Wes Clark for VP

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 17:22


A few weeks ago, before the Villagers threw their little hissy fit, Aaron Ament and I were going to launch a short campaign to promote Wes Clark for VP.  After the events of the last few days, we think it's more important than ever to do so.  And so, here you are.

http://www.obamaclark.com/

Sign up, send around to friends, link away.

The basic idea behind Clark for VP is that we want to make a little noise about the position of Vice President and ask that Obama consider a real progressive in that slot who can help fix some of the most damaging aspects of the Bush Presidency.  

The political argument for Clark is simple.  He is a great surrogate for Democrats, with experience in 2004 and 2006 on the campaign trail, and a genuine national base of supporters.  In terms of governance, which is what Obama says is the most important criteria for his VP pick, Clark can help Obama deal with the mess that the Bush administration left behind.  As commander of NATO in the late 1990s, Clark won a war, so he is more likely than any progressive out there to be able to wrangle solutions from a military establishment that has been decimated by Bush's cronyism and incompetence.  That is really important moving forward, since rebuilding our national security posture is a critical challenge over the next eight years

Clark also emphasizes Obama's strengths.  He is popular among grassroots progressives, he was against the war in Iraq from the get-go, and he is an outsider to politics.  He also demonstrated terrific political judgment in being willing to work against Lieberman in 2006, unlike, say, Tim Kaine, who endorsed Lieberman for President in 2004.  This kind of savvy political judgment can help Obama avoid landmines down the road, and the Bush administration has left very little but landmines for the next President.

Before the idiot DC villagers threw a hissy fit about Clark, he was on the short list for VP.  Is it realistic to see him back on that list?  Well really, it's up to Obama.  Choosing Clark would be a clear demonstration that Obama intends to significantly shift the political debate in the country and that he refuses to allow old school bitchy sniping from DC insiders to dominate our national political discourse.  What Clark said - that McCain has no experience in national security decision-making - is absolutely true, and it's a point that needs emphasis repeatedly and effectively by someone who can deliver it.

Clark has a 34 year service record, has won a war, commanded troops all over the world, and nearly died of his injuries in Vietnam.  He has run for President and been a surrogate for hundreds of Democrats all over the country, including Ned Lamont.  He was against the war in Iraq, and knows the military bureaucracy inside and out.  This is someone who would make an insanely good Vice President, and someone who has deep connections to the newly formed progressive communities that emerged from 2002-2006

Senator Obama would do well to choose Clark as his running mate.

http://www.obamaclark.com/

Matt Stoller :: Wes Clark for VP

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Wes Clark for VP | 67 comments
I agree. Clark or (4.00 / 4)
Sebelius seem to be the best of the possible.  Clark's military and national security creds are good.  He's also progressive on the issues.

I prefer both to Kaine or Bayh, although the world won't end if they are nominated.    


The world will indeed end (4.00 / 1)
if Obama picks Bayh. I swear I will be done with politics altogether. I will take George Carlin's attitude: Fuck it. It's all a scam. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and me? We ain't in it." The Audactiy of Hope will turn into the Despair of Total Cynicism. I'll be checking out.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I've long been a fan of Clark and believe you are absolutely right about him being a good choice but I do think the McCain thing was a genuine gaff. n/t (4.00 / 1)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

Ditto... (0.00 / 0)
but in gaffe I mean political gaffe- what he said was absolutely true- but that isn't the kind of storm a VP prospect wants to be creating.

Not that I think it really mattered, I don't think he was seriously being considered before the comments.

He definitely isn't being considered now... and sorry, but I don't think an online petition is going to have any affect on the final decision.


[ Parent ]
Yep. It was a textbook Kinsley Gaffe. n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
It wouldn't have been so bad had Clark not given the fact that McCain was shoot down as an example of why he wasn't qualified. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
you know (0.00 / 0)
you can bold the body text too.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Of course bout I thought it was more polite to keep short comments in subject to not require expand,,, (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
Bullshit! (0.00 / 0)
He did not  give "the fact that McCain was shoot down as an example of why he wasn't qualified." He said that being shot down did not make him qualified. He did not say it made him unqualified. That is completely different. Clark's point was that being shot down was not relevant to his qualifications. Please don't accuse Clark of statements that he didn't make.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
And almost having his legs shot off... (0.00 / 0)
And almost getting his legs shot off, and then spending a year in Military Hospitals and re-hab learning to walk again is not what qualifies Clark for office.  Nope, it is what he accomplished in terms of all his missions both in service and afterward.  

[ Parent ]
Clark is infinitely more qualified and respectable than McCain but... (0.00 / 0)
it still doesn't sound good in the national media to say things like "being shot down doesn't make you qualified" even if it is absolutely true. I agreed with Clark and I was still a taken back by that comment.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
That's not the way I remember it (0.00 / 0)
It wasn't an example but rather a direct response to Bob Schieffer having raised it. Schieffer brought it up in a general question/rant as one way in which McCain was better equipped to deal with foreign policy and Clark jumped in and said what he said.

And he was correct. Schieffer stated, fairly explicitly, that getting shot down was a a good resume item for a commander in chief and Clark replied that it wasn't a qualification.

Sorry, but this was a Kinsley Gaffe: a politician accidentally told the truth and got in trouble for it.


[ Parent ]
I like Clark (4.00 / 2)
But what is your evidence that he is progressive? He is a former republican after all.

Clark on taxes in 2004 (4.00 / 1)
In 2004 Clark was the ONLY Democrat in the running (apart from maybe Kucinich & Sharpton--not sure on them) who proposed raising taxes on the uber-wealthy (income 1,000,000+/year) to above Clinton levels.  He then wanted to use the money to raise the child tax deduction, eliminating income taxes on over half of households with children.

That got me on board in early 2004.  Of course, to no great surprise, the corporate media was sure to never mention this.


[ Parent ]
Never was a Republican (0.00 / 0)
This was debunked countless times in 2003-04. Look it up instead of spreading false information.

Matt, you make excellent points on why Clark would be the best choice, but Obama has shown no inclination that he values or respects Clark's credentials, experience, or judgment. I suspect General Clark is not on Obama's short or long list. And I'm grateful he's not.  


[ Parent ]
Obama's VP posturing is just that (4.00 / 2)
I'll eat my hat if he picks Bayh, Kaine, Sebelius, Biden or Dodd. Or any of the other sub-par and sometimes absurd names he keeps floating. The longer this goes on, the more clear it is he is playing the media. The best way to finish off this spectacle is to pick someone never mentioned. The media are in a fevered frenzy over his VP pick, and a last minute, darkhorse pick will drive them absolutely berserk.

And this will be my one bold (and probably false) prediction for this election.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
i hope that's his grand plan. but i won't hold my breath (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Martin O'Malley (0.00 / 0)
He's never been mentioned, as far as I know, on any list short or long, but he makes a good deal of sense.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
Tim Ryan (0.00 / 0)
Tim Ryan is the perfect last minute, darkhorse pick.    He is a rising star and he reinforces Obama's message.    He would be a great "attack dog" and Obama needs that.  

He reinforces Obama AND he really relates to the working class - more so than Obama does.  

Check him out - you will be impressed.    


[ Parent ]
So what- Reagan was as former Democrat (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I don't how progressive he is on domistic issues (0.00 / 0)
but on Foreign policy he is pretty strong. Check his talks at Fora tv.

[ Parent ]
Done! (0.00 / 0)
Clark has always been my personal first choice.

I was never a Clark fan. (0.00 / 0)
I was put off by his war cheerleading during his CNN stint, and I always thought his 2004 run was part of a Clinton plot to sink Dean.

But after seeing him stand up to the Villagers, I can't think of anyone better for VP. Count me in. Obama Clark 2008!

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
War cheerleading?? (4.00 / 2)
What Clark were you watching?  Clark was the only sane guy on TV leading up to the war; well, and John Stewart.  But that is it.  Everyone was in the bag for war, near as I can tell.

Clark consistently pointed out he still didn't know why we were going to war.  He actually got in trouble at CNN for not being enthusiastic enough and questioning Bush's logic.

Now, he is very pro-military and particularly pro-Army, so he certainly appreciated the good job they did in the initial invasion.  I can see how that might be a bit off putting for you, but he never wavered in his opposition to going to war in the first place.  If anything, Clark was the first person to really articulate the difference between supporting the troops (for real) and not supporting Bush or the strategy.


[ Parent ]
Clark war cheerleading (4.00 / 1)
I only saw Clark on CNN after the war started, and his performance seemed very synergistic with the whole pro-war propaganda vibe of the time. I was surprised when people later argued that he had opposed the war. I was like "The smiley CNN guy? He opposed the war?" It certainly didn't come across that way to me.

But I'm over that now. I signed the petition. Anyone willing to call bullshit on corporate media propaganda like he did regarding McCain's imaginary commander-in-chiefiness moves up to the top of my list. Obama Clark 2008! I'm on board!

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
When the shooting starts... (4.00 / 2)
Look, when the shooting starts, any Four Star Army General, particularly the guy who developed the speciality and advanced training program for the All Volunteer Army in the wake of Vietnam, and then ran the National Training Center for five years -- yea that guy is going to expect to see performance on the invasion line.  And when he saw things done according to training -- he cheered them on.  When he saw errors, he called them like an Umpire in a tight ball game.  He is afterall a professional Army Man, First in his class at West Point, and first in his Levenworth Command School Class.  I really don't think an Army General watching live video from the invasion front would be expected to describe the action for those uninformed as to Military tactics to be giving anti-war speeches.  If you want the one he gave before the invasion, check out his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Early October, 2002.  

[ Parent ]
Really does make sense now (4.00 / 3)
McCain's taken the gloves off. Picking Clark would be an indication from Obama that he's willing to fight back properly.

On an entirely different note, Kaine endorsed Lieberman in 2004? That would appear to completely undercut Kaine's alleged opposition to the war from the beginning. Is there actually any evidence that Kaine wasn't a war supporter? Because that was just about the only thing Lieberman ran on.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


Kaine (4.00 / 4)
Not sure if he's claimed to be a war opponent, but he definitely used the 'cut and run' lingo when talking about Iraq.

[ Parent ]
Not that this answers your question ... (4.00 / 1)
... but Obama also advocated for Lieberman.  Many Connecticut residents and many national politicians genuinely (if naively) believed that Lieberman was simply going for maverick cred in 2004.  It turns out he was in the middle of a complete fall into Bush-Republicanism.  Sigh.  At least we have Dodd!

[ Parent ]
Different case (4.00 / 2)
Obama advocating for Lieberman was emphatically not a good thing. But it was a different situation.

In 2006, Lieberman was the incumbent, and incumbent protection is the normal way things go. It shouldn't be, but Obama is only really transformational in his rhetoric and so we shouldn't be too surprised that he plumped for transactional politics. However, all that really showed was that he was satisfied with the prevailing paradigm. It told us nothing of his views on the war.

Whereas in 2004, Lieberman was running for a new position. This time he didn't get the automatic support. Endorsing him then meant you owed him or had some substantive policy agreement. And that's obviously something to worry about, considering what Lieberman ran on.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Obama endorsed Lieberman (0.00 / 0)
for President in 2004? Are you sure? that would be really fucking depressing if it's true.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
nope (4.00 / 1)
I don't recall Obama endorsing anyone in 2004 until the nomination was wrapped up.  Dean's DFA endorsed Obama, though.

John McCain <3 lobbyists

[ Parent ]
Oops (0.00 / 0)
Misread 2006 for 2004.  President is a horse of a different color.

[ Parent ]
I am positive (4.00 / 1)
that he did not. Most clues are that he backed Edwards, Dean or Gephardt. Axelrod was Edwards strategist, DFA picked him to the Dean Dozen (and many of his friends such as Jesse Jackson Jr backed Dean) and David Ploffe was one of Gephardt's top advisers.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Speaking of Gephardt... (0.00 / 0)
Why isn't he on the short list?  He'd probably add Missouri to the list of states Obama only needs one of to complete an electoral college majority, and where he's ahead (currently, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, and Florida).

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
Gephardt = old establishment figure (4.00 / 1)
would look absurd next to Obama

The only benefit I see to picking someone so old is that he wouldn't try running for president in 2016. Hopefully by then, a more compelling Democrat will emerge. Nobody on the "short list" seems very impressive to me as the bannerbearer for 2016.


[ Parent ]
Gephardt wouldn't deliver Missouri (0.00 / 0)
Keep in mind that Gephardt's district was St. Louis; the rest of the state has no particular affinity for the guy - in fact, they probably positively dislike him, as St. Louis is seen by many out-state Missourians as a modern-day Gomorrah.  

[ Parent ]
Gephardt = pro-war (0.00 / 0)
What better way to undermine Obama's superior judgement in opposing the invasion of Iraq than to pick a running mate who supported the debacle enthusiastically from the start? Brilliant.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Uh (0.00 / 0)
Beacuse he is a corporate lobbyist now who never had any proven ability to win votes?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Thanks for this! (0.00 / 0)
Could you please keep us updated on the number of signatures your petition receives?

Clark would be just great for reconciling Clintonites to an Obama administration.  Plus, he showed more spine in the aftermath of that "gaffe" than I've seen from a Democratic surrogate in quite some time.


Clark (4.00 / 1)
I'll be giving all of my support to whoever is on the ticket.  

With that said, I think it's somewhat of stretch to describe Clark as a progressive.  Then again, there appears to be several definitions of what a progressive actually is nowadays.

While I admire your willingness to voice your candidate of choice, it seems rather unfair and unnecessary to take a shot at Tim Kaine, another candidate supposedly on the short list. No sense in burning bridges while trying to build one.

Clark does seem to be someone that is easy to work with.  And while Obama could do a lot worse than Clark, I'm hoping that he'll do better.


Always My Favorite (0.00 / 0)
Clark has always been my favorite choice for Obama's VP.  The direction Obama seems to be going at the moment, I doubt Clark has a chance in hell.  He would be a superb choice for Secretary of Defense though.  

"Ignorance is the most dangerous element in any society." - Emma Goldman

Not eligible for Defense Secretary. (0.00 / 0)
It hasn't been long enough since he left the military.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Yep, long enough (0.00 / 0)
Wes Clark retired in 2000.  The rule is five years, so since he has been retired for 8 years, he would qualify.  In his book he has a chapter on the negative qualities of the Military Industrial Complex -- particularly as it works to keep members of congress from doing due dilligence on military spending, particularly in their states and districts.  (Book -- "Winning Modern Wars" 2001.) Clark's own model is George C. Marshall.  Since Marshall refused to vote, no one knows whether he was aRepublican or Democrat.  

[ Parent ]
as the list has narrowed, i've become more open (4.00 / 3)
Clark went from good pick to great pick.
Sebelius went from boring to pretty good.
Even Clinton and Webb went from unacceptable to "we could do a lot worse".

I still think Edwards is the best possible pick. He reinforces Obama's strengths, draws zero attention to any of his supposed negatives (e.g.: foreign policy), he's vetted, he's VERY well known and people STILL wanna vote for the guy.

Just please, not Kaine. Not Nunn. Not ... ugh... Bayh.  


Don't agree on Edwards and Webb (4.00 / 1)
but agree completely on everything else. Clinton would inject an enormous amount of energy and enthusiasm.

My nightmare candidate (even though electorally it might be smart) would be Bayh.

PLEASE NOT BAYH


[ Parent ]
Another plus (4.00 / 1)
is that we wouldn't be losing an executive or senator as we would be with Kaine and Bayh respectively.  Sebelius has a Democratic LG, so that isn't an issue with her being picked.

Netroots for Gore

Could do worse than Clark... (4.00 / 1)
e.g. Kaine, but just not feeling it with him.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.



Clark as VP serves two fundamental purposes (4.00 / 1)
1) He helps to bring the Clinton supporters back into the fold, as he was a prominent surrogate for her during the primary; and

2) He is able to attack McCain at his strength (i.e., his perceived national security credentials).  When you undercut an opponent at their strongest point, there is nothing left.  The Republicans have understood this for a long time.


Oh yes yes yes nobody better IMHO (4.00 / 2)
And gaffe? What's wrong with smacking McCain in his teeth with the truth. Getting shot down and being a POW is not executive experience. Period. If McCain can say all the jerky things he wants and get away with it why can't Clark say the truth and have it lauded.

Just signed up. (0.00 / 0)
Though I wish you had started the campaign before now--it's awfully late in the game.

I would jump up and down if he were to name Clark (4.00 / 1)
And I'm one of those on record as never having been that much of a fan.

Sure I'll sign up but.... (4.00 / 1)
....as Digby is chronicling, Obama is running a classic Dukakis/Kerry campaign.  He is letting Rove build the narrative that will suffuse the "coverage" by the awful media in the fall.

I am waiting for the Obama-in-a-tank moment.


Have fun (0.00 / 0)
sounds like your living in a depressing world.

Seriously. Stop trying desperately to find stuff wrong with the campaign and go out and DO something.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


[ Parent ]
All the more so now (4.00 / 1)
I was glad to see Matt's earlier post in June and think the past week's events underscore the value of Clark in countering the current McCain strategy.  And while the media coverage of Clark's FTN comments generated mixed results at best, I think it points to a fight that an Obama/Clark campaign can win, and may very well have to fight.  And Clark is very well suited for the fight.  

McCain appears committed (for lack of any other viable strategy) to the low-road, trying to appeal to prejudice, fear, resentment, ignorance, etc., wrapped in a militaristic, jingoistic, macho, pseudo-patriotic veneer, glued together by selective bits of informationation that serve as triggers and rationalizations for these lizard-brain reactions.

Clark, in contrast, embodies the warrior-statesman-thinker, which strikes me as an excellent compliment to Obama's strengths, and one that could go a long way to immunizing Obama's candidacy against what is very likely to remain McCain's most persistent and (sadly) most effective line of attack.   Do we want a "wise warrior" who finished first in his class at West Point and moved up the ranks to four-star, and won a war with no U.S. deaths (albeit with plenty of deaths from NATO bombing), or a (still) hot-headed fighter pilot who finished near the bottom at the Naval academy?  Especially when we face an expanding and intensifying array of domestic and global challenges to our national security.

Because he would provide another strong point of contrast with McCain, and one that had strong military credibility, having Clark on the ticket would help clarify the fundamental choice this country and individual voters face.  Do we want to continue heading into the realm of ignorance, hate, isolation, corruption and incompetence, or do we want to shift toward hope, clarity, competence, integrity and cooperation?

I'd let Obama stay above the fray and have Clark's main job during the campaign to be hammering away at McCain and defending Obama as needed.  He's learned a lot since he got into politics and I think that, if he was tasked mainly with this, and worked closely with Obama and his team to hone the message and strategy, McCain would either melt away or suffer repeated nucleur meltdowns that would clearly reveal his nasty, brutish side.  If Clark kept hammering while Obama continued to ride the popular wave of enthusiasm for his candidacy and what it represents, I have no doubt that McCain would start losing his cool on a regular basis even more than he is now.  When that happens, concerns about Obama's "strange and alien" background and appreciation for arugala and herbal tea would fade as a concern in the face of McCain's dark side, especially when another point of comparison is Bush and the Bush era.

I made a few other points favoring Clark as VP in this comment in Matt's earlier "Clark for VP" thread:
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

All that being said, I think Obama's gonna go with Kaine, Sebelius or possibly Bayh. From what I've read, he seems to get along well with the first two, and sees this as important to his decision.  I wonder what his personal chemistry is with Clark.  

Regardless, I'm glad Matt and Aaron set up the ObamaClark web site and petition (which I signed).  And the fat lady hasn't sung yet, so who knows.  Its worth speaking up now.


I mostly agree with you, except (0.00 / 0)
that I think the whole concept of "military credibility" is bullshit. McCain's ideas about when and how to use our military are simply bad ideas. Anyone with half a brain can point that out. You don't need some mythical "military credibility."

I like Clark because he has the guts to speak a truth that no other prominent Democrats have been willing to say. Plenty of us in the left blogosphere have called out McCain for his lack of magical "credibility." And we don't need any military resume to speak such common sense. But Dem politicians who have something to lose by going up against the big hegemonic bullshit machine are all too afraid to utter the obvious truth. Clark is the only one.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
Personally, I don't disagree with your point about mythical "military credibility," and certainly agree about McCain's ideas being obviously "bad" ones.  But the problem I see isn't what we and others in the "left blogosphere" believe and say, its the fact that the "myth" you refer to is believed, at least on some emotional level, by a significant portion of voters, journalists and politicians.  Its those people that will be most influenced by Clark's resume.  That, combined with the guts to say the truth is a potent combination in the face of McCain's current attacks which, as you note, are backed by the "big hegemonic bullshit machine."  

If your point is that Clark's "guts to speak the truth" is more important than his four stars, I wholeheartedly agree.  But I do think that the four stars and the biography will help some people (and journalists) hear and accept what he has to say, and actually think a little more about the actual substance of it.  And I think its the folks most susceptible to the "military credibility myth" and the "too-young, presumptious, arugula-loving, tea-drinking liberal elitist" myth that McCain's current assault is aimed.  My hope is that this strategy will fail in any event but, since its McCain's only competitive "strength," I'd like Obama to take no chances in dealing with it.  I think Clark as VP can help make this a truly crushing defeat for McCain and the Republicans.  That's something I'd very much like to see, and that could make progressive governance that much easier next year.


[ Parent ]
"inoculation" strategy (0.00 / 0)
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it. In my entire lifetime I have never seen this "innoculation" strategy work. I can guarantee you what the Rethugs will do. They will relentlessly repeat the mantra that Clark was chosen to compensate for Obama's national security weakness. On top of that they will paint Clark the same way they did Kerry (the same way they try to paint every Democrat) as an elite effete intellectual snob who hates the troops.

In my opinion it is Clark's willingness to get in their face and not back down that will prevent the latter from being effective - not the stars on his shoulders. That's why they couldn't even go there with Dean and had to settle for the "angry" meme.

As far as him "balancing" Obama with his security resume, I see that as an overall negative in terms of the campaign, because it will be spun to draw attention to Obama's "weakness" in this area. The only reason I'm not too concerned about that is that Clark will be an effective enough advocate for Obama's for security judgement to compensate for the inevitable spin.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
Wes Clark (4.00 / 1)
is the gold standard of the Democratic party with HUGE crossover appeal. He actually practices what he preaches in terms of diplomacy & there is no other potential VP on the horizon who can correct the imbalances inherent in the Obama candidacy.

I would sleep better with Wes Clark in the WH.

Dems got their rear ends handed to them by ceding national security to the other side the last three times out (minimum).

Wes can innoculate from that & most importantly- he is the right man for the job.

It's honestly about the only way Obama can pull in my vote & that of my circle & also about the only way I can confidently visualize a solid win for the Ds. Yes, I know Crazy Train is insane, etc. but Obama is a whole lot more Mwobbly than the left cares to admit.

And this nonsense about party unity- Let's see this guy practice what he preaches, eh?

Wes Clark is beyond ideal here. And he's brilliant. Whether it is the economy- where he can say he ran billions of dollars worth of budgets & has an MA in Economics from Oxford to speaking about computer security issues to climate change to you name it- and he's walked through fire many, many times.

Tried. Tested. True. Deserving.

Obama- do NOT fill out your ticket with another inexperienced domestic person without a big national reputation. Wes Clark can absolutely anchor this ticket with grace & style & gravitas to spare.

I'm serious. Crap- Kaine has more experience than Obama & it is also light & also primarily stems from serving under another celebrity type (Mark Warner, who I like a bunch).
Governor- okay. Heartbeat away? Not so much.

Wes Clark is the man.

Don't fuck it up again even worse, Democrats.

Don't take this for granted.

Wes Clark can do a laying on of hands of the party like no other.

Senator Obama: Don't just mouth the words- practice the art of diplomacy & statecraft. Do yourself & this nation a huge favor & bring Wes in.  


Oh my God, you're so full of shit. (0.00 / 0)
The "innoculation" strategy doesn't work. It has never worked. it is retarded. It didn't work for war hero McGovern in '72. It didn't help military vet Carter against WWII service avoiding Reagan. It didn't help war hero Kerry against AWOL Bush. It's a completely bullshit strategy.

You won't vote for Obama unless Clark is on the ticket? You are a dumbass.

Dems got their rear ends handed to them by ceding national security to the other side the last three times out (minimum).

I thought the whole point of nominating a war hero last time was to not cede national security. That worked out really well. The way to not cede national security is to simply point out the plain fact that Republican national security policies suck. It's not fucking rocket science. Upon what are you basing your claim that Obama is "ceding national security to the other side"?

Obama is a whole lot more Mwobbly than the left cares to admit.

the imbalances inherent in the Obama candidacy.

Nice smears backed by absolutely nothing.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]
Convinced (0.00 / 0)
I don't think I have ever been more easily convinced of something. Yes, you are right, Clark is the best choice.

I was talking to my grandmother, who loved Hillary but is afraid to vote for Obama because he is a young, black, Muslim, foriegn, communist terrorist that doesn't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance. But I have been working on her. The other day, she tells me she will vote for Obama - dpending on who he picks as running mate. She admitted that Hillary was an unlikley pick. But if anyone else can convince her, it would be Wes Clarke.

I know, I know, people vote the top of the ticket. But when you are in your 70's, some 40-something guy looks like a kid. I think this would reassure older voters - who, if you haven't noticed, is Obama's weakest demographic. Not to mention the reassurance it offers in terms of experience and national security. And best of all, Clark doesn't just balance the ticket, he also reinforces it.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


Not to be overlooked: Clark is Clinton's man (0.00 / 0)
Which is actually a plus, because picking him would be a move to consolidate the party. Obama can't pick Hillary, but picking Clark is a way to acknowledge the value of Hillary's policies and campaign.

[ Parent ]
I agree and proposed Clark for VP some time ago. (0.00 / 0)
Others I know do not agree with me, but he has integrity, he speaks well, would be a terrific debater, and would be intelligent enough to assume the presidency or run for president when Obama terms are over.

Clark would be a great pick... (4.00 / 1)
So would Edwards.  If the supposed leaks are to be believed, though, neither of them are going to happen.  Too bad.

Clark would be fine, but... (0.00 / 0)
I am enjoying how you are obviously ignoring how much Clark would emphasize Obama's perceived foreign policy weaknesses.

Just saying you have some selective analysis going on. Its really ok, I don't mind, but for the "the pundits are so dumb we're so smart" meta-melodrama.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


Foreign policy weakness (4.00 / 1)
Some would see it that way, no doubt.  And certainly some in the press would push that.

But Clark is very good at supporting and promoting Obama's foreign policy judgment.  As long as Clark acts as a VP candidate the same as he has as a supporter, he should make Obama look better at foreign policy.

What you don't want is a VP that goes "hey, look at me; I've got foreign policy credentials and I'll look over Obama's back to make sure he doesn't make any mistakes."  That would be bad.  But it ain't Clark.


[ Parent ]
OK, so where's the facebook group? (0.00 / 0)


Wes Clark for VP | 67 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox