Wes Clark needs to be VP

The VP has only two formal jobs; being President of the Senate and taking over if the president dies. I know a lot of people like John Edwards and others, but out of the choices that seem to be on the table, I think any choice other than Clark is sort of crazy.

a) Kerry dies in office, or
b) Kerry does not die in office

If it's 'a' then who cares? In that case my cat could be VP. (She might actually enjoy state funerals) If, however, Kerry does die in office, what are the circumstances of his death? I don't expect him to choke on a pretzel. Four of the Presidents who've met that fate were assassinated and Reagan, Ford, Truman and FDR all came very close. And today's medicine would have saved most of the Presidents who died in office of natural causes. So the VP's job is really to assume office when the president is assassinated.

Thought Experiment: Breaking news comes in that President Kerry has been blown to bits by Iran. A terrified America collectively says, "thank God Kerry chose ___________ as his running mate!"

Now I know Edwards is a bright guy and could grow into the job, like Truman did, but this is the TV age. Since the methods by which a President might die in office are now presumed to include events that are full-blown international security crises, I'd rather see Clark's face in the oval office.

PS: I am fairly certain Clark is the VP and has been since the day he dropped out, or even a few days before he dropped out. Clark has been glaringly absent from mainstream press speculation, just as the eventual VP choice has been for decades. (I was bummed to see a press mention that he's the third guy being vetted because the Kerry camp had clearly been hiding the fact. They were up-front about vetting Edwards and Gephardt, so everyone knows it can't be either of them. The VP choice is, today, considered no good unless it's a surprise.)

...... Clark isn't a democrat.....

He is now. :silly:

i suspect there's no form of "proof" you would accept short of a video clip of clark saying "I am not a democrat" (and of course, one can always accuse "photoshoping!").... so there's really no point in this conversation....

what's good enuff for me, on this issue tho, is that we're talking about a massively experienced 60+ year old who is extraordinarily well-educated and informed who had to take what, several weeks to decide which party he wanted to join?

rofl - that's not a democrat. all of which isn't to imply necessarily that I don't think he's a nice guy - i'd just rather have someone who doesn't need a few weeks to decide what party to belong to - especially in light of what *being a republican* has meant for the last 30-odd years.....

o yah - who did clark vote for in 2000?

NOT a great way to begin your case. It seems eerily familiar.
As for Wes Clark being a dem:
1) Clark ran as a dem nominee and continues to unfailingly support the dem candidate.
2) He offered an extremely progressive tax plan, including a 5% income tax increase on funds in excess of $1M.
3) He supports choice and equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Show me the rethug that supports progressive taxation, gay rights and abortion rights, and vocally supports dem political candidates.

I have no doubt that Wes Clark's voting record is a mixed bag (although I believe he has stated that he voted for Gore in 2000 and Clinton both times).

Clark's indecision re party affiliation may have had something to do with the fact that he is not easily pegged. Heaven forbid, he may have thought he had something to offer re the healing of the divide in this country.

I never said he had been a dem for the past 30 years. Different discussion.

choosing a writing style that gives the appearance of quoting me, when in fact it is *not* a quote of mine also seems eerily familiar... but wutever... (but notice that my use of quotation marks in the subject is neither misleading nor deceiving - it's a straight quote.... and a quote of a quote? lol - ok)

i'm gathering that we simply disagree on the following proposition: history is a very important factor in determining someone's party affiliation.

I believe strongly in this proposition, while, I gather, you don't. that's fine by me, tho i think that way of slicing the conceptual/political pie will make it hard for you tell a carpetbagger from the rest (or even explain *why* the term "carpetbagger" exists....).... But wutever - there's really nothin to argue about; we count different things as essential to being a democrat.....

if you're satisfied that clark's a democrat because of what he's said in the last 6 months or so, neglecting the previous 60-odd years of his life, well, ok.

"wutever".

You said he wasn't a dem, he states that he is. You implied that he did not vote for Gore in 2000, but haven't offered any proof. You state that his last 60-odd years (I believe he is 60 max) belie democratic values yet he filed an amicus curae brief re affirmative action, actively promoted the careers of women and the acceptance of gays in the military, and voted for the dem presidential nominee in the last three elections.

Did he flirt w/ a run as an independent? Maybe. Did he want to unite this country instead of engaging in the partisan bickering that some are so fond of? Possibly.

Sorry, I like the big tent concept.

choosing a writing style that gives the appearance of quoting me, when in fact it is *not* a quote of mine also seems eerily familiar... but wutever... (but notice that my use of quotation marks in the subject is neither misleading nor deceiving - it's a straight quote.... and a quote of a quote? lol - ok)

i'm gathering that we simply disagree on the following proposition: history is a very important factor in determining someone's party affiliation.

I believe strongly in this proposition, while, I gather, you don't. that's fine by me, tho i think that way of slicing the conceptual/political pie will make it hard for you tell a carpetbagger from the rest (or even explain *why* the term "carpetbagger" exists....).... But wutever - there's really nothin to argue about; we count different things as essential to being a democrat.....

if you're satisfied that clark's a democrat because of what he's said in the last 6 months or so, neglecting the previous 60-odd years of his life, well, ok.

I'M not a democrat. I'm registered as unaffiliated. Specifically because, unlike that *other* party, I choose to put the good of the country above the good of ANY party. I don't care is Wes Clark is registered as a Klingon, he's clearly the best man for the job.

but then again, I would vote for Mork & Mindy at this point.

Mork and Mindy? LOL! I hadn't thought about them in years! :) Nice chuckle.

Nanoo Nanoo!

the original Sherry Lewis show. Now that's dating myself.

Nanoo, Nanoo to you too.

Hey! How did I know that! :silly:

Clark offers very high "positives," and doesn't have the "negatives" that go with each of the other serious contenders.

for VP candidate and for president if required.

I hope the Kerry campaign reads DU :)

But I'm off to watch the nbc tv movie @ 9pm..

"10.5" Where Beau Bridges is the President

(not sure if they advertised the VP)

The movie's theme is the entire West Coast

falls in one breath into the Pacific Ocean in a massive earthquake.

Looks to be pretty good as tv movies go.

But America may need Wes! :)

I am a bit irritated that Kerry hasn't announced a veep yet. What is the holdup? He clearly cannot handle the campaigning all alone -- it's two against one at this point, with Cheney out there scoring evil points.

Wes Clark's defense of Kerry has been plain-spoken and brilliant. I want this man on the campaign trail.

adding Clark to the ticket negates all bush war wrimes.

A former General has precisely the credibility needed to challenge some of this shit, and Clark (like almost all ex-service people) is certain to be royally pissed off by the current degeneration of our military ethos.

:crazy:

He stands to make a lot more money in the private sector anyways.

People, he's said it already. Not gonna be VP. Get over it.

He just says he isn't interested to get the press to stop talking to him about it. Better to use the time supporting Kerry and attacking Bush.

I felt that his statement this am on CNN re a vetting process was (hopefully) telling.

It's like all those people over the years who didn't get nominated for the Supreme Court because their selection was leaked. Everything's gotta be a big secret. (Dumb, but that's how it's done.)

When he first started running that he wasn't running to be anyone's VP. I doubt he would turn it down if it was offered to him.

lately on that one....It's a question of how much Clark has to whore himself on a lot of the Iraq stuff. He sticks his neck out, for example, he's the only one uttering the name "Chalabi" as an indicator of big problems in winning over Iraqis. I try to see if Kerry is inching closer to Clark's positions, rather than the other way around.

It's frustrating. On the one hand, he has the street cred and the knowledge to slam the Buhitas as VP,just has he has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting lately in "analyst" mode for the most part. On the other hand, if he has to completely whore himself...well, I guess he either won't be picked because he's too strong in his positions; refuses because he doesn't want to totally whore himself; or if he does do it, then he's hoping to do some changes from within.

I don't know, I just don't know.

that position is usually powerless.

What Wesley Clark is perfect for is Secretary of State. As Secretary of State he could really do some good. He is a natural born leader and negotiator, and the world needs that desperately now. A leader who could rebuild the worlds trust in our country.

Either way, I would be happy. I supported Wes for President and even got to ask a question of him at a campaign rally.

My only fear is that Kerry leaves him out. That would be a real loss for our country and the world.

Scuba

The VP can have a LOT of power, depending on how much the POTUS allows. Just look at Bush and Cheney.

As far as the VP's actual role, I'm sorry but that is secondary to defeating Bush.

On the campaign trail he can help John Kerry fight back and deflect the relentless and bogus criticism.

Wes is especially important to the ticket with the Iraqi war moving up the list on voters' concerns.

It's funny how Wes Clark polls so poorly nationally but has no many rabid followers here. I swear I see a new thread from a new person every single day (usually with a low post count) proclaiming Wes Clark to be the only way we can win in November. I have to wonder whether there are a handful of people starting up hundreds of screennames to make their numbers seem so much greater. But I digress...

Wes Clark has a future with the Democratic Party, but I don't think it is as VP.

And I also unequivocally reject the contention we need Wes "a heartbeat away from the Presidency" because a President needs to have had some military leadership experience to be an effective President. C'mon, people... That is something that Republicans often proclaim (typically during the Clinton era), but it certainly did not bear much fruit then, either, did it? People also tend to forget that many of our absolute worst Presidents, including U.S. Grant, were some of our best military leaders.

but the rest is right on.

First, I don't see how Clark "polls poorly" especially when name recognition (basic awareness) is factored, but maybe I missed something. His popularity on DU, in my opinion, has to do with the awareness of people here vs. the overall population and certainly is not about people making up screennames.

Second, I don't see Clark as ready to be president only because of his military experience, but also because he's very brainy and has the right priorities/policies -- a good thinker and a good person. In addition, he is articulate, experienced with political and international issues, and a leader.

Third, his military experience is unusually important THIS election above others because of what's going on with our country and because of the phoney platform of the Chimp as "War President." A wide majority of people polled *still* consider the Chimp stronger on defense, a better leader with international issues, more able to keep us "secure" and "fight terrorism" than Kerry. In terms of winning the election, those issues are key.

The RNC is winning the battle in painting Kerry as weak on defense, a Liberal Peacenik, a flip-flopper even on matters of his Vietnam experience. General Clark helps take all of that off the table.

re: "the contention a President needs to have had some military leadership experience to be an effective President."

No, not to be a good President, but that's not what we are talking about. VPs and Presidents arrive in the Oval Office in different ways. Presidents through a lengthy process. VPs in a heartbeat. Thus a VP should always have excellent crisis management skills because he or she won't have the same luxury of preparation that an elected President has.

I think Clark is an ideal VP, though not necessarily my choice for president.

That is a joke but it's true.
If Arnoold can be Governor then Wes Clark can do anything.

Part of the equation is who will help in the campaign. Edwards is a better speaker and debater (his trial attorney background) and would help on the stump more than Clark. Clark is not as polished as Edwards in public speaking and made mistakes early on due to inexpierence. Edwards would run over Cheney in the debates.

Clark is great for a strong defense ticked. If we think that we can either take the defense/war on terror issue away from Bush, then Clark is the better choice. Bush is strong on this issue and running at Bush/Cheney on this issue may be playing to their strength. However, recent events may make this tactic a winner. The ability to compare the military expierence of a Kerry/Clark ticket to a Bush/Cheney/chickenhawk ticket is tempting. Clark may not ba as polished as Edwards in the debate. I thought that we lost an opportunity in 2000 with the weak performance by Lieberman against Cheney in that debate.

The good news is that either choice has strong merits.

because honestly most Americans think that Bush is better on defense. Not many will say that a National Guardsman is better for defense than 4 star.

I feel like with all the speculations on who's gonna be Pres. Kerry's running mate VP in this case, I strongly think and feel that the Gen. should be picked as the one. This statement of mine is not an indicative that other candidates of consideration are not worthy or not formidable on the contrary all of the candidates that have been mentioned or being considered are by far much better than what we currently have. IRAQ war and war on terror is the main issue in this election yes economy still a major factor but if we looked into the campaign ads of the administration it goes on to attack or try to paint a picture of indecisive,unpatriotic,ill-equipped candidate to handle the burden of fighting war against terror. However, with Gen.Clark on the ticket it will immensely help and boost the morale of alot of patriotic Americans, GI's and what not to help us win the election. It will slowly create a picture of a new Democratic party that is not only serious with Americas poor,working class,health care deprived people,but will now be recognized as the party in whick you can rely,count on to do its duty to protect the U.S.A and its constitution and to uphold international prestige of the country. A country in which to act bravery not of bravado but because it is not afraid to do the right thing not only in the best interest of the country but for the benefit of the world. Most of all Gen.Wesley K. Clark is not a debater the General is a doer. Therefore, we not need someone just because they can debate or charming or hopeful for if we want to win the election we need a strong VP candidate who will act and do what is right for our country. As the words of the Gen. would say we must do this for it is our duty, our honor, and our country.