Wesley Clark for VP!
The long delayed Wesley Clark for VP echo chamber has finally begun. On June 15, 2007, I made the first noise on the McLaughlin Group: "The Democratic presidential nominee, no matter who he or she may be, will choose General Wesley Clark as the vice presidential nominee." The first echo occurred today on Meet The Press when Bob Shrum said Barack Obama will pick someone with a military background "and I think Wes Clark might be it."
I'm not counting my own echo of myself in last week's New York Magazine where I laid out the rationale for Clark's inevitability -- Obama needs military experience on the ticket to counter McCain and, as a strong Hillary supporter, Clark provides something of a unity ticket for the Democrats.
The silly season of TV talk about Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama tickets is almost over. There was general agreement on Meet The Press today that Obama will consider military experience in choosing a VP. James Carville foolishly suggested Anthony Zinni and other politically untested generals. That will continue now that the conventional wisdom has settled on the military angle for VP. But no former general other than Wesley Clark will make it onto the short list in the end.
Yes, Clark was a bad campaigner in 2004. So was every other Democrat who lost the nomination to John Kerry. Clark has learned enough since then to survive a two-month, one-debate vice presidential campaign.
An Arkansas Democrat with a good smile, a great looking family, and career military experience -- that's what VP inevitability looks like. It seemed so obvious to me ten months ago that I rushed to get my prediction recorded before everyone else was saying it. Turns out I had more time than I thought.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Wesley Clark as a VP ..... sounds good to me!
Lawrence, could you opine how Webb stacks up against Clark?
This is the question! You do need Clark or Webb to counter McCain's perceived military experience. My intuition tells me Webb would attract more white independents.
Webb also is a tougher campaigner and a more persuasive public speaker than Clark.
Clark would be good running the DOD after they win the election. Richardson also would be good in the job of VP but too much of a gentleman on the campaign trail. He'd be great running the State Department.
Clark was a bad campaigner in 2004 because he: 1) was very hesitant to enter the race. 2) Was insecure about politics. 3) Was seen as an "outsider" to the Democratic Party. 4) Didn't have a TEAM, which is a MUST.
I liked many of the things he said and I saw him as good thinker with a great demeanor. This is one great asset on the Hillary side right now and a great asset to the Democrats. For Obama is still an "outsider," which will not contradict Obama's message. However, I don't know if Clark can help Obama carry any State. Obama might need a well-known Governor who can help him carry some State with "blue-collar white voters." Just one or two will be enough.
First of all, Wes Clark wasn't and isn't a "bad" campaigner. He makes great contacts with an audience and he is very rational, lots of innovative ideas. Second, yep, as some of you are pointing out, Clark was and is campaigning for Hillary Clinton and for a Democratic Congress on the internet. I can't imagine him throwing Hillary over the side for Obama. As a matter of fact, Clark knows whereof he speaks and won't be second guessed by the likes of Obama for whom there is no criticism allowed.
Please, no more talk of generals as President or VP for a long, long time.
I'll support whoever Obama wants on his ticket.
Obama needs someone who is qualified to be president (since he isn't). Evan Bayh.
If Senator Obama isn't "qualified," then neither is Senator Clinton -- they're both junior Senators, and Obama has actually put in more time in elective office. If Senator Clinton continues to maintain that only Washington DC experience counts, then neither her husband nor Abraham Lincoln was sufficiently "qualified." As for Evan Bayh, he comes across as a milquetoast and is very unlikely to be effective in the traditional VP candidate role of attack dog.
Excuse me, but I don't see any other magna cum laude Harvard law graduates on the campagin trail. what we need id GOOD judgement and EXPERIENCE! Obama has 3 years working for the poor on the streets of Chicago, 8 years in the state legislature and 3 years running campaigns (including his senate race)- which shows excellent management capabilities, and civil rights law experience. He has served on board the foreign relations committee, authored over 440 bills in his career!
People with a lifetime of experience can't compete with his genius, his judgement, and his courage!
I'd love to see Clark as the VP candidate for the Dems. He would add so much to the ticket.
Hello O'Donnell, I've long advocated the same thing myself, he is a Rhodes scholar, and would
fit in comfortably with Obama, and also brings the the political acumen of having dealt with NATO,
where we have a great deal of repair work that needs to begin. The only thing that keeps my from
jumping on the bandwagon, is the number of negative posts, I've seen on how he handled being
the NATO commander, I'm suspicious, but they still need to be resolved..
Um, anybody remember the Yugoslavia section of "The Shock Doctrine"?
You know UnHinged O'Donnell, you may be on to something there. When all you Obamatons start screaming impeachment against your boy Clark will be there to take his place.
Wrong, Larry. What Obama needs in a running mate is an attractive, government-experienced WASP who would have made a good presidential candidate himself --- in other words, Senator Biden, who made a strong positive impression when he was campaigning, even if it wasn't reflected in the primary balloting.
I blame the money crowd for that. Polling back then showed him beating GOP opponents in the general election. Joe for vice president!
How many electoral votes does Wes Clark bring to any ticket?
Clinton, Obama, McCain..they're all THE SAME. Want REAL change that YOU control..and can affect in a REAL way?..Then Start here
Obama is not part of a legacy. He is not part ot the Washington has beens. Obama is the only one for change to bring about change.for the People. We need a VP who is not tarnished by the Bush, McC, or Clintons. W C is a softy, I don't know too much about him but I bet Obama Campaign has the VP picked already because there are more than a few good young men who could fit this slot. Plus they are electible, too. Folks are just holding back until we get the nominee in place.
"More than a few good young MEN"? Funny - I thought you guys hated Hillary for herself, not women in general. Or it just so happens that out of 50% of the population there isn't ONE woman whom you even think worthy of CONSIDERATION.
Wes Clark would be my choice, but it's not going to happen for a big reason. From the party's perspective, the VP is someone who is being groomed to succeed the president. I agree that the guy with this resume, military experience and testing by ballot is Jim Webb, even though Wes Clark is most qualified for the job.
Bad reason to choose a VP. GHWBush is the only VP who went on to the presidency directly by election since the founding era. Choose a VP who can take over if the president dies, a far more likely scenario, without grooming, and can bring electoral strength to the ticket -- although this hasn't been demonstrable since the Kennedy-Johnson shotgun wedding of 1960.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
