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
I have pledged to never again vote for anyone from Arkansas. No Clintons, no Hucabees, no Clarks. I will also never vote for anyone from Texas. No more Bushes no Lyndon Johnsons. And forget Georgia too. Alas Jimmy Carter. Any other state is ok.
-cheers
Nope. For all of Clark's military background and resume, the irony is that there is something very weak in his political character. He's seems lost politically. It isn't that his campaign wa poorly run, he isn't a politician. And I think he is easily manipulated - showing how he cannot find common ground with Obama but he's supporting Hillary and using her talking points on air. Can't he think for himself. He's not a politician and would be very very weak for the Obama ticket. I see Kathleen Sebelius or Kansas, maybe Webb, not Richardson, or maybe a Republican but not Clark, too weak.
WIN OR CHANGE?
One of the threads which always stalks liberal/progressive efforts is that
in the end liberals always choose WINNING over doing something.
"No,no, no," goes the cry. "If we say that/do that we won't win..."
Liberals used to be for universal health care (to take one
example). But if retreating on your anti-war position(s) seems more
popular, that trumps anything else. To hell with universal care !
And let's take care of the wealthy! After all, in this billion dollar campaign
they are taking care of us, aren't they?? So (says Obama) let's all
get together on CNN.
Let's follow Obama's "mentor", that famous anti-war Senator from
Connecticut, Joe Lieberman. CHANGE !!!
Let's go to war instead. "They" love it". Glory and so forth. From Obama
because he opposed going to war ---seemlessly ---to Obama because
war is a great thing. (Just not in Iraq...) Bomb the hell out of
civilians in Afghanistan. Or Palestine. After all, Obama is an
American, isn't he? (I'm being sardonic, please note!!!)
Let's all vote for WAR, for "change".
America's constant beating of the war drum is getting sooooo old. Claiming that Obama should select a former general sounds like more of the same to me. Let's use the next four years to chart a completely new path! I know we have to finish what was started for us in Iraq, and there are matters that need tending to in Afghanistan and potentially Pakistan. But that doesn't mean we need a former general as part of our next adminstration. How about a former diplomat?
"we have to finish what was started for us in Iraq" ???
NOPE. Bush started it for false reasons. His goal is to steal Iraqi oil.
NO, we should NOT finish what Bush started.
USA out of IRAQ now. Close that embassy, largest in the world (to manage all that oil?), four times as big as the PENTAGON!
GET OUT NOW!
Sorry for the confusion. By "started for us", I mean what Bush started for us. And by "we have to finish", I mean pull the troops out as in "finish".
An Arkansas Democrat with a good smile, a great looking family, and career military experience -- that's what VP inevitability looks like.
=====================================================================
EGADS Lawrence, how terribly shallow! Is that where we are these days, as long as your family has good teeth and dress well you should do great in politics?
I remember a time...
Obama/Webb in '08!
YES WE CAN!!!!!
check spelling, i think you mean:
YES WE FARRA-KHAN!
OBAMA AND HIS ILK, QUITE ADEPT AT GUTTER-BALL POLITICS!
No Webb. Webb is a conservative. Obama won Virginia's primary by a much larger margin than Webb won in the general. Webb has accomplished nothing in the Senate except in the area of Veteran's benefits, and he has no experience. Also, he is a hot-head, and a very poor debater. In brief, he sucks. No Webb.
hasn't he endorsed hillary? not sure he would want to "betray" her.
I Love Nature! that's why I love to see Weasels huddle together. Yeah!
Wesley Clark just won't cut it...he wasn't sharp enough before and he's still not there.
Jim Webb or Chuck Hagel would be awesome...or...
moving away from the macho, Governor Sebilious of Kansas or Senator Clare McCaskill...
Obviously, since Obama is a progressive, his best bet would be to choose a Repig or a former Repig as a running mate. Not.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R - Nebraska). He's smart, he's courageous, he has common sense and he's not afraid to stand up to Bush and Cheney. A bi-partisan ticket would be a wonderous thing!
Go back to the Repig caucus and STFU.
Won't happen. Hagel sustained early irreprable damage when his on again- off again campaign announcement. He's hesitant, indecisive.
I think Wes Clark would make a poor choice as a Veep candidate. There's just something disingenuous about him that I can't put my finger on. Actually I would much prefer Jim Webb if the Dems don't have to lose his Senate seat. Jim Webb is more of a real man's man and would appeal to more people than Wes Clark who comes off as a bit effete to me. Another good choice for Veep would be Chuck Hagel if he would and could run on the ticket as an Independent. Here's why I like Chuck Hagel with Obama and yes, he's very conservative on most issue but not on ending the war: 1. He would bring military credentials comparible to McCain's to the ticket. 2. He would make the ticket a "unity" ticket. 3. He has a lot of respect from the Dems in the Senate. 4. He is capable of working with Dems in the Senate. 5. He is capable of working with Republicans in the Senate. 5. Adding him to the ticket would signal that Obama is not playing the same game of politics and is genuinely interested in uniting the country. 6. He would get vets and military voters.
One thing is clear to me. Obama's veep choice needs to be a white male with military and/or good foreign policy experience preferably from a state that would help the Dems in November.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
I agree with the last two comments. Wesley Clark comes across as a nitwit and without much to say. Listen more carefully and there's some intelligence there, but very little imagination. He does come across as disingenuous and I too had the impression that he supports HRC.
Meanwhile, O'Donnell writes:
"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."
How childish can you get? I was the first one to make the prediction. It would be one thing to say so IF it turns out to be true. But maybe no one else jumped on this idiotic idea because it won't happen. I didn't know Shrum was picking the VP nominee. Maybe Obama won't pick a military guy because he doesn't want a military solution - Clark adds nothing to the mix about how to pull out.
Perhaps Hagel does, but don't hold your breath. Obama's soul is in the Democratic party and he'll not go outside it.
I have always been very, very impressed with Clark's intelligence, substantiveness and graciousness. He is a Rhodes Scholar fluent in several languages. No, he was not involved in Waco. It is a "problem" that he tends to talk in a fashion that is too nuanced. But to his credit he left the miltary in a way that preserved his character and integrity.
I nominate him for SecState and Jim Webb for VP - Webb is considerably more conservative than Obama and could be tasked with the bipartisan reconciliation that will need to be undertaken. Plus, he has been very much vetted... we have already heard the (false) accusation of him writing child porn.
You want "childish" bwana? try supporting a candidate because your children or grandchildren "love his charisma" like Caroline Kennedy or Dan Rooney. By the way Bwana as Ernie Kovacks told us "that is not a big iron bird, it is airplane".
O'Donnell makes himself look like a nitwit with this post: "I called Clark first."
First, like that prediction took insight? Hardly, I'm sure lots of people could predicted that.
Second, a little insight would have told O'Donnell that Clark was going to get the VP nod.
When it comes to military men, Webb is a far better choice. O'Donnell didn't and doesn't have the insight to see that.
And. he's gets paid for this? Nice...
Is everybody on this thread a moron? Repigs don't get a seat at the table in a Democratic landslide year. Repigs and former Repigs (Webb) should be banished from politics, not given the VP slot. Hello?
Who do you propose that doesn't crash the ticket?
I.E., who do you propose that can fend of the "lack of foreign affairs and military experience accusation that will be sure to come from McCain Repubs?
White male? Isn't one man enough for you. You always have to have two? I'm sick of the sexist attitude of men in this country. If women were in more top positions, we might not be in so much trouble.
Unfortunately, short of being paired with Jesus Christ, Obama isn't going to win anything, so this discussion is fruitless.
The Jewish population in Florida will tilt that state to McCain.
The Latinos in New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado will keep those states red.
And the white working class in Ohio and Pennsylvania will vote for McCain as well, especially after Wright and Obama's recent comments.
Dem train crashing, real quick like.
Good job, Obamabots.
Nah, Hilldabeast would have lost as well. Nationally she is only slightly more popular than syphillis, which is slightly more popular than Bush.
The Democrats had an astonishingly weak crop this year. We need to admit it to ourselves.
we?
Nobody could be as week as the crop the Republicans fielded. McCain was just the least pathetic of the bunch - mostly because he kept his mouth shut and let the rest of them blather away.
And the dems are making it easy for McCain to do the same with them. Clinton and Obama are both blowing it by fighting to the death. McCain can keep quiet and win by default. You might think Hillary should have just bowed out, and maybe that would have helped. But once McCain sewed it up (and the polls started showing the public taking him seriously), they should have found a way to join forces. Even if that meant 'giving Hillary her turn'. Better than outright losing.
Wait till the real contest begins and McWar pops a blood vessel in a debate, Moqtada starts to shit disturb or the Sunni sheiks begin to get antsy and squeeze some more dinero from the chimp who along with McLite actually believe the illusion that the surge actually worked while along it is just plain oldfashioned bakshish(and with weapons to boot).
Gee, me and how many other posters here were predicting this in February 2007 when Hillary first started campaigning?
Obama will win the Democratic nomination and most likely the presidency. Wesley Clark is an excellent choice for VP, for many more reasons than you list.
Although he did endorse the most "insider" candidate in the race from either party, he himself is not really viewed as a DC insider, and that is a big plus.
We need new thinking in the White House, and Wesley Clark was not only not involved in planning or voting for the Iraq fiasco, he saw the writing on the wall and said so long before the chorus of poll-driven hindsight pols (like Hillary Clinton) did. I think he'd be a thoughtful and wise VP.
Clark has been an absolute gentleman in his role as a supporter of Clinton. None of the false attacks, misleading garbage and inuendo that has characterized "support for Clinton" on this blog and elsewhere. None of the attacking of people who support Obama, either. Clark has indicated that he can disagree without using "molehill campaigning" and the usual Clinton tactics of deliberately misleading voters.
I'm not sure Clark would be my first choice, but I like him, I trust him, he's a gentleman and he's got the credentials for the job.
"the rationale for Clark's inevitability" ???
Haven't we already rejected the "inevitability" argument?
I agree, Marlyn, "inevitability" is out, over, dead as a three-day-beached mackerel. Yet, Clark would not be a bad Obama choice for V.P., but I like reaching for Senator Olympia Snowe even better.
Ever since he first came on the scene, I felt that Wes Clark was an attractive candidate. He is extremely articulate, more progressive than either Hillary or Barack, and he is a retired General and thus it is difficult to question his patriotism (in America it seems that one's patriotism is predicted primarily by their military service)
I think he would be an excellent VP for either candidate, and more, if the ticket were reversed it would be even better. It is a shame he did not catch on as a Presidential candidate. I think he anticipated something John Edwards didn't. That being the dynamic where early on at least, women voted for Hillary and African Americans voted for BHO. There aren't many white male Democrats, so he didn't have a prayer.
I look forward to hearing General Clark's assessment of the McCain foreign policy positions. In any case, Wes Clark should be the VP candidate. Bill Richardson can be Secretary of State.
Giordy
"he is a retired General and thus it is difficult to question his patriotism" ???
I admire Wes Clark. He was my choice in 2004. But he WILL be challenged on his patriotism by the GOP. They have already done it. As commander of NATO during the Bosnian conflict, Wes Clark went over the head of his commanding officer to the president. Clark wanted to stop the ethnic cleansing, but his commanding officer said no.
His commanding officer (General ?) was PISSED to say the least, and spoke out to the press how Clark was a traitor. Expect more of the same.
So he did everything in his power to stop ethnic cleansing? How treasonous! How un-American!
He was SACEUR. He didn't have a commanding officer, knucklehead.
He wasn't beholden to a damn thing that the U.S. told him to do. He was a U.N. soldier.
Maybe you meant "predicated".
Clark on the ticket with Lou Dobbs would work. Any ticket with the the O-Bomb-a-nation would be an abomination and will eventually loose. Perhaps a Clinton/Clark ticket might work, but it is far from ideal with Billery at the helm. There is no gravitas in the current offering from the DNC. Both Lou Dobbs and Wesley Clark has it. The O-bomb-able one has none. He only has weak charisma for whatever media spin that is worth.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
