Could someone explain why Wesley Clark is such a popular vice-presidential pick on DU?

I genuinely don't know enough about him to have much an opinion on him, but he constantly does well in threads here when people list possible picks for Senator Obama...or at least he does in the ones I see.

Many of us wanted him to run again this cycle and many of us are long time Clarkies. He's a great man and would be a tremendous asset to Obama.

He's a safe choice.

I would prefer Biden.

--meaning made it close enough to steal. Why in goddam HELL do we want yet more of it?

Read his University of Pennsylvania speech.(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/campaign/25TEXT-KERRY.html) This was the speech that George Will was referring to whan he said that Kerry was right in 2006 when international intelligence and law enforcement did likely stop a major terrorism plot. Those comments were there and they were clear - and are being repeated (paraphrased) by Democrats since then. There was also the Matt Bai article in the NYT magazine, where Kerry offered the hope of a future where the threat of terrorism was not the dark gray cloud hanging over everything - but something that was for the most part stopped by law enforcement. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?pagewanted=all&position=

It was Kerry, who against nearly every power there was, who pushed uncovered the international money laundering done by BCCI for international criminals, drug cartels and nonstate terrorists including OBL. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html) In line with what he was proposing in 2004, Kerry had already written the legislation to provide tools against international money laundering that vested interest (Republicans and some Democrats, the banks) fought through the 199os. He also wrote a book, "The New War" to try to wake people up in the 1990s. Kerry's legislation was included in the Patriot Act. Last month, there was a Finance committee hearing dealing with that effort - http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitepages/hearings.htm - it is an April 1, 2008 hearing, click where it says to under that hearing in the listing.You may want to listen to Kerry pushing them to demand to do more in Pakistan and Afghanistan - Kerry starts at 1:43 on that, and at 1:28 where he speaks of his earlier work. The entire hearing is interesting and somewhat scary. (This is the serious real effort, not politics)

Now that Kerry is not running, he and others have founded a group that is working towards a bi-partisan approach to national security. It seems to me that it is an effort to counter the neo-cons who have several think tanks. It seems broad based pulling in people from both parties. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x148311

This is why people like Richard Clarke said of him in 2004 that he was among few elected officials who understood terrorism. Clarke is now supporting Obama.

Wes Clark was a great surrogate, but as you might expect for someone who never ran before, he was not a tremendously good candidate - imploding after a spectacular entry into the political scene - written up as an impossibly good knight in shing armor.

Just saying that "reporting for duty" at the convention and all this "stronger America" stuff was a FRAME that contradicted his stated policy. Many more people saw the frame than remembered the details of his policy speeches. The problem with the war hero framing is that it feeds into the Repuke "be very afraid--only if society is run like a boot camp can you be safe" meme. And Kerry didn't bother to go after Gephardt's Osama ad against Dean, which also reinforced the wrong frame. He also did not attack the fake bin Laden video used against him, which might have been done with a counter-ad showing how easy voice-morphing is.

Obama has made a good step in this direction by invoking a "good judgment" frame, which is far broader than a military strength frame.

"Perfumed prince" horseshit = purple heart bandaid horseshit

Journey

Enough said.

8 years from now Don't stop Believing as a campaign song....I'm so there.

He gets the best stuff.

:hippie:

except maybe to pander to and appease the warmonger electorate

You have no idea who the man is, quite obviously.

Plus he's photogenic.

I am anything but a warmonger, and I stood behind Clark 100%...because what he said was...THE LAST OPTION, THE VERY LAST OPTION...IS WAR...AFTER EVERYTHING ELSE FAILS...A 4* General who was wounded, and had to learn to walk again...KNOWS of what he speaks when it comes to war...like no one else can...!!..oh, and I had a husband that served in that same war...wb

You are just feeding this fucking REPUKE FEAR MEME! Cut it the hell out! We are electing a PRESIDENT, not a "commander in chief". It was this attitude that made it possible for the Rethugs to steal 2004. How can we win when we use exactly the same framing as the Rethugs? When we do that, every campaign speech says that they are right and we are wrong, and that means quite a bit more coming from us.

The last time this entire country was at war was in the 40s. Since then, the only people who have been at war are soldiers and their families--everyone else has had nothing to do with it. In the 40s, we had ration cards and 90% top tax rates to pay for it. FDR was called "Mr President", not fucking "commander in chief," though he handled that aspect of his job very well. He was a Navy veteran, but you never caught him prancing around in sailor suits.

kidding?....Cut what the hell out????....FEAR MEME???....I seriously think you missed the point I was making entirely...THAT CLARK WOULDN'T SUPPORT OR WANT WAR...BECAUSE HE'S BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT...and knows it isn't the answer...I am not sure what the hell you are responding too here...but don't tell me to cut anything the "hell" out...you are out of line AND YOU MISUNDERSTOOD TO BOOT!!...To begin with, I didn't realize Clark was running for President, I must have missed that memo...and by the way, when you elect a President, you also elect the Commander in Chief...they are the same person, and IF that bothers you..sorry nothing I can do about it...wb

--just saying that this nonsense about "we have to have a military candidate or we have no credibility on 'defense'" is nonsense. I'm talking about "reporting for duty," "a stronger America," Gephardt's bin Laden ad in the Iowa primary, Clinton's constant promotion of the "commander in chief" fear meme, etc.--not just about Clark as a VP choice. Clark's experience of war makes him not delusional about what it can accomplish, but that is not enough--his supporters ought to also be breaking the Rethug frame and not reinforcing it.

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2008/03/17/ask-rockridge-we-need-a-president-not-just-a-commander-in-chief

Though the words themselves are neutral, they have been used within a right-wing frame that is not obvious. The frame includes the following:

--The overriding challenge facing our country is military in nature.
--The military role of the president is therefore far more important than all of the other jobs he or she performs.
--Military experience, or direct experience with military affairs (e.g., the Armed Services Committee) is the single most important experience needed for the presidency.
--The country should be governed on a military basis. The state should first and foremost be a security state.
--The temperament needed for a president is martial; the president should be a fighter and should be engaged in fighting.
--The governing style for a president should be giving orders and making sure they are carried out. Others in public service should be obedient to the president’s orders.

That is what it means to make the “commander-in-chief” question the main issue in a campaign. The commander-in-chief frame shifts the role of the president away from governing our nation and into the more limited scope of managing military affairs. It takes us away from domestic questions, including other questions of protection and leadership.

That frame is not what America is about. It does not embody fundamental American values. Nor does it portray what the role of the government is in our democracy. The dual roles of government are protection and empowerment, as we have written elsewhere. Protection is not just military or police protection, but a wide range: consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, social security, protection from natural disasters and disease, and protection from economic devastation.

The kind of military chain of command and absolute authority in wartime does not apply to most functions of the president. The president is not supposed to be commander-in-chief of Congress, nor commander-in-chief of the FBI or the Justice Department, nor commander-in-chief of the American people. Right now he isn't even Commander-in-Chief of Blackwater, a private army.

let me back up...I personally never said, nor did I infer..that we HAD TO ELECT...or NEEDED TO ELECT...or ABSOLUTELY HAD TO HAVE a, any, another, one, or any type whatsoever of a military person in the WH, in the VP residence, or even in DC at all...in order to be up on foreign policy..have credibility on defense, or any other of those memes...that he had to consider he was "reporting for duty"...or that whomever is elected had to play the role of "commander in chief" moreso than he had to, simply put...be President...Hell, the guy that's in there now and all his cronies, didn't even serve honorably in the military, or at all.

I don't know where you get all the shit you are spewing in response to my post...but don't put words in my mouth...I never said anything like what you are giving me credit for...

Show me where I said...
1.--The overriding challenge facing our country is military in nature.
2.--The military role of the president is therefore far more important than all of the other jobs he or she performs.
3.--Military experience, or direct experience with military affairs (e.g., the Armed Services Committee) is the single most important experience needed for the presidency.
4.--The country should be governed on a military basis. The state should first and foremost be a security state.
5.--The temperament needed for a president is martial; the president should be a fighter and should be engaged in fighting.
6.--The governing style for a president should be giving orders and making sure they are carried out. Others in public service should be obedient to the president’s orders.

What I did say...was that Clark's having served, being wounded, gave him up close and personal experience at fighting a war, and would therefore help keep us out of war, because he's against it, and feels it should only be considered a very last resort...or some such thing...I never said his military experience was the only thing that mattered, or should be considered...or that it made him a far better candidate for any office...In fact, as I said...I didn't get the memo that said Clark was running for ANY office....sheesh!! I suggest you calm down, or go attack someone who deserved it...damn..!!wb
ps: this conversation is ended.. there will be NO further response from me...the whole thing is moot!!

Honestly, I would personally prefer Richardson, but I think Clark would be the strongest possible candidate.

Obama/Richardson ticket will get crushed

he spoke out against the war at a time when we needed him to...What I loved best about him was he said it took 4 yrs of being retired to get over military brainwashing to believe everything coming out of pentagon and whitehouse.

I actually liked him better than Kerry, originally. He is a retired 4 star general of the army and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. the Military/Diplomatic background appealed to me.

I've never seen anyone who has such a firm grasp, a genuine understanding, of foreign relations, diplomacy, and world history. Not just trivial pursuit history, but practical history and how it affects our lives today as a species. I think he has a level of intelligence that far surpasses that of some of the country's most renound "experts."

Does that help? :D

Rhodes scholar, 1st in his class at West point, War hero (almost died in Vietnam), decent speaker, fierce attack dog, and is a man of the south....but quite progressive.

** The ticket would be a sure winner. Kerry/Clark would have won, and for the other reasons in this post.

** Clark is a happy warrior with a tradition of playing hatchet man for the boss's boss.
It's how he made his career. He will not undermine the top of the ticket
or refuse to take the fight to Republicans, or refuse to use the candidate's slogan.

** Military credentials from a pro-peace in the Middle East figure. former Supreme Allied Commander. Started Stopiranwar.com

** Willing to speak out on unpopular positions and make them mainstream. This is what the Republicans are expert at (Overton Approach to politics).

** Built a career as a liberal in the Military

** Former economics professor and genius academic

** From Arkansas. Popular with working class, military families, the same people who voted for Webb in VA.

** Air Force man I believe. Air Force is big in Colorado and Ohio.

** Richardson, another top candidate would only help in the SW, McCain's strongest area. Sadly, despite his homespun appeal he would hurt Obama with northeastern white ethnics uncomfortable with "Mexicans" and "black preachers", i.e. Clinton voters. :-(

HE knows his stuff.

I hope to have him back when
we take over...

Smart talker.

It's tough for the right to call him unpatriotic.

I would prefer to see him take over the Pentegon and try to get that organization cleaned up.

He is a thoughtful and brilliant man, something we are sorely missing in DC these days. He understands the impacts of undertaking a war and would push back on jumping into future wars. He is a negotiater and he is creative and can think outside of the box.

Wes Clark is the man. He is handsome on top of all of that.

clark has been supporting Clinton. Why would Obama want someone that is still supporting his opponent?

I never understood the clarkies.

Progressive military brass (Supreme Allied Commander of NATO - that's a badass title), southern Democrat, Clinton ally, speaks something like seven languages...Just what we need to shore up those who fear Obama's foreign policy "inexperience" when running against a Vet who makes (erroneous) foreign policy his cornerstone.

I liked him in 2004 and I'd LOVE him as veep this year.

1. Military experience - 4 star, wounded in Vietnam, fought the War in Kosovo without the loss of a single American soldier.
2. Saved a Muslim people - the Kosovar Albanians - from genocide. Not too many Americans have streets named after them in Muslim countries.
3. Opposed the War in Iraq BEFORE it started and testified to Congress AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR and the neocon agenda. Said that "War should always be the last resort".
4. Extensive foreign policy experience as Saceur of NATO and respect for the role diplomacy plays in foreign affairs.
5. Stealth "liberal" - Here is his answer to Bill Maher on why he is a libera:

"We live in a liberal democracy....That’s what we created in this country. I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment... It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."
Interview with Bill Maher, on Real Time with Bill Maher (5 September 2003)
6. Had the most progressive health care plan in 2004

7. Opposed the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.

8. Pro-choice.

9. Filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case.

10. Would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.

11. Endorsed by numerous gay and lesbian organizations/publications

12. Has experience in emergency management
13. On board of company that is involved in windpower.
14. Would be the first half Jewish Vice President.
15. Shares connection to the University of Chicago with Obama - his father went to law school there.
16. His wife, Gertrude, is awesome, outspoken, great Brooklyn accent.
17. Son Wes Jr and daughter-in-law Astrid (who is Hispanic) are adorable and have two little boys.
18. Gets the votes of middle aged and older white women, especially if they see his bathing suit pictures.
19. Connection to Clintons
20. Started out as a poor campaigner but learned to debate the right wing while serving as an analyst for Fox News.

:patriot:

and I think it might be the unity ticket we are looking for.

Make of it what you will...

What could Obama do for Richardson, is the question? You have to reward what Richardson did.

I worry about trying to elect 1st AA and 1st Hispanic at the same. Hate to say this, but I think we need an old white guy. Like, Clark, Biden, Graham. Richardson showed a lot of political courage for sure.

But he'd also make a great Secretary of State.

because the only thing they may score points on Obama is national security against a war "hero" candidate. I also like Biden. But what do I know? :shrug:

As a former active duty naval officer, I think too much is made of the candidates having to have military experience. And I also think that the Democratic Party has tried to out-hawk the Republicans on too many occasions.

Consider when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend the then Lieutenant Governor of Maryland lost (I think it was the 2002) Governor's election to Elrich. One of the flaws in Townsend's campaign was her running mate. Playing the military card, she picked a naval admiral from Annapolis as her running mate when she had just as many more qualified Democrats to pick from. In that same election, Janet Reno had name recognition as the candidate to run for Governor in Fla. The Democratic Party pushed a male with less name recognition who happened to be a real estate developer and former Vietnam Vet....The rest was history. Reno would have had a stronger chance to defeat the incumbent - Jeb Bush - in that election.

Military experience is fine but it should not be a litmus test or some criteria that a candidate is suited for office. What other qualifications does Clark have? Granted, I wish more of the 'leaders' in our legislature were more knowledgeable about the military...If that were the case, they might not be so quick to send our sons and daughters off to war....

But why does our culture have to put military service on such a high pedestal above other kinds of service? What about candidates with experience in the Peace Corps?

I believe that the fact that we are fighting two wars, a place on the ticket for him is not a bad idea.

Considering who we are running against, I believe that he would pretty "made to order".

Well, there's Chris Dodd. Frankly, Wes Clark is more of a peace-monger than Dodd.

I don't know why.

If he had run this year I would have been behind him. I was part of the Draft Clark movement in 2004 as well.

I can imagine his VP acceptance speech blasting McCain right now and it would make Zell Miller look like a Pussy.

"clarkies" that stick around here thru thick and thin, hoping that any dem front runner will suck it so they can rush in and offer him up as the saviour of the party. They have user names and avatars that depict him as the messiah, and have had since 2004. It's quite scary really. We put up with them for they are kindly referred to as "enthusiasts" around here and have been deemed harmless by most long timers. Left over from the 2004 primaries, they congregate here as they have little or no clout anywhere else on the net.

I would have you go to the archives of THE NATION magazine and do a search on one Wesley Clark. It's very informative.

He is Webb without the Tailhook skeleton and without the vulnerable Senate seat.

Richardson would be good as well. But would not help outside of the southwest.

Clark would boost Obama (or Kerry) in all parts of the country, as I said in 04.

And we will never get good oversight and control of the military budget until we can get someone in or near the presidency who doesn't have to spend/waste billions to prove they support a strong defense.

Wes Clark would be a strong advocate and resource for the President on this issue. He can appeal both to people worried about national security--and is trusted by many who opposed the war in Iraq. Just a thought...

What a great thread, before my time.

The good ol' days!!





Thanks! :rofl:

one of the best evah!

Props to Indian Green for being the good-natured straight man
& to Will Pitt for not getting it at all & then getting it all.

or something along those lines? I'd say that takes him out of the running.

what it would take to get out of Iraq (when she was commenting on that same show where she called Hillary a monster) was "different" than what Obama was saying.....although Power was only making clear that whatever "plan" Obama has now, he would have to look at the issue again for the "real plans" once he got into office...duh, that would make sense.

Clark was wrong in trying to take the statement out of context (Power endorsed Clark in 2004), but that was politics. He didn't inpugne Obama's character tho....although at the time, I thought Clark had said more than it turned out he had said. So although he was on the wrong team, representing the wrong candidate (who was saying a lot of nasty things), Wes Clark never went over the line in reference to Obama....not in public, that I know of, anyways....although there may be other instances that I'm not aware of.

he has military credentials, but he is not a good public speaker, and is less than believable when he tries to get "forceful"..

Frankly, the president HAS plenty of military advice.. It's called the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the whole damned pentagon and a Sec of defense... there is not real need for a "military guy" to bolster credentials of a presidential candidate, by picking a military person as vp..

Personally, I would prefer someone with a PHD in economics or a high profile "favorite son/daughter" of a state we might have a shot at getting (one we might not get otherwise)..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5835505

This horseshit about how we need to be validated by military connections is what is losing us elections, because it is a Repuke frame that says they are always right and we are always wrong. Not that Clark and Kerry don't have many other strong points, but this attitude that we have to nominate them because they are "safer" candidates is destroying us. It's about time we realized that we have some horrendous security threats facing us in global warming, resource wars in an overpopulated and overconsuming world, resource wars, widepsread alienation and despair that leads to unpredictable and devastating violence, etc. Not a single goddamned one of these threats has a military solution. It's about time we had a candidate for the office of PRESIDENT willing to say so.

the 2004 primary discussion here was dominated by dean vs clark until kerry won IA and NH

1)By picking Gen. Clark we would not have have to sacrifice another candidate like Web from the Senate where we need the votes.

2)The guy has the most amazing resume compared to ANYONE ON THE PLANET. I'm serious you will never see a resume like his anywhere in the world. It's literally sick.

3)His Defense and war experience which would make McCain look like a boy scout.

4)He was a Rhodes Scholar.

5)He is from Arkansas which would help us carry the South.

6)He is personable and has improved in his campaigning.

7)Wow would it piss off Hillary to take her VP choice LOL.

White haired white guy with military cred and FoPo experience.

If that doesn't balance out the ticket, then nothing will.

sense as a possible candidate or VP candidate).

If you agree with me that the key issue will be the economy, Clark brings little to the table, but some people still remember how much they liked him way back in 2004 so they bring his name up again now.

Clark killed a bunch of people.

It's just that simple.

Why can't they put him in DoD or head of NATO? I don't want a military in that post when there's a chance, however slight, of them becoming a sitting president.

The fact he was a General doesn't mean he'll be bringing a Pentagon or war-mongering mentality into the White House---just the opposite. But since he is anti-war for the most part (not a pacifist, but someone who would wage war as a last resort), the fact that he has the military experience gives him more cred when debating the Republicans, especially with McCain as their nominee.