Why Obama's VP Needs to be a 4-Star General

It's an obvious problem facing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as both head to the November presidential election. While a majority of Americans are against the Iraq war and believe the Bush administration took its eye off terror organizations like al Qaeda, they see Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, as being stronger on foreign affairs and national security. Despite this clear disadvantage, the odds-on favorites to be selected as Obama's vice presidential running mate are little known state Governors -- Evan Bayh (Ind) and Tim Kaine (VA) -- who have no real foreign policy or national security experience. We are a nation at war, targeted by Islamic terrorists, and now back in a potential Cold War with a militaristically invigorated Russia, which has just invaded the Republic of Georgia.

So, why are two neophytes on the world stage, Bayh and Kaine, at the top of the list when Obama himself has zero foreign policy or national security chops? With McCain perceived by voters as the more capable commander-in-chief, leading in the polls by about 25 points on this issue, Obama's gonna need more than Bayh or Kaine if he expects to occupy the White House in January. Which is why he and the party must put the offensive block on the GOP by choosing a retired 4-star general as his running mate. Someone like Colin Powell, Eric Shinseki, Anthony Zinni or Wesley Clark. A move like this would totally disarm the McCain campaign and take away one of it's biggest attack points: that an Obama presidency would be woefully ill-equipped to defend America. Who better than to be at Obama's side helping to protect the United States than his 4-star general vice-president? In an age where, thanks to Dick Cheney, VP's are viewed as having much more influence and power than ever, this could prove to be a critical strategic maneuver on the part of Democrats. It would allow Obama to point to Iraq, Russia, Iran and the battle against terrorism and project strength, experience and resolve ... giving voters a sense of confidence that his administration, contrary to the relentless GOP talking points, is highly capable, more capable that McCain, of defending America both at home and abroad. Think of the image of Obama standing beside a uniformed 4-star general. Think of what that image projects to these voters, many of whom are independents still on the fence.

Conventional wisdom argues that one's choice of VP means little or nothing come November. There's no real guarantee they'll "deliver" their home states and, virtually everyone simply votes for the top of the ticket anyway, no matter how bad the VP choices appear to be. Case in point Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew. These clowns didn't stop Richard Nixon or Pappi Bush from winning. But, given the global stage these days, and the edge McCain has on foreign affairs, coupled with how the GOP has successfully defined Democrats as weak on national security, the selection of a 4-star general could very well, against 2008's treacherous international landscape, have major impact on the outcome of this election in particular.

Some notable choices for Obama would be retired Army generals Clark, Shinseki and Powell, along with the Marine Corps' Zinni. Clark's a Democrat who's already tried his hand at the presidency in 2004, and failed. But he'd make for a terrific Veep. Given the crisis in Georgia, with his track-record in Bosnia, he'd be a great running mate, as would the others, all of whom have a bone to pick with the Busheviks. Shinseki was fired after arguing that at least 300,000 post-invasion troops would be necessary in Iraq to properly stabilize the country. We now know he was dead-right. Zinni, former chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East, knows more about what's needed in Iraq than perhaps anyone, and he's been at odds with President Bush over this handling of the war. And Powell, for obvious bi-partisan and celebrity-cache reasons, would be a coup.

No matter how you slice it, this is the image Obama must project for his administration. As with 2004, what will award the White House to Republicans is fear, plain and simple; Americans' desire to feel safe and secure and protected here at home. On this front, McCain wins hands down. Unfortunately, guys like Bayh and Kaine, or any other generally unexciting, inexperienced, relatively unknown potential running mate, doesn't even make a dent. It's time Democrats once and for all trump the GOP on matters of national security.

Comments

[rikrac]

Your belief that Obama needs a general as a VP is simply false logic. If this were the case, then logically, we would need a master economist or an expert in ecological issues or....The president and/or vice president was never meant to be vested with such power that his/her experience alone could or should guide this country. Nor is war a matter that one general has all the answers to. History is riddled with experienced yet incompetent generals, presidents that had at least one term to gain experience yet given a second showed no more competence than in the first, and presidents thrust into war without experience, such as Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. Because the position demands the knowledge and experience of any number of people, we have designated positions for advisors plus all of Congress to advise and consent. Certainly one of the biggest disasters in our history has been in allowing power to accrue in the hands of the Cheney--Rove-Bush White House, known for and proud of not listening to advice. I would also challenge your acceptance of the neocon frame/label "war on terror," a wonderful fear-mongering strategy at work, another term as misguided as the "war on drugs," the "cold war," and whatever else we want to smear with war ideology so that we surrender our civil rights, break laws, and imprison people.

[AsianAfricanAMERICAN]

General Clark has been my fantasy choice from the start. I'm a veteran and a parent; therefore; I'm especially intrigued by his security creditials. These credintials would be of great help in minimizing Sen Obama's perception problem with security.

I admit that I have been drinking the media "kool-aide" and have nearly ruled out General Clark completely. Maybe...just maybe....we are in for a pleasant surprise?

[RustyGranite]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Clark has bite, he is at the top of my list.

[realistxxx]

C.lark is the ideal running mate because he is an outsider with gobs of foreing policy/military experience. There are many other plusses too. He has a tendency for mis-steps but an outsider with little political experience will. B.iden is a consumate insider with a bad case of foot in mouth disease too.

If it turns out to be C.lark (and I hope it does), this will be the most impressive and disciplined head fake in the history of politics...

C.lark's web site/PAC is called Securing America. Guess what the theme of VP night is for the D-convention... Securing America.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[raiatea]

This has been my pick from the start .. a man with an impeccable military record, graduated 1st in his class from West Point, winner of a Rhodes Scholarship, Masters Degree in Economics, Politics, and Philosophy.... Obama/Clark 08 !!

[Ramirez]

From Steve Clemens at the "Washington Note":
****

Obama to General Wesley Clark: Your Services Not Needed

General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.

Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.

General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention.

Rubbing salt in the wound even more, the "theme" of Wednesday's Democratic convention agenda is "Securing America."

Wesley Clark's PAC also happens to be called SECURING AMERICA. ....

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/08/obama_to_genera/

[Elahrairah]

If you view the denial of the spot as a red-herring to ensure the choice remains a surprise, then it sort of changes the entire meaning of your post, doesn't it?

[Ramirez]

Uh, yes.

If the denial is only a red herring then anything is possible.

[LizM]

I completely agree that what Senator Obama needs is someone with impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials and the kind of breadth and depth of knowledge that will help navigate the treacherous waters of international relations and the polices that affect them. In other words, Senator Obama needs Joe Biden - the leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security.

But, more than that...Senator Obama needs a comprehensive and viable strategy to reverse US policy in Iraq by promoting and facilitating a sustainable POLITICAL settlement among the warring Iraqi factions allowing for a withdrawal of US forces without leaving a failed state in their wake.

Last time I checked, no military person has one of those. In fact, there is only one person on the face of the planet who has developed and fine-tuned such a strategy and he is none other than Senator Biden.

I would suggest that if Senator Obama lacks the superior judgement to select Joe Biden as his nominee for Vice President with Special Portfolio on Iraq, then we may as well begin to prepare ourselves now for the rough road ahead that will be the McCain administration.

[YesWeCanada]

I would be happy with Clark, Biden or Kerry.
All three have security creed, name recognition and have political experience.
All three can also play the role of attack dog.

[naschkatze]

I'd pick any of them except Powell. Powell has baggage with the lies about WMD, and I don't think we should have an all black ticket. Otherwise, I think the author of this post makes excellent, excellent points.

[ESerafina42]

I'll second that, and Powell made his choice 1) when he registered as a Repug; and 2) when he shilled for the war. He has no credibility left. He can't even come out and criticize his former masters except in vague generalities. Instead, he sulks in his tent and complains to his friends, and then sends them out to complain to the press. NOT VP material. Clark is my fantasy pick, though it looks less and less likely. I'd have to know more about the other two.

[prichard]

Catchy chant for convention after veep speech:

U Wes A! U Wes A! U Wes U!

[realistxxx]

Wes we can?

[Marcantm]

Barack Obama... FDR? Wes Clark...Harry Truman?

I'm beginning to like this

[kellygrrrl]

Obama / Clark 08

[Faith101]

I don't think Obama kicked Clark under the bus, the media tried to spin it that way. You can't peak too soon and flex your muscle and show your hand. Clark was laying low. I support Obama, no matter who he picks as his VP. If you read the article carefully the writer actually contridicts himself:

Conventional wisdom argues that one's choice of VP means little or nothing come November. There's no real guarantee they'll "deliver" their home states and, virtually everyone simply votes for the top of the ticket anyway, no matter how bad the VP choices appear to be.

However I do think that undecided republ would really like the idea of Clark as VP, and that could sway some of them to Obama's side.

[Actionmac]

MSM tried to spin Clark under the bus like they did Howard Dean. Clark didn't back down and you notice how quick the MSM took that story off the front page? If Clark had apologized the MSM would have run the story like they did Rev. Wright.

[Elahrairah]

Damn right.

Clark has a lot of spine, but it was important for him to fade out so he didn't co-opt the VPs message before he got to say it himself.

[Heavenhelpusall]

Obama/Clark is crisp and sharp
Obama/Zinni sounds like a pasta dish. But General Zinni has an impressive bio.

[naschkatze]

Obama/Shinseki sounds like a Japanese dish like mitsutaki.

[Jimmyboyo]

Clark!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!

[BarbaraTampa]

It astounds me that anyone thinks Senator Obama is a poor choice on national security when compared to Senator McCain. Are we so far removed from the cold war years that we've forgotten that our arsenal of nuclear weapons - and the power to use them - lie at the heart of national security? For the sake of argument, suppose we made the nuclear trigger (rather than abortion or gay rights) a tipping point in choosing a president? We might then remember that McCain was never a general, making strategic decisions about the use of American forces. And the sympathy vote for a prisoner of war is not sufficient cover for someone who needs anger management training. Many vets paid as high a price as McCain (or more) to serve their country, but that doesn't give them national security credentials. Instead, the core of national security is the ability of a president to be calm and wise in the face of a crisis Listening to advisors, including (but not exclusively) experienced military advisors. Would we really put the nuclear trigger in the hands of someone who can't control his temper and gets into brawls on the floor of the United States Senate? Reagan was a hugely popular president whose experience as governor of California provided no national security credentials, but people trusted his steadiness and calm. I'll take someone who has the self control to remain calm in a crisis. McCain has a temper. We can't afford that in the

[ESerafina42]

Perception is everything, unfortunately, Barbara. You and I know about things like McCain's huge anger management problems, but all the average Joe sees and hears is "war hero."

Oh, and didn't you know that (at least in his own mind) Reagan participated in the liberation of the camps at the end of WWII? :) Technically, I guess he was in the military (despite being - gasp! - a DEMOCRAT) but he stayed in California making training films or something of that nature, as the present governor would say.