The Clinton-Clark Ticket: What Are The Chances?

This has been on my mind. Look at it this way. Hillary Clinton knows her own baggage. You have to give her that. She knows the advantages and detriments of being a Democrat, potentially the first female candidate for the U.S. presidency, and Bill Clinton's wife.

If she becomes the Democratic presidential candidate, questions will emerge regarding national security and defense. Is she as a woman and a Democrat soft on terror? Does she support the troops? Is she militarily savvy? To circumvent inordinate focus on such issues, she'll need a running mate whose very presence, to say nothing of his record, negates the need to pursue them for long.

Wesley Clark possesses first hand comprehension of the perils of war and is a believer in thorough strategic preparation and on-the-ground versatility. He's an able communicator with an appreciation for negotiation as a vehicle to peace. His political views are not far from those of Clinton.

Clark is refreshingly intelligent. He graduated first in his West Point class and became a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford where he received a Master's Degree in politics, philosophy and economics. He subsequently obtained a Master's Degree in Military Science. A former debater, he is not a one-track thinker. He gave over three decades to the Army, during which he was shot four times yet continued to lead, earned The Silver Star and became a four-star general. "My heart's greatest gladness," Clark said, "has always been answering the call and defending the country."

He's a patriot with potential and not at all oblivious to the pathologies of Washington politics. He has some baggage too. But who doesn't? He gives orders but has taken a lot of them too.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate for President of the United States and she and Clark haven't had some secret falling out, expect the General to be on the VP short list.

see also

Comments

[hotrod1]

Wes Clark is the Democrats' Knight in Shining Armor.

We need to daft him for PRESIDENT in '08. Only Clark can beat the Republican nominee sure fire, no questions asked.

Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfcWVAdgIZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnwNONbLkpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co27iGJ1hjk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtR49tL9vGE

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3667539149264185533&q=wesley+clark+charlie+rose&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKchifzp2Po

Draft Wes Clark for President '08.

[Sedaei]

I think that Richard Clarke - the anti-terrorism czar from the Bill Clinton years - would be a much better running-mate for Hillary.

[GenericBlogger]

For an anti-terrorism czar, Al Queda had several field days during the Clinton years. That doesn't bode well for Richard Clarke.

I am a bit leery about him. He wrote a kiss and tell book of both administrations but I was not convinced he was completely factual. It seems he wrote the book from anger or vengeance.

[daniel155]

There is a huge chance for the Clinton half of the ticket that the author suggests but little chance for the Clark half.

[jeersforfears]

You libs should be very worried about Hillary being the presumptive Dem candidate in '08. Very worried. She's despised, and will rally a Rep opposition that won't even need to rely on its base.

You read it here.

[hotrod1]

To jeersfrfears:

You are dead on RIGHT. I am a Wes Clark supporter and am well aware that Hillary doesn't have a prayer in hell of winning against the Rebublicans.
I am backing the Democrat that all of you Republicans out there know in your heart of hearts is the one that can TROUNCE your nominee.
I hear a lot of moderate and disgruntled Republicans say: " I would NEVER vote for HILLARY, but WOULD vote for WES CLARK".

**** WES CLARK for PRESIDENT in '08 ****

[vkobaya]

Yee Gods! Anyone who thinks Hillary needs Clark also believes he should wear an animal skin, club her over the head and drag her off by the hair to his cave. I despise Hillary, but also despise anyone who is so pathetically atavistic, sexist and stupid as to believe a woman cannot be strong on defense. That is not what worries me about Clinton, but rather that she sold us out to the corporations, elitists, rich and powerful. But on the issue of war, she is probably 10,000 times more capable than Barney the dog who is 10,000 times more capable than Bush. Even Barney's fleas are probably more than a match for Bush, so I wouldn't worry about Hillary's talents at being a brutal mass murdering war despot since she supports the Iraq War. We never should have gone to war with Iraq, but if Hillary had been president, the war would not have botched as it has been. And I argue even Barney's fleas could have surpassed Bush's record in Iraq. What the cavemen want is assurance that that Hillary is as bloodthirsty as any male, and there is no doubt that not only is she as bloodthirsty, she would be a vastly more effective butcher than Bush.

[Diane B.]

General Clark, would be a wonderful choice for Vice President. His qualifications are numerous, and I believe General Clark would be an asset on National Security, as well as being terrific with Foreign Governments, and helping Senator Clinton in many ways, he's also from the South.

[jmundstuk]

My heart is with Obama; my head would be with Clinton if my gut didn't say that Clinton won't win the presidency; so my head is heading toward Obama/Clark, but my gut says Obama is too inexperienced, even though my head is not so sure that is true. So I'm a mess.

Remember too that Kennedy was green and was sorely tested and made mistakes. But when the chips were down, he stood up to a very aggressive military leadership -- Curtis LeMay, for heaven's sake -- and got us through the Cuban Missile thing without a war. That came from strength, intelligence, self-confidence...and Obama has that.

[hotrod1]

As I said before, take a serious look at Clark for President. When you add up all the chips, he's the Dems' BEST most WINNABLE potential candidate.

[jmundstuk]

Obama-Clark would be a powerful combination; I've been musing on that for a while. Omama's tall enough to overcome Clark's short stature (just kidding, sort of). "You want experience? Take THAT."

If HRC is the nominee, I fervently wish that Obama says a firm and final no to VP. I don't think she'd want him, but even if she did: Running and losing with Clinton would end his effectiveness as an outsider and in a Clinton White HOuse, he would be marginalized.

You may say that the MSN has crowned HRC, but I'm not so sure it works that way. There is a crowd mentality, agreed, and a tabloid-like search for the scandal, surprise, outrageous, etc quote or headline. But look at the betting record. The Iowa Electronic Markets showed HRC and Obama very close -- that is, betting on each to win was about even -- until the crap started about the foreign policy dustup with Obama, Clinton's excellent performances in debate and repositioning on the war. Obama's "price" began to fall immediately and not in reaction to some kind of media decision on Clinton.

[yankee452]

As far as I know General Wesley Clarke may not have the fondest memories of the Clintons. While he was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, he was unceremoniously shoved into early retirement by the Clinton administration. Can't remember exactly, but I think he was caught in the cross-fire between White House demands and defending US' NATO treaty obligations while dealing with the trouble in the Balkans. Of course Senator Clinton had nothing to do with that little spat. I suspect that General Clarke may not be so forgiving. As a former serviceman I can only imagine how he must have felt to have served honorably for 30 plus years and then shown the back door when it really mattered.

For that reason alone, I don't see any possibility of a Clinton/Clarke ticket.

[democritus]

What I don't understand is how anyone with any political sense can support a candidate (HRC) with a fifty percent disapproval rating.

[sureofit]

I think Clinton is going to find it hard to find a running mate. Part will be a sexist thing - don't want to look like they are being dragged around by the apron strings, or looking very first-ladylike at her side, Trust me,the GOP will try and de-ball any choice with that. Not saying I agree with it. Obama is out because of the racist thing -she is too practical/calculating not to know that US any ready for that kind of ticket -sadly. Edwards has been down that road - and did a crap job, I might add. Also, some might soon realize that while this is a golden time to run as a Dem, like '76, it might also be a lousy time to be the Prez, like Carter's term (war over, bills to pay, the economy goes kablooey. Clinton, has learned a lot from Bill (any interns want to have sex with the frumpy lady?)and will simply use her presidency to stay popular and accomplish nothing of note for the American people, just the corporate world, Israel and usual $ loaded lobbies. My bet is the next prez, no matter who it is will be one term and out. I have lost all faith in finding a leader rather than just another pol who wants to be president. Best bet in my book would be Al Gore - wouldn't that just piss her off if he got in the race. Here's hoping, while I still have a bit left.

[Simone]

Some of us live in the real world and we know that despite their imperfections, any of the Democrats running would be 1000% better than any of the Republicans running.

If you are waiting for the second coming of Al Gore, just remember what a lame campaign he ran the first time with his fabulous pick of Lieberman and his ineffectual debate performance. We need someone who can take the Repugs on and not back down - in 2008 that would be Clinton or Edwards.

[hotrod1]

Hillary has too much negative baggage to ever win. She is too disliked ouside of the Democratic Party with Independents and moderate Republicans. She is even despised on the far left.
Edwards impressed FEW as Kerry's running mate back in '04. The conventional wisdom now is that Clark would have helped much more. Edwards' smarmy, overly slick persona comes across as phony to a LOT of people. Plus, he voted FOR the war.

When are people going to wake up and realize that Wes Clark is BY FAR the most WINNABLE candidate the Dems have against the Republican nominee.
Do do to his obvious national security credentials, he would be the ONLY anti war candidate who could convince security voters that the war in Iraq has made us WEAKER, NOT stronger, and earn their TRUST.

He will PREVENT a war with Iran.

Clark came out AGAINST Iraq BEFORE we went in. He is FAR more of a fighter than Hillary or Edwards.

SEE WHY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfcWVAdgIZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH6HB3iKodw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfcWVAdgIZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co27iGJ1hjk

WES CLARK is the Democrats KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR.

Are we going to wake up and realize it when it's too late? We need to draft Wes Clark for President in '08.

[Simone]

False Premise - "If she becomes the Democratic presidential candidate, questions will emerge regarding national security and defense."

This question emerge regardless of who the Dems nominate because the Repugs will push their guy (and it will be a guy) as more manly than any of the Dems.

[noam4prez]

From:

http://www.counterpunch.org/krassner09012007.html

*General Wesley Clark, for waiting until recently to reveal to Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" the following: "About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, 'Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second.' I said, 'Well, you're too busy.' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq.' This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, 'We're going to war with Iraq? Why?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'I guess they don't know what else to do.' So I said, 'Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?' He said, 'No, no.' He says, 'There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.' [...] So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, 'Are we still going to war with Iraq?' And he said, 'Oh, it's worse than that.' He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, 'I just got this from upstairs'--meaning the Secretary of Defense's office--"today." And he said, 'This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.' I said, 'Is it classified?' He said, 'Yes, sir.' I said, 'Well, don't show it to me.' And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, 'You remember that?' He said, 'Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!'"

[zeph]

Just because no one listened to Clark doesn't mean he didn't warn us.

You obviously didn't see Paul Krassner's apology to Wes:

"Thanks to Comments on my Assholes of the Week #7 blog, I now add myself to one of them because I criticized General Clark for his silence about Pentagon plans to invade six other countries after Iraq, when in fact he did indeed speak out repeatedly."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-krassner/apology-to-wesley-clark_b_62499.html

Wes wrote about this in his book "Winning Modern Wars" (pg. 130) in 2003, discussed it with Tim Russert on MTP in Dec. '03, and has repeated it many, many times for anyone who was paying attention.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3476052/

[DonnaZ]

I heard him tell that story to Amy Goodman. I also heard him tell that story to a group of military reporters in 2003. I guess CounterPunch is trying to keep up with Bill O'Reilly when it comes to telling lies about Democrats.

[hotrod1]

That report is FALSE.
Wes Clark told this story in the book he put out back in back in 2003 before he entered the race for President. He has spoken of this conversation that day at the Pentegon so often over the years, that he was beginning to sound like a broken record.
He DID NOT wait until the interview with Amy Goodman to tell it.

[GenericBlogger]

A Clinton-Clark ticket has much merit but a Clinton-Obama ticket might be chosen for political reasons.

It's too early to tell, best to wait till after the primaries.