he will be surrounded by Old-style Washington politicians, and this dog is so old, it can't be taught new tricks in 4 (or 8) years. But I digress.

I was a huge supporter of Gen. Clark in 2004 and was majorly bummed when he didn't receive enough support to go all the way past Edwards. I think he would have made a better VP choice to Kerry ... but in hindsight, it's just as well.

Most of his supporters are old politicians, and some of the biggest losers and most divisive figures in politics. I will not name names but just let your imagination run back a couple of decades.
When, and if, he becomes President, he will be surrounded by Old-style Washington politicians, and this dog is so old, it can't be taught new tricks in 4 (or 8) years. But I digress.

You're right.

Obama's on his own. He made the mess and he'll have to clean this one up himself. Scorched earth is never good policy. As an earlier commenter said, General Clark is too good a man to be soiled by this.

If Obama is another FDR, then Clark could end up being another John "the vice presidency wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit" Garner.

Gen. Clark is a Rhodes scholar, uncommonly articulate, a quick & sharp thinker, adept at handling the media, a skilled debater & a truly "commanding" presence.  For him to be in the same venue as Sen. Obama would serve only to highlight the much better skills, personality, character & experience of the general--perhaps much to the detriment of the senator.

That move, alone, by either Democrat would blow Sen. McCain's entire Iraq war scheme, skam, flim-flam into oblivion.  Gen. Clark's chops would be a coup against the entire rightwingnutz chorus & neuter the issue.

My husband and I were discussing this earlier.

He has also shown himself to be tough enough to hang on Fox News and hold his own.

I've been seeing the kinder, gentler, "why won't she quit" or "she's going to quit".

I think Clark would be a first-rate VP choice (though I'd rather see him as Def. Sec, truth be told).  Clark is an incredibly smart and perceptive and just plain human kind of guy, but I think it's pretty clear he isn't even adequate as a presidential candidate.

Whatever it takes to get him as high in the government as possible I'm in favor of just in principle.

Politically, he has no negatives I'm aware of and his mediocre campaigning skills I don't think would be much of a deficit in this circumstance, nor would his inability to bring a swing state with him.

Who the next VP is will be Hillary's decision. :)

But, if you really want to know about Clark on the unlikely Obama ticket. No. He needs to stay away from all Clinton supporters because it looks like he's scratching his cheek again.

Yep, to take a Clinton loyalist would look like a snub.  It may not look like a snub on the day he does it, but over time, it would.

But I still don't believe the combination of Obama and Clark would be strong enough to defeat McCain. The Republicans will attack Obama on his record, his past associations, and his readiness for the job -- the VP, however good, cannot do much to blunt those attacks. Also, we can expect McCain to add a strong VP candidate to his ticket, to counter the selection of Clark. (What if he picked Condi, for example?)

OT: My Governor, Ed Rendell was on CNN and said the SD's are making a mistake, Ed said "she has cleaned his clock since March 1st."

If the goal is to try to repair some of the rift between the Obama campaign and Clinton supporters, this is way too subtle an approach. Nobody will notice.

In addition, should he pick someone with a better resume it's only going to excentuate Obama's shortcomings and make the comparison to Bush/Cheney too obvious.

If Obama is the nominee, then Obama is applying for the job of President, not his VP choice.

Obama is unqualified to be President. He does not have the resume or policies or maturity for the job. I would vote McCain before I vote for him. I do not fear a McCain Presidency.

As to calling myself a democrat, that will not happen again if Obama is the nominee. This election has taught me that the Democratic party leadership and I have no principles or values in common.

I learned a long time ago that you teach people how to treat you by what you accept from them. I will not sanction or accept what has been done in the name of winning this primary.

I will not support balless, spineless politicians who allowed Bush and his cabal to do their worst, but now have found their backbone against their own.

What happened to the much vaunted 100 days after the 06 election? What happened to the new sheriff in town? What have they achieved?

They're in fact still the do-nothing-congress.

He states: [T]he Clinton people need an incentive to work aggressively for the ticket, and Clark is that incentive.   Why does Obama need this? His specialty is GOTV.  

Obama supporters hit Clinton for her vote on AUMF but contradict themselves in picking the guy that has her views? Clinton loyalist on national security issues that progressives have.  How does Obama pick someone who backs Clinton on FP and Iraq?  So now Clinton's decisions are ok?

Why do you assume that a progressive wouldn't pick another progressive because he's progressive?  It's important that a VP be a pretty good ideological match for the President.

The VP pick is important.  Harry Truman.  Richard Nixon.  Lyndon Johnson.  George H. W. Bush.  Al Gore.  When you pick a VP, you're very likely naming a future president.  It's important to pick someone who'll be up to the job, and who will take the party in a direction worth going.

Look at how deep a bench the Democratic party had this year.  We had at least half a dozen candidates who'd have made good-to-excellent Presidents.  Had we really needed him, Al Gore would have been available.

Now look at the sorry bunch of freaks, fakes, and has-beens that the Republicans ran.  A former mayor of New York.  A couple B-list governors.  Some washed-up old Senator.  Why did they have so little talent to draw on?  I'll give you three reasons:

Dan Quayle
Jack Kemp
Dick Cheney

They keep wasting the Vice Presidency.  Each of those picks made sense in the short term, but none of them had any positive long-term impact on the party.  Quayle was never a tiny bit significant even in office, and vanished from the national scene the instant his term ended.  Cheney of course is a towering figure, but he too will cease to matter on January 20.

The progressive blogosphere's incoherence about Clark is just as pathetic as it's incoherence about Clinton herself.  On different terms he was clearly entertaining military action in Iraq.  And yes, he came out against the war as conceived by Bush and his cronies.

So.   Now why would such an anti-war advocate endorse Clinton in the first place??????!!!!!!!

Huh???

Probably because every single pathetic minutia one hears on the internet about war support and anti-war activism is utter bullcrap.  That's why.

Hey.  Whatever.

Second, it would be hard to argue Clinton was not supporting Obama or was trying to divide the party if Clark were on the ticket since Clark would not accept without Clinton's blessing.  So it helps kill the Clinton is sabotaging Obama or Obama's loss is Clinton's fault.

Third, it keeps Clinton's position with respect to the nomination in place.  If Obama melts down over the summer and the SDs are looking around for another choice - Clinton does not have to worry about Clark trying to wreak havoc (and neither does the party) and the party wouldn't have to worry about what to do with Obama's VP selection since Clinton/Clark works just fine (better from my standpoint).

So all in all, I'd say a good choice for Obama, since Clark is a terrific man, a good choice for Clinton, and a good choice for the party.  

As I understand it, there is not yet a nominee.  Seems premature to start the transition away from this being an essentially Pro Hillary until our dying breath site.

I would prefer to consider Clark as VP for Hillary
when the  SD's awaken from their insanity or when Obama self destructs.