Vice President Wesley Clark

Oh yeah!! Go Wes Go!!!

Kerry-Clark in '04!

Do I support Clark for VP? (no) Will I vote for Kerry/Clark ticket? (yes) Do I like him personally? (yes) What's the context?

Of course we will all vote for Kerry and whomever he chooses as running mate.

Just seeing how much enthusiasm there is for Clark. Voting "No" or "Whatever" does not imply that you are a Clark-hater. Voting "Yes" does not imply that Clark is your first or only choice.

:D

If he were to choose, say, Pat Robertson or Roy Moore as his running mate, then Nader might start to look attractive.

But only then. :)

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Pleasure to be here. :)

I just voted No and it didn't show.

He always does on DU. Polls like this are just sorta masturbatory for Clark folks..:P

...that the General's appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday and his giving the Democratic response to moron's radio address last Saturday were VP auditions. What do the rest of you think?

didn't it? He was awesome too! When it comes to Iraq and foreign policy....he's untouchable! Go Wes! :bounce:

he passed :kick: in 2004!

with Howard Dean as Pres. Kerry-Clark would be awesome. It's mind-boggling to hear a chimp and a chickenhawk try to call these two patriots "soft on defense".

With Edwards as a #2 pick.

Attorney General? Dean as Health and Human Services?

He's my top choice for VP for a few reasons, but I don't think he is qualified to be A.G., since he has never served as a prosecutor at any level of government.

before he opened his mouth and started speaking. After that he started losing support and did poorly in the primaries. I really don't understand why people on this board are so crazy about him.

Kerry has all the credibility he needs from his heroic service in Vietnam. Clark's military background ads nothing to the ticket. I guess there wouldn't be any danger of Clark upstaging Kerry on the stump.

until after Iowa and NH. That was long after he started speaking. He also raised significant funds, got some great endorsements, and had indepth Q/A sessions like nobody else's -- the man is brilliant.

Edited to censor self.

With every day and every horrible piece of news that comes, it's clearer that we need our General out front in the Democratic party -- we need him on the ticket. We need him to fight the campaign battle, and the country and the world needs him to work at undoing the mess the Chimp has created.

How often does a 4 star general come out and run for President on the Democratic ticket? It is an extraordinary opportunity to show the country that we can be both Democrats and patriots at the same time - Kerry and Clark are the two perfect men to show that. Though I doubted Wes at first, it seems that he genuinely IS a Democrat. I'd be more than happy with Wes on the ticket.

The last thing I want is a man on the ticket who spent his entire adult life being an expert on how to kill large numbers of people. That's what generals do. We have one military hero on the ticket, and if enough people are sick of war then we don't need another.
Clark is a great guy, but I just don't see him adding anything to the ticket at all.

On what basis do you say that Clark is a great guy? Could you tell me something of why you see him that way? It doesn't seem to fit in with other things you've said about him. Thanx.:)

By the way, I'm sick of war too. That's one of the reasons I want Clark on the ticket.

... I think having Clark as VP sends the wrong message to the public. It says to them that everything the Republicans have been saying about 9/11 is true: it did "change everything." It says, people, you're gonna have to live in perpetual fear now, and thus we need someone that gives us a hint of (false) security. Thus, even the Doves must LOOK hawkish. Culture of Fear, redux.

However, I would disagree with the poster who said he's spent his whole life learning how to kill people. As I understand it, most of his assignments have been peace-keeping missions rather than Iraq-style invasions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You say 9/11 changed "everything," but don't clarify what has changed or how it was changed by the attacks.

Bush tells us 9/11 changed everything, and therefore preemptive war is justified. We're viewing things in a different light, after all, right? Do you agree? Bush tells us 9/11 changed everything, and therefore we must accept diminished freedom in exchange for a vague promise of enhanced security. Do you agree? Bush tells us 9/11 changed everything, so the the separation of powers should be completely altered and we must accept the Presidential view of secrecy. Do you agree? I don't.

Saying 9/11 changed everything is thus clearly an effort to win an argument without the intellectual rigour of explanation. This fact is amply demonstrated by the post above where the poster pretends like he is going to justify his response before realizing he can't, after which he simply resorts to a shameless personal attack.

I hope you realize that personal attacks like your Ken and Barbie comment don't make you look good among the DU public; they certainly aren't going to win any on-lookers to your cause. A personal attack is generally a sure sign of one of two things: 1) a lack of intelligence or 2) awareness of a weak argument.

Just because I don't think he's the best pick for VP this year doesn't mean I don't like him. He clearly served honorabley in the military. He's obviously very intelligent. He's a pretty good speaker, but I just don't understand some of the praise people on this board give his speaking skills.

My issue is that he doesn't have enough experience in politics to be effective on a national ticket, and since he has no voting record I don't really know if he's a liberal or not. I like his positions on the issues but a lot of candidates act more liberal during the Democratic primary. I would like Clark a lot better if he had served in some elected office before. He's a big roll of the dice, and I think there are potential VP's that would give Kerry a better chance of winning than Clark.

Obviously most people on this board disagree with me, but dissent is what makes discourse interesting.

One of the Bushie's most powerful criticism's of Kerry is that he's a "Washington Insider". Having a "politically inexperienced" vice-president as Wes Clark may help to water some of that criticism down.

Clark may also help to weaken the "wrong on terrorism" argument through his experiences as NATO Commander.

I disagree with your position and assessment, but I respect it and am glad we can be civil in discussing our differences.

.

I know the primaries are over but...it's like having a flashback to the Dean/Clark wars. I don't understand it. I like Clark now. I want him to be the veep. Why then do I feel the need to flame a Clarkbot? ;)

If you want Clarke, you better convince Kerry. Gep's not bad except he won't bring in any voters.

If Kerry picks Gep... then the party is even worse off than I said in another post.

:(

And, no, all you Edwardians, I won't vote for that ticket, either. I like a party that LEARNS something along the way.

(I should change my name to "free thinking idie, salt of the earth Southern woman" or something ;) )

V.P. pick.

But I spoke to a reliable source who said that Kerry was talking about making Gep his VP choice.

... then we are dead. Gep will kill the race.

Gep won't bring anyone who's not already voting for Kerry. Those who want someone else need to get the message across to Kerry.

I approve. :)

I will say this until hell freezes over...Clark is Presidential so for sure he is Vice Presidential!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Edwards is wonderful too.

KERRY CAMP: If you are reading this know that I am a Liberal Democrat and Gephardt will not fly! Please do not take us back to the 80's, let us go forward into a world of NEW ideas and NEW energy.


Clark brings a global experience to this election not a regional experience or a Union experience.

We want our children to understand what the World is like so that we can live in peace. Wesley Clark and Kerry can work to make us World Partners instead of Hated By The World.

but I just think we need a much better speaker on the stump. And someone who is little more seasoned politician. But I wouldn't be pissed if he was the guy.

I think John Edwards would be a great VP, too!

Selecting Wes Clark this year only plays into Republican fearmongering that we need some sort of "warriors" to head the ticket. You may pick up a few Republican-types who like such a macho ticket, but you risk alienating a sizable amout of the liberals who don't see the need to further indenture the party to the military-industrial complex: especially at a time when our country is falling apart, but our military obligations are skyrocketing.

Wes Clark should definately play a role in the Kerry administration-- he'd be an excellent Secretary of State, IMHO. But VP would not do much for our ticket, or our party, this fall-- unless we want to "out-macho" the Republicans on defense issues.

We've already got one war hero on the ticket. Is another one really necessary?

A nice balance of views, I think. I canvassed this past weekend and the number one issue to those folks was the war. We need candidates who have the experience and authority to develop a way to cool down the passions in that region.

General Wes Clark...you're that man. We need you now.

with the far left, right?

I give him credit for opposing the war; however, like most of the other candidates, he supports the continuing occupation of Iraq. In fact, he even advocating sending MORE troops to Iraq during the primaries.

As events unfold, it becomes clearer and clearer that it's impossible for the US to "win" this war. We are not seen as "liberators" beloved by the populace, but as occupiers and an "enemy" to be dispelled by any means necessary. Our continued presense in Iraq does not bring "stability"-- far from it. It only promotes more chaos and violence, and is a useful recruiting tool for the likes of Al-Qaeda and other violent extremist groups.

More and more Americans are seeing the futility of this war, and are unwilling to continue paying the $300,000,000,000+ it has cost us to fight it. As more troops come home in body bags or with body parts missing, Americans are looking for a way to end this catastrophe, by any means necessary.

If things continue as they have in Iraq, this war will be a big issue this fall, if things continue as they are. If Kerry is unwilling (or unable) to address this issue, it could very well be his undoing.

http://news.bostonherald.com/election2004/view.bg?articleid=27518

Gen. Clark's bars could take Kerry far
By Tom Keane
Wednesday, May 12, 2004

It's ``more than a system failure, a failure of leadership that goes right to the top.''

Those are the words of Gen. Wesley Clark , John F. Kerry's pick for vice president, talking last weekend about the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal.

OK, I'm getting ahead of events here. Kerry hasn't chosen Clark for anything. Just a few months ago, in fact, they were in a heated battle against each other and Clark was deriding Kerry (``He's a lieutenant, and I'm a general''). Yet if one thinks about the possible (and mostly dull) choices Kerry has for his No. 2 spot and, more importantly, about the best strategy for winning the presidency, picking Clark makes enormous sense.

more to read on this article....

and

Dem consultant in Philly:"Kerry credible if he picks a war VP"

Another person throwing Clark's name out there!
go to the article.....excerpt here....

Article Link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0513/p01s01-uspo.html
(Snip)
The name now circulating with the most excitement is Gen. Wesley Clark, the retired former NATO commander who ran against Kerry for the Democratic nomination. General Clark, along with some of Kerry's other opponents, has been traveling the country and appearing as a surrogate spokesman. Now, say some analysts, with the prison abuse scandal, Clark is the obvious choice to put on the ticket. "These pictures have placed Wesley Clark on the very short list," says Ken Smukler, a Democratic consultant in Philadelphia. "Kerry, even as a
war hero, was never going to be able to make the case he was a stronger war president than Bush, until the pictures came out. Now, the easiest way for him to become credible as war president is to pick a war veep."


Carville is even saying it now....

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-2/108435402914...

HUMOR, PASSION FLAVOR DEBATE
Pundits laugh, bicker on presidential race
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
By Steve Ritea
Staff writer
Several of the nation's top political pundits kicked off a business software conference in New Orleans on Tuesday with partisan bickering over this year's presidential election that touched on everything from the economy to U.S. involvement in Iraq.

>>

Asked whom he expected Kerry to choose for his running mate, Carville predicted it would either be retired Gen. Wesley Clark, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards or former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey. >>

And so is Donna Brazile...who never said any niceties about Clark before....

Clark, a retired four-star general who was the former supreme
commander of NATO, campaigned on opposition to the war in Iraq, which
he called ``the wrong war at the wrong time.''

Brazile said the insurgency in Iraq and the scandal over the abuse of
Iraqi prisoners may boost Clark's chances. "He's had a consistent position on the war, opposing it under the conditions and circumstances in which it was launched,'' she said.
"He looks like a sage when you reflect back on what he said and
where we are.''

www.dogstuff.com / www.duurstede.com

and finally,
Clark is one of 5 finalists for VP:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aC8W1Sp0o59s&ref...

Wes Clark speak on subjects other than Iraq.....here he is speaking for Kerry on education...

You have to look at the bottom of the article:

At the same time, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark spoke out against the law,saying the Bush administration has underfunded education reform. "It¹s billions of dollars short in funding," Clark, an Arkansan and a former presidential candidate, said in a telephone news conference arranged by the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

http://www.swtimes.com/archive/2004/May/12/news/paige.html

Each is quite different from the other, and has his own strengths and weaknesses, but the bopttom line is this: they are BOTH excellent running mates for Sen. Kerry. No matter which one he picks, it's a 'win'.

:)