A Kerry-Clark ticket... too "military"?

I'm interested in DU's thoughts on this idea. Would a Kerry/Clark ticket be too heavy on the "generals" and not enough civvies?

I'm curious what people think about this idea, I think the Greens and Peace people would have a hard time voting for two military men, and a Kerry/Clark ticket would hurt that current Dem base.

What are your thoughts?

argument.

Much has been made of his medals, service in Viet Nam. His dedication to the war on terror an iraq.... He has a strong military history. Now add Clark whose also made much of his military background...

So if it's not true that a Kerry/Clark ticket is too heavy on the military candidates, why is that so?

I'm looking for people's opinions here, not trying to make a statement.

#2 Spent most of his life as a prosecutor and then Senator

#3 Clark is much more than "Military"

Clark is an accomplished diplomat, has held head of state status, was bascially a "Governor" for many thousands of Europeans and holds a degree in Economics.

Neither are military men.

But both sure do like war alot.

Do you think they may be a viable alterantive to Kerry/Cark?

The dems could put up a dog and a ficus plant and I'd vote for it over *.

with NATO in Europe, which is a good thing when Kerry goes asking for troops to take our place in Iraq

On the down side, Peace Activists have some issues with Clark's handling of the situation in Bosnia. Gen Clark also supported Bushit in several speeches.

While I think General Clark may deserve a place in the cabinet, I would be concerned about some of his "baggage" in the VP slot

here is a link to a host of articles on Wes Clark that make for interesting reading
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

edit for accuracy

Sigh. He was Independent. Voted for Republicans in the past, started voting for Democrats 12 years ago. After leaving the military, he was courted by both parties. He went to a couple of GOP fundraisers to talk about foreign policy. He gave them a few compliments then went on to tell them how they should work whit allies, look for diplomatic solutions, etc.. At the same time he was fundraising for Democrats. You can hardly discribe this as being "quite active in the GOP."

:hi:

That stuff has been far more discredited than it pretends to decredit Wesley. Personally, I am not up to fighting that out again but suffice to say, every bit of this stuff has been thrashed out ad nauseum in the past. Threads that ran HUNDREDS of posts.

Nope.

Baloney.

As someone who's been disgusted and disillusioned with the shrillness, sanctimony and self-righteous intransigence of the far left since I lost my political cherry in the mid-sixties--at which point I tuned out again almost immediately because I couldn't bear the cupidity and stupidity on either side--may I respectfully suggest you explore these "issues" a little further?

I would provide links but it's early, I'm barely awake, and I'm very cranky at seeing this provable bullshit resurrected once again.



edit for clarity

I want a guarantee of sanity at that place. And I suspect they want it too, right now.

Clark can't be SecDef. He hasn't been retired for 10 years. There's nothing he can do IN the Pentagon.

But as VP, Clark can help overwatch the Pentagon, and State Dept too, as vice-chair of the National Security Council. That's where his expertise in both arenas would be of most value to President Kerry.

We need to run on hope and security at home and abroad. Let's shape the argument on our terms, on what is really best for America - not the bullshit war games of this misadministration.

I think Wes Clark would be fantastic in helping to fix the Iraq mess and making amends with our allies. But I hope Kerry will present a Democratic vision of optimism and helping people realize the American dream. Pick the Sunny Senator.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

Although I am an ardent Clark supporter I do believe he may give the Democratic ticket too much military weight. That said, I don't think John Edwards adds much to the ticket and if it came down to those two - it's Clark all the way. Edwards exudes optimism but "where's the beef?"

BTW, did anyone see Laura Bush interviewed on C-SPAN? Is that really her hair or is it a wig? I couldn't find a part in her hair, dead giveaway of a wig.

She's starting to look like a Stepford wife!

I think is a good choice, a nice mix of things there. America is a vast place and a Presidential run has to appeal to a very wide range of peoples, cultures and beliefs.

This would give us the ability to sue the terrorists. I'd feel secure, wouldn't every one?

He won t fight the terrorists, he will take them to court.

Imagine if he added Edwards to the ticket.

Not looking at it will not make it go away. Edwards is totally unsuited to help clear up this mess. Clark is a valuable asset that the Kerry Administration would be stupid not to use. As Wes cannot be Secretary of Defense, which, I admit, would be perfect, this only leaves the VP position for this beribboned and talented general. Plus, as I have stated above, I cannot envisage a President Edwards leading us out of this war and beyond. You gotta have the right man at the right time. This is not it for the beautiful and talented John Edwards. OTOH, it would also be stupid for the Kerry Administration not to use Edwards, as talented as he is.

Edited: for spelling

With any luck we will have Kerry for the next 8 years to bring us out of this war. And we will have Edwards there to help give us back the Senate and help in the House. And we will have Clark to help mend this mess with other nations and foreign leaders.

And yes, people will be sick of 'fear, terror and war'. Kerry will provide steady leadership but Edwards will provide hope for the future and Clark offers experience in diplomatic area with other nations. The three of them together is a killer combination.

The best hope we have for now and in the future is..

Kerry: Pres.
Edwards: VP
Clark: Sec. of State

Think for a moment of what Cheney has done. Then think of what Colin Powell has done. Why do Clark supporters want to put Clark into Cheney's seat instead of putting him into Powell's seat?

It's all Bush can run on right now. We've made the case he should be removed. Now we have to make the case the country would be safer in Democrats hands (usually seen to be "weak"). Clark does that wonderfully. Anyone who doubts he'd make a fantastic VP should check out the cover story he wrote for Washington Monthly

Also, remember he taught economics, so he's no slouch on the economy either.

The real deal vs the fakes. Finish off the Chicken Hawks once and for all with people who love America, know that we need to protect it, but hate the pain and carnage that actual war brings. Kerry was a founder of Viet Vets against the War for crying out loud. Clark was one of the longest and fiercest opponents to invading Iraq in the first place. They can speak truth to the American people without being marginalized as wimpy liberals by the Rowe machine, though Lord knows they will try anyway.

brings an expertise in having experience in diplomacy while at war. He is well respected around the world. He hits the ground running in the diplomatic world with the credibility issue. He is probably one of the few people who would actually be qualified as VP, Sec of State, Sec of Def although he is mot eligible because he has not been out of the military long enough, or NSA. These qualities and credentials makes him not only attractive to the voters but to world leaders who know "who they are going to deal with" and know that he is qualified. He is also very good at articulating the reason for making "war the last resort"

the other side of the world than we care about whether you're going to lose your house and have to move somewhere with shitty public schools which will ruin your kids' future."

However, it is really hard to play out where things will be in November. Bush has a lot of options. He could October surpise a Democratic ticket from either direction, regardless of the composition of the ticket, and I'm sure they have plans which cover all contingencies.

Any Democratic ticket -- even a military ticket -- could be spun into not being good on military issues, and do you really want to run a campaign on how to define who's stronger on military issues? Doing that runs the risk of pushing Dems' strongest issues -- economics and class and opportunity -- to the periphery. Then again, I can imagine an October surprise which could totally foreclose the possibility of any non-military polician from getting elected (but if things get that bad, would even the best Dem on military issues have a chance?).

Bush has a lot of cards to play, and maybe the best thing would just be flexibility on the ticket -- ie, don't tip the balance too far in any direction. Maybe balance on the ticket results in the most confusion about strategy for the Republicans.

to pay for housing, food education.

Clark has a degree in Economics.

So you basically have no argument.

If they were, he would have done better in the primaries.

I think people are reacting to set of ideas and images that don't have much to do with what he says. They have to do with the title and the uniform more than what comes out of his mouth.

I'm somewhat concerned that the prisoner torture will turn many away from all things military. If that happens, then Clark would be a bad choice for VP. Otherwise, I think he is the best selection for VP because he helps shore up the ticket on national security so Kerry can focus on domestic issues. I think that's a winning campaign strategy.

I must admit that I was enamored of a Kerry-Clark ticket for a long time, but there isn't enough balance on the ticket. I think Edwards is a much better speaker, and brings a much needed sense of economic populism and hope to the campaign.



And, if you didn't notice during the primaries, Kerry and Edwards got along very well personally.

Clark got a Master of Economics from Oxford and taught economics and political science at West Point. And he's been on the board of several companies.

in the end, he endorsed NAFTA.

And he sucks as a speaker... unless you like listening to someone who says NOTHING.

Edwards is pretty close to being similar to Reagan.

since Wes is a bigtime Reagan fan

We don't know how things will turn out in the next two months. We do know that war will be top of everyone's mind. Gas rates, inflation and rising interest rates are going to hit home on the economic side.

I just read today that the Fed's are cutting their money for Forest Fire Fighting this year by a large amount. This year when the fire threat is higher then last year. Why? There's no money in the budget. Why? It's going to the war effort and homeland security.

I believe that in 3 months from now people will be desperate to hear anything of hope and optimism for the future. Edwards can help Kerry give that message. He can sharpen that imagine. That the Democrats are the party of hope and change.

Clark is made for the Secretary of State. In that position, he will be able to speak to world leaders and try to begin to help our international relations. This is something I don't see him able to do as VP. Do you see Cheney out there meeting with World Leaders and speaking to the UN or do you see Powell doing this?

Edwards can help with Fund-raising and getting the Senate back to the Democrats. He's viewed as a moderate who will help to keep Kerry in check for those conservatives who are afraid of Kerry.

The best combination is Edwards VP and Clark Sec. of State. It keeps the top from being too military. Edwards comes from a whole generation who were not old enough to serve in the Vietnam war, but it allows Clark to use his skills where they can work best.

Male vote? Kerry and Edwards both poll well with women but not as well with men. Clark polled better with males than Women.

So john-john, Senator-senator, voted for the war-voted for the war, voted against the 87 billion-voted against the 87 billion, Prosecutor-Personal injury attorney is a balance?

Kerry talks a lot and can get boring....Edwards talks a lot and says very little.

Guess the 10 year difference is about the only "balance"....along with a Heavyweight vs. a lightweight.


oh, oh, oh....I almost forgot, Edwards is considered "cute"...and those same people, I guess, are saying that Kerry is not.

Give me a break! Edwards' popularity is media induced!

Every time I ask how Edwards is going to debate Cheney, when he agrees that their is a connection between 9-11 and the Iraq War, I am ignored. Lieberman and Edwards maintained throughout the debate that the B$$$ policy in Iraq was the proper one.

Clark, while campaigning, warned us of "The Military Industrial Complex" and Edwards still cheerleads this damn war. Big difference between their views on war. One has been there, done that...the other hasn't. Guess which one hasn't? The cheerleader. :(

It comes with the territory.
Even our Governor sounds conservative.

He believes that getting rid of Saddam Husein was a good thing. I don't know how many people would claim it would be a good thing to keep him in power. He disagrees with the method that Bush used. Like Kerry, he wanted more UN involvement. His very position on the war, is the reason why Swing Republicans would be tempted to cross the line and vote for Kerry.

Also, please remember the time frame when this vote came up. Remember Powell before the UN. How many of you watched that and didn't have a sense of doubt. That maybe...maybe there were WMD's there. Also...look at the state that Edwards comes from. The very votes that he would bring with him would agree with his position.

Going in without more allies and UN support was wrong, but I can not say that getting rid of Saddam Hussein wasn't something good.

He has the same view and has the experience. Edwards and Lieberman both still say their is a connection between 9-11 and the Iraq War. This has nothing to do with the time frame or the WMD, this is their belief and this is now. The UN did not go in with us because they knew better. If we want Rethugs who think this way, why get rid of Bushco? We need some one who understands the real world.

Edwards and Kerry seem to have the same ideas about the war - muddy ones to many folks. Let's get an anti-war but knowledgeable person in there.

overwhelming. Yes, it would be the antithesis of the Chickenhawk ticket of Bush-Cheney, but it would also paint the Dem Party as extremely militant.

With Clark as the VP, I can see Kerry easily becoming the next Lyndon Johnson -- Iraq will be to Kerry what Vietnam was to Johnson. Clark supported the Vietnam War as a noble war and I could see him, pushing Kerry to stay sinking in the quagmire of Iraq. And Kerry will feel just as stuck in Iraq as Johnson did in Vietnam. Kerry wiil be haunted by his youthful words -- "Who wants to be the man to tell the last man that he died for a mistake?" -- and like Johnson, will not want to remove troops from Iraq for fear of looking weak.

you will find he is far more liberal than many of the others being considered. I think liberals/greens are just looking at the stars and not looking at what the man stands for.

Kerry voted for the war and makes his military service a central part of his campaign. Kerry and Clark have a right to talk about their time in the military, but I for one am sick of war and anyone who represents war. I wish we would stop giving into the Republican idea that military power is the greatest source of America's strength.

The Constitution makes the commander-in-chief a civilian for a good reason!

working class.

How did they let George Washington in?

National Security. It's the only issue that Bush beats him on in the polls.

As for a "military ticket", just being a vet from a war fought over 30 years ago doesn't make you a "military man", heh. If it did, don't you think he would be doing better on national security? The Dem base isn't going to abandon Kerry because he puts an anti-war General on the ticket, that's just dumb.

Iraq is blowing up right now, and it's only going to get worse. Kerry already has the domestic issues on his side. Shoring up his ability to deal with other issues through the ticket is not a bad idea.

in my dreams! ;-)

Unlike some of you, I like Johnny Sunshine a lot. I once dreamed of a Clark/Edwards ticket, as a matter of fact.

Well, it ain't gonna happen, not this time around anyway, but it's a sweet fantasy for 2012--or even 2008, if the mucking out of the BushCo stables has so exhausted John Kerry that he decides to hand it all off to Wes.

I think picking Clark would send a message to the rest of the world and fear would ensue. Nothing against Clark, I like him a lot. Bush has made this country look like a Western Movie, gun ho and ready to go blow up any country that looks at us crooked. The rest of the world could view Clark, because of Kosovo, as a threat of more violence. That isn't fair to Clark, but I think that is what the rest of the world would see.

We also need some feeling of peace and hope in this country again. So, we have terrorists, most of the world does. But we have to rise above our fear and anxiety and move forward into the future. We need to stop being fed fear every day by the media and Bushco. We have economic, education, health care and a wide variety of problems of our own in the country. Bushco is totally disconnected from every one of us as a person. Even as an American, he has questioned our love of our country. We need to vote him out and get a new movement forward in a positive way. If not, he surely is going to start WWIII. O'Reilly said on his show tonight while talking about the prison scandal. We should have declared war, doesn't everybody in the world know we are into WWIII.????!!!!!

That is why we need to vote him out. I'm sure Kerry will do what is right for America and for himself.