A Logical Running Mate

The speculation about Barack Obama's running mate seems to overlook the candidate most likely to challenge John McCain's credentials as a national security expert. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia enticed the pundits for weeks, but he dismissed himself from consideration. The focus then turned on other candidates with limited wartime experience in Vietnam. That leaves only one visible figure who could legitimately neutralize the questionable assertions by McCain that he is the sole national security expert in the campaign.

The real deal is retired General Wesley Clark whose battlefield credentials truly are impressive. He would help Obama's run for the White House enormously and neutralize McCain's exaggerated claim to expertise as a military expert. At West Point, Clark ranked high in his graduating class compared to McCain's ranking at the bottom of his at the U.S. Naval Academy. Clark was battle-tested and wounded four times in Vietnam for which he received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. Eventually, he turned to academia as a Rhodes Scholar in England. He also was the NATO commander in Bosnia, commander of Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe and head of the U.S. Southern Command.

In short, he has been responsible as a commander of large forces that McCain never has. When American military experience was needed to face the diplomatic and military challenges that emerged in the heart of Europe, Clark was the man NATO turned to unquestionably. As a military strategist and one who truly understands national security issues, he would bring far greater knowledge of military and diplomatic savvy to the debate than McCain ever could.

McCain's credentials are limited to his having been a fighter-bomber pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam and imprisoned as a POW for seven years. Despite the claims of his supporters, McCain was a survivor, not a hero. He did indeed resist Communist attempts to turn him for propaganda purposes which is what every U.S. officer is expected to do under the Military Code of Conduct and he did so despite the painful wounds he suffered when his naval aircraft was shot down in the center of Hanoi. His only other military knowledge has been accumulated as a member of the House and Senate in the U.S. Congress and as the son and grandson of U.S. admirals.

I say this, neither to embarrass or belittle John McCain's service to his country. But the Republicans' presidential hopeful has shown no sign of understanding the changing dynamics in Iraq. The political power structure there wants us out. But McCain shows no sign of changing his mind. He wants the U.S. to stay the course and continually talks of "winning" the war; remaining there for 50 years, if necessary. That is not what this campaign needs. It is not what the American people want either, faced as they are with a multitude of economic problems at home.

There's no evidence that Barack Obama has it right either with his focus on Afghanistan, a position I questioned earlier last week. What the voters will demand before this campaign is over is some straight talk. Both candidates need to recognize that the public is war weary pointless military adventures.

Perhaps a general like Wesley Clark might be the sobering ticket for Obama. If there is one thing I've learned from covering a dozen wars it is that the men in uniform at the highest level more often than not can recognize a quagmire when they see it.

Comments

[MBryant]

Recently General Clark sent out a trail balloon attack on McCain - stating the GOP nominee's military service was not the kind of service that prepared him for commander in chief (large scale command, etc...). Clark was getting some mild Veep buzz and this may have been his way of showing his advantages - real military chops that could completely offset McCain's war hero status (from long ago).

Clark was rapidly accused of "Swiftboating" the hero McCain by attacking his military service, his patriotism, and his mother. A few pundits and Dems came out to defend Clark. Obama did not - in fact he said he though the remarks were inappropriate.

I believe if Clark were anywhere near Obama's short list - Obama would have backed the guy and not left him out there twisting. Alternatively - if Clark were on the fringes of the list - it looks like Obama took the opportunity to cross him off. I guess that's what trial balloons are for.

Clark ain't gonna be the Veep.

[Daisy1111]

He doesn't need a running mate. Pontiff's rarely do.

[beaupritchard]

I don't know who Obama's Vp choice will be but I'm beginning to think McCains might be ... Condolezza Rice.

Obama should not be suckered into then or now choosing Clinton ... the right choice is Caroline Kennedy.

[texanna]

If Obama sees that he has a need to militarize himself, then Gen. Clark is a very good candidate. I think, however, that what is so appealing to so many about Sen. Obama is that his presidency would be more of a diplomatic presidency and less the CIC presidency. We keep saying that the way to beat the terrorists/extremists is not with guns so why are we so focused on the CIC aspect? This is a political point of the NEOCONS that Obama ought to turn around onto them, as in, the militarist tactics they've employed for the last 7 years haven't done much to stem the tide of people willing to blow themselves up as a way to terrorize those they believe are oppressing them. AND, with all of the militarist bombast we've wasted BILLIONS despoiling another country that never did anything to us while we still have dismal security in our ports, at our chemical plants, at our nuclear plants and our water supply systems nationwide!

[Doofus]

Did either Jack Reed or Chuck Hagel get anything like enough visibility
during Obama's Excellent Adventure in Europe & Other Places to give
anyone a sense of how they might do as VP candidates?

I know they were there, as they were visible on a dais or two, briefly.

It's going to take an unusual sort of person who can hold his own
in the heavy surf of Obama's charisma. This is what really challenged
the likes of Hubert Humphrey, Al Gore & even Harry Truman, arguably.

[robiform]

Mr. Fromson, I'm old enough to remember your work on the CBS Evening News when Walter Cronkite was the anchor, so it's great to see you blogging here! I think that Obama's choice for vice president will be a result of numerous factors--national security is, of course, one of the primary ones. Judging by the success of the Senator's trip overseas, it seems that he may not need as much help from his running mate on national security as some might think!

[BeenThere2]

I agree too, that Wes Clark would be a smart choice, for the same reasons stated. He has shown that he isn't afraid to take on McCain's b.s. version of events, and has the knowledge and credibility to do so. Nobody can say he doesn't have a TON of executive experience, and better yet, the military kind. If I were Obama, I'd send him out to veterans' groups right now.

[gvc]

O. should announce key members of his cabinet along with VP. The VP position is a strange one, somewhat skewed by Ch eney and, to a lesser extent, G ore. Make Cli nton secretary of health (or at least give her the first right of refusal), Clark defense, and so on. Then give VP to somebody like Richardson.

[Doofus]

The reality that a VP could seem more of a military authority than the P
undercuts the President's responsibility to be C-in-C. It's good to have
such a person as an advisor, even as Sec/Def or Sec/State, but
it's perhaps not such a good idea for him to be VP.

The President needs to have a credible vision for providing for
National Security, but he does NOT have to be a Warrior. Leave
that sort of fantasy to the Repos, if you please.

[EdinNJ]

Clark is only a good choice if national security was the #1 issue in voter's minds. But it isn't. Increasing the national security vote to a 60/40 split for McCain does nothing to help Obama. It only forces attention on the national security issue while distracting from domestic issues.

[Teckwreck]

I am sure he appreciates all of the assistance, but if he is able enough to run the country he has probably given this some thought. I know it is hard to have confidence in the intelligence of the leadership after the last 7 years, but the more VP factions that form, the more risk of a backlash when a decision is made.

Clark would be my pick, but I am sure Obama will want to reassess the national security, commander in chief perception after this trip. With the prospect of continuing conflict this issue is not going to go away. I think it is important to recognize that it is an advantage for McCain.

[66rock]

You are right except McCain will continue to campaign on national security and his military record. So Clark is the ticket to assure a win.

[wheresthebeef]

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Time magazine noted: "Reed is a serious, intellectually honest veteran and an expert on defense issues in the Senate." And, since Little Rhody is reliably Democratic, there's no danger of losing a Senate seat should Reed vacate his.

[Doofus]

The previous senator, Lincoln Chafee, was *officially* a
Republican. One might suppose he would make himself
available as a replacement for Jack Reed. Rhode Island
has a sizeable quantity of Repo voters who would welcome
him back, no doubt. Now, if he were to cross the aisle, turn
Demo, now that might be something. Otherwise, no dice.

But, he IS an Obama supporter...

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ris_lincoln_chafee_endorses_ba.html

[AuntSally]

Clark is a terrible choice. His leadership and political styles are more Clinton than Obama, and I want someone in the #2 spot as close to Obama as possible in approach to governing.

Obama doesn't need to address security in the VP pick; instead, he can do this with his Sec Defense, Nat'l Security Advisor, and Sec of State picks, announced simultaneously w/ VP announcement.

[metivo]

"announced simultaneously w/ VP announcement."

I think this is an intriquing idea but wonder if it has been done before? Does anyone on HP know? If it hasn't ever been done before, I'd be more leery of doing it . . .

[reverendadam]

One cannot simply "announce" cabinet picks as they are subject to Senate confirmation.

A candidate could float the names of those he intended to put into nomination if elected, but it would likely be seen as presumptuous and there's the potential that it could overwhelm the press coverage of the vice presidential pick. Depending on how many names one threw out there and it could also double, triple or quadruple the chances of a fatal "gaffe" if someone hadn't been properly vetted.

Better to wait until after you've won before throwing names out there -- maximize the bump from the vice presidential pick and minimize risk. There's really not much of an upside to naming early since it's essentially meaningless until you're in the Oval Office.