Could Gen. Wesley Clark Be the Veep Pick?

The Vice Presidential candidate speaks at the Democratic Convention on Wednesday night. The theme that night is "Securing America's Future."

So the VP candidate is someone who fits with that theme. Also, according to another report I read elsewhere, miltary veterans are part of the night's theme.

Could Gen. Wesley Clark be back in the ballgame? His organization is Securing America's Future, the same name as the night's theme. More on that here.

Gen. Wesley Clark would be just fine with me. He's actually got progressive views on criminal justice issues and constitutional rights: [More...]

Here's Gen. Clark In 2002:

I'm concerned about the lock-up policy, the 3-strikes policy, putting people in jails and the way we've treated people in prison. We've got to look seriously at the American penal system and what it does when it returns people.to the streets." Source: WBUR Public Radio interview Jun 19, 2003

On the Patriot Act in 2004:

I will suspend the portions of the Patriot Act that have to do with search and seizure law, and we'll go back to old way with probable cause and judges and warrants, and then we'll take the whole act back to the Congress for legislative review. We will have all the authority we need to protect the country from terrorists, but you can't win the war on terror by giving up the very freedoms we're fighting to protect. Wes

He's uneasy about the death penalty and at one point supported a moratorium on it.

He's even open to medical marijuana (same link):

When asked about marijuana laws, he said he opposes the use of the illegal drug. However, he added that he has talked with people who use it to ease their chronic pain. “They said smoking marijuana helps,” he said. “We need to look at that and make some allowances one way or another.”

He would have fired Rumsfeld in 2003.

Okay, my mind's made up. I want General Wesley Clark for Vice President. He's got the experience and a better position on issues I care about than every other name mentioned.

< Mark Warner to Give DNC Keynote Speech | Celebrities >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I was a Clinton/Clark girl :) (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:56:53 AM EST
    Not sure if I want to see him on the ticket with Obama though. I have this weird aversion to seeing someone I like as second to Obama. I just don't have any faith in Obama at the moment and would prefer the "good folks" to stay indie of him. They may be more effective outside of the WH.

    If military vets are (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:04:07 AM EST
    part of the night's theme, it definitely ain't gonna be Clark.  No way they're going to make a big military show like that.

    Clark as VP could get me to vote for the ticket (none / 0) (#73)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:11:33 AM EST
    See how he explains the sticky world situations and how he handles Scarborough's insistence on a pat b&w statement about The Surge.

    I don't see it. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:09:43 AM EST
    I think Clark would be a good pick.  I just don't see Obama doing it.  "Dull, older white guy" is the description.  Older white guy - yes.  Dull - no.

    If Obama were to choose Clark (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:41:25 AM EST
    which I find highly unlikely... people would always be turning to Clark for leadership and clear explanations of what is going on. I can't imagine that Obama would take that chance. He'd look like a schoolboy in short pants next to Clark. No, I'm sorry. It will never happen.

    Actually though... I would vote for Obama if he did that. Seriously... that would show more maturity than I give him credit for.


    It would shock me. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:35:48 AM EST
    And I would be suspicious that it was not entirely Obama's decision.  It's not like Obama to choose someone who would be his own man (or her own woman).  Obama and his campaign seem to be more "one message/one man".  Even Obama's Unity schtick seems to be more about "unite behind me" than "unite behind a purpose".  

    Does Clark have any Clinton ties?  Obama has spent two campaigns(primary & GE) distancing himself from either Clinton beyond the necessary show of Unity.  Would Obama pick anyone from the Clinton wing of the party?


    Clark served under President Clinton and (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    is from Arkansas.  Clark endorsed Senator Clinton in Sept of 2007.

    Just a wild idea here but..... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:22:27 AM EST
    ...I happen to be one of those "naive" people who believe that Hillary Clinton puts the interests of the country above her own personal ego. There's been a lot of talk about what Hillary has or has not been negotiating for. What if she has been urging Obama to choose Clark? Clearly he is a real hero and a brilliant man. We do need him. But hey, I am probably just not smart enough to get the fact that the only thing that Hillary and Bill Clinton would negotiate for are things like money, personal gratification, and power, right?

    Wah, I should have read the whole thread.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    ...before commenting. I read below that Clark won't even be at the convention. God I hope it isn't Hagel.

    It ain't gonna be Hagel (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    Too many Democrats would tell Obma to go *&%! himself and sit out the election. Other than on the Iraq War (which Hagel voted for) he is firmly conservative in every way.

    Why do you say that (none / 0) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
     It's not like Obama to choose someone who would be his own man (or her own woman).

    What evidence is there that this is true?


    You think he does? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    Well, we will see what kind of VP he chooses.  My prediction is a "dull, white, older man".  I am prepared to be in error.

    I think your analysis (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BernieO on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:30:20 AM EST
    is correct. I too would love to see him pick Clark, but doubt that he would. After all he made a point of saying he did not need anyone with foreign policy cred since he had lived abroad as a kid. I still cannot believe he has gotten a pass on that ridiculous statement.

    Fox is reporting that John Kerry is being vetted for VP. Yuck.


    That makes perfect sense.. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:46:04 AM EST
    In Obama world, that is.  

    Kerry's meme in 2004 was his military service. And he did almost win. Of course most voters were voting against Bush, not for Kerry but I'm sure Obama doesn't realize that.


    It's not Kerry. That's absurd. (none / 0) (#31)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:31:02 AM EST
    My guess: it's a courtesy to Kerry (none / 0) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:51:50 AM EST
    who has been voguing for VP/cabinet position since January.

    Not even the Obama campaign would seriously think Kerry would help the ticket.

    Would they?


    I had that idea a couple of weeks ago (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    But now with this night of the convention planned with vets, I doubt it.  It would look too much like Kerry's own nomination night - the "Reporting for Duty" moment.  

    And we saw how GOP turned the tables (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kempis on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    on Kerry's vet-themed evening.

    Apparently, whatever themes the DNC uses, the Republicans will return serve and smack it right back at them.

    All this will end up doing is highlighting Obama's lack of service because that's what the GOP pundits (and 527s) will get people to chatter about in response.

    Of course, anything the Dems do will be an opening for an attack.

    In 04, the Dems were nice and bipartisan at their convention. Then the Republicans were utterly vicious at theirs, full-fanged ripping into the Dems. Remember the purple bandaids? Remember crazy-assed Zell Miller who was so pumped after his speech that he challenged Tweety to a duel?

    I wonder if the Dems will come out swinging this year....


    Well if Fox is reporting it (none / 0) (#102)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    It's GOTTA BE TRUE!  Right?  And I think Obama said specifically that he needed someone with more foreign policy/military experience than him.  But it's always fun to take something way out of context...a la Fox.
    I'm pretty sure that Obama wants to keep the media guessing (leaving everyone on the table as a possible VP) because it gives him tons of free, non-negative press.  McCain is launching all of his idiotic ads because the man simply can't get free airtime.

    No, wrong (none / 0) (#105)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    Sen. Obama said he didn't need someone to shore up his military and foreign policy credentials.



    Nice try (none / 0) (#112)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM EST
    You linked to an article from huffpo...from April 7.  You may remember that the contest was still very much inquestion at that point.  You might also remember that this was right in the middle of Clinton's bitz on Obama's foreign policy cred.  If you have a supporting quote within say, the last 4 months, I will happily admit my error.  

    you mean (none / 0) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:02:00 PM EST
    you think Obama lied during the primaries and was willing "to say anything" to get the nomination?  Wasn't the "say anything" quality supposed to be the major problem with Clinton's character?  That even though Obama stated quite clearly that foreign policy was the one area he was very sure he ubnderstood and needed no help with, that was just a ruse because of Clinton's attacks on him?

    I sincerely hope (3.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    That he's willing to say anything (barring hate speech, etc.) to get elected.  
    Also, he may not have lied...he may have thought that he didn't need someone with massive foreign policy experience, then decided otherwise; that he needs someone with the qualities he lacks.  Let's see who the VP pick is before passing judgment based on a dumb quote from April.  Every politician makes mistakes.  

    EXACTLY! (none / 0) (#63)
    by mogal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    Wes is more (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by bluejane on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:33:30 AM EST
    The concept of Clark changes my mood for the better. I like his national security ideas; his fanship of the Constitution and his wanting to revamp Patriot Act (he's not a partisan so maybe Obama will let him head up a leadership effort to push Congress to restore the Constitution); his experience on world stage heading NATO; his ideas on handling extremist criminality (otherwise glorified as "war on terrorism"); his military creds without being militaristic; his debate style (courteous, articulate, tenacious and good-natured); and his smile.  I also think he'll have some sway with a President Obama -- he won't shy down.

    He was always one of my better hopes for prez. I'll take VP if he's The One.  

    He'd be a good choice... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:32:28 AM EST
    ... and a positive signal to more progressive voters, compared to the other rumored choices. I think he might have a bit too much fight in him for the overly cautious Obama, though.

    Would be a real show of good judgement (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:49:16 AM EST
    on Obama's part. Time to get serious and stop all the posturing about how his living abroad as a child and whirlwind trip through the Middle East and Europe gives him foreign policy credentials.

    Also both the Clintons would enthusiastically support this choice, at least as much as they would Bayh.  

    Only downside I see is that Clark speaks his mind more than Obama seems to be comfortable with, but that is Obama's failing, not Clark's.  I hope Obama sees it that way and learns to stick up for people that are on his side.

    Gosh (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:45:25 AM EST
    I certainly hope folks would perceive this as a serious attempt to include the folks under the bus on the ticket.

    Not gonna happen (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:10:40 AM EST
    The signs are against it

    Wes Jr. commented on Kos the other day that as far as he knows his father hasn't been contacted by the Obama campaign and he doubts he was ever in consideration.

    Although the "Securing America's Future" is the exact name of the General's PAC, it appears to have been co opted without a by your leave as Wes hinted at on the Maddow show yesterday

    He will be in Milan on that day and as of now, it looks like he hasn't even been invited to speak at convention at all.

    In 2004 his speech dazzled.  This year he is under the bus.

    My guess... it is because of his close ties to Hillary.

    Choosing Wes or Hillary would show maturity that I'm afraid Obama just doesn't have.

    That's pretty conclusive (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:24:31 AM EST
    Wes Jr. is the kind of shoot-from-the-hip guy who makes Joe Biden look shy.  There's virtually no chance he's involved in some kind of elaborate subterfuge.

    A small addition (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Donna Z on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    As you said, Clark will be in Milan on that Wednesday. It should be added that he will be there attending the European Economic Conference.

    I write this because during rough economic times an Oxford graduated economist should be seen as a plus. Wes Clark's interests as CoB of an investment bank are emerging medical and energy issues. Prehaps because of that interest, Gen. Clark is now director of a wind-energy company based in the Netherlands.

    Ya know, I would like to see someone as VP who knew something beyond  the K-Street numbers, and would be a positive voice at the table. Someone who gets it right the first time...yeah, that's the ticket.


    Many pluses (none / 0) (#80)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM EST
    ....with a Clark pick

    But methinks Obama will want someone who doesn't outshine him.


    so bring on the wannabes that bring (none / 0) (#85)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:37:03 AM EST
    nothing to the ticket. yup, heck of a deal, dems!

    He could always text his acceptance :-) (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    You've convinced me (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:08:01 AM EST
    should have known it was too good to be true.

    I more and more think it is going to be the person Obama has wanted all along - Sebelius.


    Yeah that's a great idea (none / 0) (#33)
    by BernieO on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:33:21 AM EST
    Insult Hillary supporters by picking a less qualified woman. And lets not forget her stellar response to Bush's State of the Union address. At the time I had no idea who she was but I was appalled at her robotic, boring performance.

    Not that I would be surprised if Obama picked her, just that I think it would be a big mistake.


    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST
    Huge mistake.

    But that does not preclude it from happening.


    Insult? (none / 0) (#137)
    by HonoraryClinton on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:57:18 PM EST
    I don't understand how picking a woman he feels comfortable working with is an insult to anyone. Is it an insult to John Edwards if Obama picks a white Senator? Why the double standard here?

    No one earns a VP spot. The VP should be chosen by the nominee based on who HE feels most comfortable governing side by side with. I love Hillary but I cannot understand this line of thinking at all. I want her to be VP, but I also want Obama to pick someone he feels comfortable working with for the next 8 years, not just someone he needs to appease a few people for the next 80-something days. If that person happens to be a woman I feel it would be unfair to hold her back just because she isn't Hillary.

    The VP spot isn't earned by votes or even qualifications, it is a position selected by the nominee based on the needs and desires of the nominee. I would be very proud to vote for an Obama/Sebelius ticket.


    This breaks my heart. Once again, (none / 0) (#104)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    Obama is throwing a real progressive and real leader under the bus.

    Clark is way too independent and way too smart for Obama. Wasn't Clark a Rhodes Scholar?

    Gee, why didn't brilliant Obama have that honor? Too busy getting things onto his resume so he could run for president in a very few years, eh?

    Clark also knows how to work within the system. Obama and the DNC would have nothing on him in that regard if he had a position of power within the Dem government.

    What a @#$@#%@%!!! Obama is. Every time I think I might be able to vote for him, he totally disgusts me again.


    A quick post and run (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by sister of ye on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:07:27 AM EST
    Busy day at work.

    I'm not sure Wes Clark on the ticket would get me to vote for Obama, but it would give me hope his presidency wouldn't be a total disaster if he is elected. There are no guarantees, but Obama is far more likely to listen to fellow male Clark than Clinton. And I doubt he'd dare give Clark the kind of personal hassling and disrespect that I suspect Clinton would be subjected to as his veep.

    I think it's a big head fake, (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:42:43 AM EST
    and the pick will be Evan Bayh.

    I mean, if they think it makes sense to have a man deliver the keynote on the night women's achievements are being celebrated, Evan Bayh doesn't have to have any national security cred to be introduced on "Securing America's Future" night.

    But, but, but (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:57:06 AM EST
    they are giving us Nancy Pelosi the night before.  Jeepers!  Are you bitter knitters never satisfied?

    AND, we get Claire McCaskill, too... (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:03:08 AM EST
    it's just going to be so...special.

    I won't be watching lest I be tempted to put a knitting needle in my eye...


    She's a definite (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by pie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    minus in the appeal column.  Can't stand her and don't respect her.  She's not a loyal dem; she's a loyal Obama supporter.  

    is it for sure (none / 0) (#97)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    that Chelsea will introduce Hillary?  Cause I was thinking that Obama might prefer it if Donna Brazile intorduced her instead.

    Nails on the blackboard. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    And the sound of the bus engine revving.

    (Please, let them not be that insulting.)


    Doesn't have a clue, does he (none / 0) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:16:58 AM EST
    I mean, if they think it makes sense to have a man deliver the keynote on the night women's achievements are being celebrated,

    When he credited Hillary for clearing a path to make success easier for his own daughters, he obviously had no intention of helping that cause himself.

    As for Clark, to use Cream's brilliant term, he's a busunder.


    I thought Hillary was speaking on tuesday, the (none / 0) (#130)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    anniverary of a wonderful women's moment, so that horn could be tooted loudly and long and properly. One of the two firsts, and the anniversary and her speech coincide. And that the vp candidate speaks Wednesday at night, with Bill at some earlier time.

    No. They will not be tooting (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    that horn. It will be about the economy, not about women or Hillary.

    Please specify how you know this. And in any event (none / 0) (#136)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:52:13 PM EST
    there is a long economic argument which ties to women's issues. And women's issues to it.

    I can see why the VP might be somebody who (none / 0) (#129)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    was close enough to HrC that the choice would be seen as one which was not deliberately turning his back on everything about her, but why Bayh? He never showed me anything during the primaries other than the ability to stand beside his candidate without distracting from her, and mutter the talking points on tv. Of course, if he's such a vegetable as that, why was he standing so often next to HrC, who is definitely no vegetable. I keep remembering Bob Dylan appearing at the Oscars via video access. Who knows? Of course, in exchange for the nomination, Clark might well change his plans. You don't change plans unti after you put down that phone.

    Arrrggh, that would be hard to resist (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:59:58 AM EST
    I love Wes Clark.  I'm a "broken glass" Clarkie. But as good as he is, it still isn't a replacement for Hillary Clinton, not that I would want her for VP.  I'm trying to wrap my head around this because it's a real toughy.  I don't think anyone would disagree that Obama needs someone like Clark.  But wouldn't even Clark dwarf Obama?  I've heard Clark speak.  He is dynamic, energetic and smart as a whip.  He's got a very commanding presence.  I don't think it would take very long before Clark started to take the spot light away from the chosen one.  And then we would be right back where we started: the guy in the top spot is miscast and his weaknesses would be pronounced.  Clark's added value to the Obama campaign would be very short lived.  
    Besides, didn't Obama throw Clark under a bus over his McCain criticisms?  The choice would seem to be one of desperation.  

    politcal savvy (none / 0) (#138)
    by aeiouxyz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:50:47 AM EST
         The party managed to split itself roughly evenly between Clinton and Obama during the primaries just as the nation did during the last two elections.  These pitiful results occurred in the presence of very poor turnout in relation to those eligible to vote(apathy is truly the ruler of this randomly pathetic{though I love her dearly}nation).    

         Generals are said to believe in things like "acceptable losses" and "war by attrition". This seems to be your political approach?  Or are you more of the Don Quixote type "tilting with windmills" as I often do.


    Way back, beginning of June maybe (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    TLers were joking about just how many VPs will Obama need to fill the holes in his candidacy.

    This long dragging march to finally announcing his pick is a way of getting virtual multiple VPs.  The campaign floats some names to gauge reaction, it doesn't stick, they float some more...each potential VPs supporters get all excited thinking it indicates something positive about Obama, that he'd actually have the sense and good judgement to pick 'X', then the switch to someone else....

    At this point, I think they're addicted to drama and spurts of VP possibility good-feeling, and have become unable to just make a choice.  Less than 2 weeks to go.

    Nothing could have been more (none / 0) (#55)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:21:34 AM EST
    painful to watch than Fritz Mondale's Veep selection process in 84 when he blatantly made it known to everyone that he was considering a minority or a woman for the spot.

    Or how about the obviously badly flawed process of the last two cycles which gave us underwhelming picks like Joe Lieberman and Johnny Edwards.

    So far I don't have major complaints about how O is handling this one.  And like everyone else outside of the inner circle, I am completely at a loss as to who it's going to be.  I just suspect though it's not going to be one of those quirky "outside the box" picks (like Al thought Lieberman was) like a Clark or Bloomberg or someone similar.  No need in this Dem yr for O to do something wacky like that.


    What (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tek on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:18:20 AM EST
    a slap in the face this would be.  The Clintons mentored Clark and he gets on the ticket while Hillary is rejected.  The Democratic Party has morphed into a petty dictatorship, worse even than the NeoCons.  

    Not Clark (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jen on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    And I'm relieved! Don't want anyone I care about or respect anywhere near this loser ticket. My guess is Kerry.

    As trilliam said upthread, Wes will be in Milan Wed. and has not even been asked to speak at the convention.

    This is what Wes Clark, Jr. said at DK yesterday:

    I've heard nothing (27+ / 0-)

    About him as a VP choice or being on any list whatsoever.  Dad doesn't really know anyone on the search committee, so my guess is that he is not going to be Obama's VP choice. ...

    Clark's 2004 convention speech (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    was a huge hit. He was on fire. I live-blogged it here.

    Obama people are lifting ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    lines from another politician?

    Oh, they'd never do that.

    Clark as VP ties in nicely with Bill (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by byteb on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:01:01 AM EST
    speaking on Wed night.

    Clark is outstanding. I hope he's VP.

    Thanks Jeralyn for setting my expectations to 11 (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:06:59 AM EST

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:15:54 AM EST
    the cat's out of the bag now.

    If "cat's out of the bag" is inappropriate in this context,  apologies in advance.

    There is currently (none / 0) (#4)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:33:54 AM EST
    an article on Yahoo, right here, that speculates that Chuck Hagel might be BO's pick. I hope Obama does choose Hagel. I really do. I also hope that Hillary puts her name in the hat because if Obama chooses Hagel, you might see some last minute changes in the minds of supers.

    ah yes, the march to the cliff is long and (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    tiresome, give me some water and other choices.

    I have a feeling that... (none / 0) (#8)
    by EL seattle on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:04:10 AM EST
    ...the republicans will actively try to portray Obama as being "AWOL on NATO".  Clark as VP should help to deflect those attacks, but his very presence as the 2nd name on the ticket would be a constant reminder of the 1st name's limited foreign policy experience.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#9)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:17:26 AM EST
    Maybe I'm projecting here, but I think people are already deeply aware of this lack, don't you think? The addition of Clark to the ticket would ease their minds... having someone in the Whitehouse who actually knows what their doing in the international arena.

    Clark or Hagel (none / 0) (#10)
    by kimsaw on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:24:16 AM EST
    Well Obama's purple America would indicate Hagel had a good chance. Clark on the other hand would be a favorite of Dems, but yet I don't know if it helps or hurts Obama with Clinton supporters. Speaking as an independent, neither would make me vote for Obama. General Clark balances McCain's  military creds with his officer status and Rhodes Scholar intelligence, yet I still think McCain comes out on top with hero worshiping, image craving Americans.

    Clark would help Obama with voters who are not comfortable with Obama creds. As an advocate for Clinton, Clark made good case for her, as well as all those other officers that signed on with her. I buy into Clark's push for Obama as much as I bought into Powell's speech at the UN which means it was a no sale. I wish leaders like Clark and Clinton would wrap their heads around an independent run, because then I'd have someone to vote for!

    Clark would be the best choice probably (none / 0) (#11)
    by robrecht on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:26:33 AM EST
    Chuck Hegel would be a more dramatic pick but that won't happen.

    Hagel said yesterday he is not endorsing anyone (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:44:08 AM EST
    nor going to any of the conventions.  I don't think it is him, and hope I am right.  A Republican on the ticket is a little more change than I can stand.

    That's why I say ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by robrecht on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:00:02 AM EST
    it's not gonna happen.  He won't even be in the country during the conventions.

    Out of the country? No problem. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:32:07 AM EST
    High-tech savy Obama could introduce Hagel via Holographic Video Feed

    Holohagel (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:08:46 AM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    What about Colin Powell? (none / 0) (#56)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    Anyone know where he is these days. He said early on he didn't know who he was going to support (if you believe him).

    Talk about negatives! (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    Iraq War
    Bush Administration
    Politically inactive, previous Republican.

    Military experience (war...Iraq)
    Loyal soldier (aka lack of integrity)

    Who would he appeal to?


    Integrity?... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mogal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:57:08 AM EST
    he lied to the UN and to the American people. He could have resigned at any time and saved the country alot of grief because his word would have believed over Bush's. Instead he played the loyal soldier.

    Independent NeoCons? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    Not to mention liars.  

    Fans of the war? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:43:50 AM EST
    Powell couldn't run without having "Iraq Debacle" practically tattooed on his forehead.  Even his belated confession doesn't help erase his involvement.

    Shaking that anthrax (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by eric on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    vial in the UN, along with all the other lies, pretty much sunk him.

    His a PIC.


    I'm fine with Obama consulting Powell... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    on foreign policy. But politically, if Obama's going to run on his judgement about the war, he can't run with the man who sold it, even if Powell was reluctant to do so.

    Also, Powell is nearly as old as McCain.


    But Powell came clean afterwards (none / 0) (#68)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    (ugh) and tried to reclaim his reputation. What better way to gain respect again than to run with the dems to "clean up" what the repubs did. And, if it's okay to consult him, why is it not okay to put him on the ticket. I don't believe this ticket is viable or will happen, but then, if some believe Hagel could be considered, I thought, why not Powell?

    But when will he "come clean" about (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    My Lai?  

    Why pick a proven liar when there are so many other people out there to choose from?


    That would be great - (none / 0) (#107)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    it would sink the Obama bus for sure.

    One cold, calculating liar chooses a "good soldier" who has proved he will lie if asked.

    I love it!


    Somebody has to say the ugly obvious. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    If people have a racial concern about O + old white guy, or O + woman (some women love that one but a lot might not and conservative men really not) but O + a second AA? He could be father Huxtable, this second black person, and it would be overload. And Powell's wife has made it clear she doesn't want him to run for reasons some here heard but I don't want to mention specifically so the thread swerves  off point when it is holding its line now.

    I'm not sure. (none / 0) (#86)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    Axelrod was a consultant on the last season on West Wing, and we know how THAT plot turned out!

    Clark understands the chain of command (none / 0) (#14)
    by mperloe on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:25:58 AM EST
    Clark would have Obama's ear and would be a trusted and heard advisor. He would be effective implementing policy. And, he understands the chain of command. He would complement rather than overshadow Obama. Clark would be an excellent foil for McCain's claim to be an effective arbiter of national security.

    I believe that Clark's military management experience equates to what any of the mentioned governors bring to the table.

    Clark has a lot of enemies in the military, (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpa1 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:15:14 AM EST
    for whatever that means.  Obama thinks he (himself) is a military and foreign policy genius, so I don't think he'd want to be shown up by Clark and his credentials.

    I've decided, for whatever that is worth, the VP pick will go to Ed Rendell.  It gives him Pennsylvania and makes some inroads into the Jewish vote, which is very fractionalized now.  

    An erroneous meme (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:21:27 AM EST
    "Wes has a lot of enemies in the military" is a meme that has been bandied around by the GOP and his detractors on the Left, with absolutely no attribution, other than the contretemps with Shelton during Kosova

    The fact is that he has many more friends and admirers in the military than enemies.



    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by BernieO on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:38:05 AM EST
    He scares the beejeesus out of them because they know how impressive he is.

    The Republicans have a strategy of trashing any Dem they think will be a formidable opponent BEFORE they gain traction with the public. Lee Atwater secretly worked against Bill Clinton in his last run for governor because he believed - rightly, it turned out - that Clinton was the Dem with the best chance of defeating Bush I's bid for reelection.


    Given the state of the Pentagon now that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    Bush has run out most of the reasonable and thinking leadership, it is possible that Clark would have fewer fans there, but the reality is that any Democrat won't be popular with the current leadership.  

    And that is exactly why Obama could benefit from having an experienced General like Clark on his team - Obama is going to be entering a mine field (if elected) of politicized command at the Pentagon and within the intelligence agencies as President.  Having someone who understands how it is supposed to work would be a good thing.  Had Clinton been the nominee, she would have been wise to consider Clark for the same reasons because its a mess.


    Let me add... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    ....that although he was/is well liked in the active military, he probably has enemies in the retired general cabal that make their living off the MIC.

    Clark knows where the "bodies are buried".......which is another reason the Village have always been against him.


    Rendell (none / 0) (#21)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:26:04 AM EST
    was a huge Hillary supporter, so -- with Obama and the DNC'S present antipathy for anything Clinton -- I doubt it would be him.

    You have to see who HASN'T been scheduled to speak yet and, so far, it's Evan Bayh or Kathleen Sebelius.


    Bayh was a big time Clinton supporter too. (none / 0) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:12:48 AM EST

    All Hillary surrogates... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    ... are not created equal. I think Rendell particularly antagonized the Obama camp, and is unlikely to be considered, even though he's well-qualified in a number of ways.

    Bayh is such a non-entity - so enigmatic - (none / 0) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:02:56 AM EST
    that it is impossible for him to offend anyone - except people like me who destest politicians of that ilk.  Which is exactly why I think he would be a miserable pick for the VP slot - especially since Obama is loathe to take concrete positions on much of anything.  That ticket would be too ungrounded and too ethereal to combat a much better known candidate like McCain who is great at making people feel like he believes in the things that they do even when he doesn't.

    but rendell took himself out of the veep (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    selection process. he doesn't want it.

    Can you live with his speech of praise for (none / 0) (#133)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    Louis Farrakhan. It's on YouTube. Y'all yelled at O not becasue O supported F, but because his minister did.  Bob Casey maybe but not Ed, I think.

    I suggested that days ago, but... (none / 0) (#27)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:13:00 AM EST
    the theme of Tuesday is women earning the right to vote, and Warner keynotes the convention that night, so not sure.

    Also, Clark seems a bit too obvious now, so Zinni?  Maybe Eaton?

    They ditched the women focus? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    The night is now called "Restoring America's Promise" and with Warner seems not so women-centric. Not surprised.

    Maybe it is Sebelius... (none / 0) (#30)
    by masslib on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:30:30 AM EST
    because I don't see her on the list anywhere for speaking.  But maybe she is introducing BO.

    If she is, he'll have to begin his speech (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:34:32 AM EST
    by pounding on the podium to wake everybody up.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#36)
    by BernieO on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:39:11 AM EST
    Just check out the youtube videos of her response to Bush's State of the Union speech. It was a real snoozefest.

    She's speaking (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Coldblue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:41:25 AM EST
    Exact day and time have not been decided. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    ..........Sinking feeling. ;-(

    Sebelius and Kerry (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:20:38 AM EST
    Separated at birth?  Man go to that link I thought for a second it was Kerry with a new hairstyle and a face lift.  

    It would be a very smart pick.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by bmc on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:45:08 AM EST
    I wonder if Obama is up to it.

    Clark would seem one of the (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    longest of longshots and, given his political neophyte status, one of the riskiest as well.  

    O will play fairly safe with his VP choice, and in this context even gaffe-prone Joe Biden, who's been talked about more and more lately, is less of a risk than rookie Clark.  

    Perhaps though Clark for DNI/DCI in his first term, then SecDef for the 2d.  Clark is just not a good idea in the running for VP, though he would be much better at being Veep once in office.  

    He has though always enjoyed a large following in the netroots, built on mostly very sunny and wildly unrealistic evaluations of his ability to win higher office.  I think he is better suited being appointed to office.

    2nd term? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by tek on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:19:07 AM EST

    I think Clark actually would be a great (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:20:12 AM EST
    campaigner as VP - he has the all important attack dog capability - he did extremely well amongst the nutters when he was a regular commenter on Faux News - he has military creds that far out shine John McCain's experience - he actually understands this Georgia-Russia conflict unlike most of the rest of us - he knows what the military should look like when it is a functioning organization - he has experience with many world leaders and he is smart.  He is also from Arkansas and I think would blow any of the potential GOP VP picks out of the water at any debate.  He'd be my choice - especially given the field of names that the Obama camp has floated so far.

    I have positive feelings about WC -- (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    but as someone in office and governing, and not as a pol campaigning for that office.

    It makes me very nervous just thinking about putting a political rookie out there with another pol who's only had a few yrs in the national arena.  

    For this reason alone, I'd much prefer an experienced campaigner and pol like Biden or a Dodd, both of whom are still actually in the running last I checked.

    Btw, re Clark and Ark, I don't think he has the deep close personal ties and connection to the people there that either Bill or Hill have -- not even close.  So Clark helping Dems win there I think is a bit of a stretch.  And he's never been in formal political debate so I can't evaluate him there either.

    Today, at this hour, I'm leaning more in favor of Biden over Bayh; maybe even Dodd.  Either one would bring campaign know how and an ability and willingness to take it to the Repubs.  

    Bayh is a little too soft and cautious and bipartisan -- though for that latter reason he might well be preferred by Obama.


    He has been in several political (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    debates - he was a presidential candidate in 2004 and participated in several of those debates.

    I think he's got far better debating skills than either Dodd or Biden mostly because he is not prone to that Senate pontification thing - something Obama also falls into.  Dodd is way too accomodating and Biden is the media's whipping boy where it comes to gaffes.  My take is that Clarks is a perfect yin to Obama's yang.  

    Clark is also less likely to fall into that "We love John McCain" pattern that every senator is prone to getting into when they talk about him - have you seen that ad that the McCain camp has put together of Democrats praising him to the high heavens?


    You're right about the 04 (none / 0) (#84)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    debates, I'd forgotten.  But perhaps I did because by the time he did so, he'd already badly stumbled first with his decision not to enter IA then with his unforced major error in answering a very foreseeable basic hypo wrt how he would have voted on AUMF.  

    So by the time of his debate appearances, much of the big mo had left his campaign, and it was four-candidate contest, mostly, and not including Clark.  Iow, he debated when he wasn't under a pressurized spotlight, and in the context of a crowded and very uneven field.

    Agree about WC and knee jerk Dem McCain worship -- particularly after his public dust up of a few weeks ago.

    Did you hear about Russ Feingold's effusive praise of St McCain the other day?  Except for his parenthetical footnote remark that he preferred Obama, you would have thought Russ was about to make a major endorsement announcement.  

    And some people on the progblogs though RF would make for a good VP for the Dems ...


    I am no fan of Feingold. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    I have no idea what he thought he was doing in making that statement about McCain.

    I've always thought of him as something of a useful tool when he is useful and as inflexible and narrow in this thinking when he isn't being useful.

    I first noticed him when he went after Clinton during the impeachment fiasco and I was as annoyed with him as I was with Lieberman at the time.

    In any case, I know I won't convince you, but I think Clark has grown into quite a good debater and while I am generally averse to military picks and didn't think much of Clark myself in '04 - I think he has a lot to offer as a VP candidate now in '08.  McCain is going to be a tough opponent - I believe he can pull this out - and Obama is hesitent in ways that I think may start to look like deception rather than "thoughtfulness" - Clark's shoot-from-the-hip style I believe would balance that out.  Besides, it would be really fun to see him debate Carly Fiorina if she is McCain's VP pick - or Romney or most of the rest - he'd blow them out of the water on all things military and international - and he has a common touch that rivals John McCain's fake "everyman" persona.  Neither Bayh, Kaine, nor Sibilius offer that kind of fire power.  Bayh is so boring - I really hope it isn't Bayh.


    Debates (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Donna Z on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    Gen. Clark was part of West Point's winning debate team. He also was on Oxford's debate team.

    True...there is a difference between "real" debates and the dog-and-pony shows that are sold to America with a eye on dumbing down the elections. Nevertheless, formulating responses with the necessary punch is common to these two otherwise unrelated formats.


    Clark or HRC would restore some hope. (none / 0) (#72)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    all the other jokers in the CW spell D-E-F-E-A-T in November. Its about time a democrat didn't do what the GOP media prodded it to do, like not pick Clark or HRC.

    Unlike some others (none / 0) (#74)
    by Lil on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    I actually liked it when he said the right wing "freaks" comment (or something like that).  A little more pit bull from the Dems would do us good. Clark is my hope behind HRC for now. Anyone else and I'll probably yawn through the rest of the election season.

    Clark would get me to vote (none / 0) (#81)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    Being from Illinois, I had made decision that my vote wouldn't matter one way or the other. Clark on the ticket would change that. He'd show that the Dem leadership really has the interest of Dem's in mind.

    Clark has no voting record to be thrown back at him. He would qualify as an Washington outsider. He has national recognition. Plus he appeals to both the hawks in the party as well as the netroots.

    The other names seem to be totally about pandering to a small group that won't deliver the WH. And if Hagel was to be put on the ticket, I would leave the party.

    In Case You Missed It (none / 0) (#83)
    by Donna Z on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:32:51 AM EST
    No Torture, No Exceptions

    Something in the American soul has always demanded fair treatment and respect for the individual. Perhaps it was our flight from the repression of the Old World and the practices of European monarchy. We were different. We expressed it in our Declaration of Independence. We captured it in our adaptation of English common law, in our trials by juries of peers, and in our spirit of justice. We were a better nation for it, more respected, more influential, and more secure. Certainly, we committed historical wrongs that today we wish we could set right, but overall we advanced, step by step, striving to live the values we professed...

    We just have to make more friends and fewer enemies. And in such a strategy, there's no place for torture. Or for those who would torture.

    I'm discouraged by  the Washington elite's cavalier dismissal of what has been done in our name. Holding on to hope that someone in power would have courage to address our countries "Dark Side," isn't easy. Clark gives those of us who are appalled by status as a "Torture Nation" a glimmer of light.

    Which is probably..... (none / 0) (#91)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:42:38 AM EST
    ....another reason he won't be picked.

    Dem Leadership is complicit in this.



    Whoever is the pick (none / 0) (#87)
    by eric on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    isn't this pick a tad overdue?  As I recall, Kerry picked Edwards on July 6 or 7.

    keep your blackberry tuned. (none / 0) (#92)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    I could support that. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jake Left on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    Leave all the Democratic governors, senators, representatives in their positions. I also believe this could have been part of the negotiations with Hillary. She would support Clark.

    Clark, Bob Graham, Biden, Bayh (none / 0) (#100)
    by Exeter on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    All seem like that they would mesh into that theme for that night, with Clark obviously the best fit. It definitely rules out Sebellius, Kaine, and others.  

    If Mark Warner can speak (none / 0) (#103)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:21:04 AM EST
    on the anniversary of women's suffrage, Sebelius can speak on national security creds night.

    Bob Casey will also be speaking (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Donna Z on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    on the anniversary of Women's Suffrage. Ouch!

    This endless speculation on the VP (none / 0) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    pick is exhausting. He's going to pick the person who his young supporters will be happy with. He has never changed his position or belief that the rest of the Democrats will simply vote for the D on the ballot. He doesn't give a royal ... about the people who do not support him.

    and who will that be? (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    i know hanna montana. (snark)

    Why would Obama need Clarke (none / 0) (#114)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    when, accordng to Tim Kaine, Obama was able to get the cease-fire all by himself in Georgia just by asking for it?!

    Via Jake Tapper:

    "The Senator's goal was to be tough and smart," Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, "and so when the action (in Georgia) happened on Thursday, he immediately called for a ceasefire, condemned the unwarranted use of force by Russia.  It was a bad crisis for the world.  It required tough words, but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in -- and I'm very, very happy that the senator's request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev."

    sigh, i don't want 4 years of this (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    from the pathetic media. please!

    Wow. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    That's some serious boot licking lackeyism!

    He deserves a medal or maybe a pay on his head.


    My post from the other night on BTD's thread. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:58:25 PM EST
    "I disagree.  I think he has a reasonable chance even considering the "under the bus" thing.    His experience is precisely why I think that way.  Plus he could carry Arkansas.  Electoral votes, that's where it's at.  

    Also, it's just what my gut says."  

    BTW:  My Hillary t-shirts arrived today!  Yea!

    The Vice Presidential flavor of the day (none / 0) (#121)
    by gabbyone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    today seems to be John Kerry. It has been talked about on CNN and his people say he has been vetted.  I actually couldn't help but laugh out loud at that idea.

    If John Kerry runs for VP, (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    do you think he'd have enough confidence in the ticket winning to drop his run for the senate, or do you think he'd also run for his senate seat a la Lieberman? If you think he'd drop his senate run, I'm all for it. A few more of us under Obama's bus, the election goes to McCain, and Massachusetts gets Kerry retired. Go ahead. Make my day.

    RE Wes Jr on kos (none / 0) (#127)
    by NealB on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    Does a General of Wesley Clark's stature need to be vetted? After his lifelong career in the  military, isn't it safe to assume that extensive vetting has already been done and that the research is available, privately, from inside resources (like the Clintons during whose term Clark served as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe or Kerry whose VP team probably assembled all the info on Clark for VP back in 2004)? His military career is comprehensively documented. It's hard to believe he rose to become SACEUR if there were issues.

    The fact that he's perceived to be so squeaky-clean is the reason you find so few who criticize him. No doubt in my mind he'd unite not only the Democratic Party but a solid majority of all voters behind the ticket. Besides, he's got a following, as I recall from 2004, that is surpassed in enthusiasm I think, only by Obama's and Hillary's supporters. Clarkies work their butts off for the General.

    It won't be Seblius (none / 0) (#132)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    She is speaking on Tuesday along with Napalitano (sp?) introducing and explaining Obama's economic policy.

    Apparantly Tuesday is all about the economy with nary a mention of women's sufferage. Hillary will be speaking on the working class.

    Clark would be good (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:06:20 PM EST
    Any of the people now mentioned would be good VP's, and it's Obama's decision to make.  The vast majority of Democrats and progressives will support his decision, and the dwindling, few Obama-haters will criticize it - no matter who it is.