Gen. Clark's bars could take Kerry far

[StephNW4Clark]

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

Yet incompetence is a problem. If the war really had ended last May, when Bush proudly stood on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner saying ``Mission Accomplished,'' Iraq would doubtless be an electoral advantage to the president. But the mounting death toll, the intractable resistance of militants, the failure to win the ``hearts and minds'' of ordinary Iraqis and the abuse scandal all raise, as Clark says, ``the larger issue of the success or failure of the mission in Iraq.''

From Kerry's point of view, the issue is powerful. He doesn't need to argue for a dramatic change in U.S. policy, such as unilaterally pulling out of Iraq or disengaging ourselves from the war on terror. Rather, he simply needs to argue that - unlike Bush - he would do the job right.

And in his role as NATO supreme commander, Clark in fact did do the job right.
***************

Although Clark has received little notice as a VP candidate, he has been making his presence felt. Just this weekend he was front and center, lambasting the administration on ``Meet the Press.'' And Kerry and Clark are now reportedly on good terms, with Clark graciously conceding the race in February and quickly endorsing Kerry.

Admittedly, Clark made an unpersuasive presidential candidate. VP is a different case, however. Unlike almost all of the other oft-mentioned but vanilla-plain VP possibilities, Clark will capture media attention. He will give Kerry the standing to wage a campaign on his terms targeted at what now appears to be Bush's greatest weakness. It's a formula for a win in November.

[Purrfessor]

1. Count me in the Clark-for-VP camp

Gore made a major mistake in picking Lieberman. I hope Kerry doesn't make a similar mistake by choosing someone like Gephardt. I know little about Vilsack, but regardless, he doesn't have the military background and name recognition like Clark.

Go Clark Go

[eileen from OH]

2. Look, I like Clark - quite a bit, actually. . .

But this sounds very much like all the arguments I heard for him being the perfect Presidential candidate, i.e., the military background, experience, etc. Isn't that what we've already got in Kerry? Do we have to double up on the military thing? You know they would trash Clark's background just as much. (Little things like facts don't get in the way of smears.) It's almost like admitting that Kerry isn't the big war hero and stuff (i.e. the smears worked) so now we gotta fix it by getting another one on the ticket.

I am just fine with Clark for VP, but would prefer someone who's biggest strengths aren't just a magnification of Kerry's. I think he'd be a huge asset as a potential Cabinet member, but would prefer Edwards for VP. He really connects with people, has charisma in spades, and is the perfect "warm" counterpoint to what some see as Kerry's "aloofness". Immensely likeable - and JK's campaign needs a big dollop of that. In fact, I think that's exactly what the campaign needs to goose it up and shake some perceptions loose.

I also think Edwards would be as big, if not bigger, asset in the Midwest, than Gep (who is very popular in the rust belt. But soooo boring, y'know?)

eileen from OH

[Mountainman]

3. perfect "warm" counterpoint

Have you ever seen Gen. Clark's smile? He smiles all the time unless it is when he's being attacked by some wingnut commentator.

I like Edwards also but my money is on Clark.

[Stuckinthebush]

4. Agreed, Eileen

I think you are exactly right. What do we get from Clark that we can't already point to in Kerry? Besides Clark being a General, the GOP will still tar him with the "not military enough" brush. They already have, for goodness sakes! I think Clark could swat those flies away rather easily, but what else do we get from Clark? No experience, he is not the best debater out there, he is not very charismatic...I just don't see him as the biggest asset.

Edwards on the other hand may give us some things that Kerry doesn't have.

[cidliz2004]

5. VP choices

Clark was the Captain of his Debate Team. The U.S. is in crisis. The crisis is mainly stemming from Foreign Policy. Clark is the unchallenged most qualified in this area. Edwards will be mincemeat for the GOP. A one term senator that didn't even finish his one and only term! A trial lawyer (ambulence chaser). (This is just what the GOP will start with) An inexperienced person in the #2 seat in the White House???? Country cannot be in that bad of shape if we could put an inexperienced person in the #2 spot. Another GOP spot to target. What do you think that the GOP will do when they pour over each and every case of Edwards? What might they uncover???? Even if every case was a great showing for Edwards, there will be twists and spins on interpretation. The American people don't respect lawyers as it is, Rove won't have to push to hard to make Edwards look bad.

I choose substance over charisma, charm - blah blah blah. Plenty of options that have more meat to bring to the table. As far as doing well in the midwest - - - I think not - I am from the midwest and we cut through the charm, charisma -blah -blah- blah and go for substance, believe me. Edwards is likeable but hardly qualified and definetly NOT the best choice for VP. Not even 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th.

God Forbid, if in the early days something happened to Kerry, Oh my God. Edwards would have to depend on everybody else, because he has NO EXPERIENCE on which to draw from. PLEASE, let go of attractiveness and go for substance and experience.

Clark is, by the way, attractive to many many people as well as a good speaker AND he connects with people quite well, thank you very much. When the GOP says that the Dems are weak on Defense....well - two War Heroes, One 4 Star General, Fought Kosovo - no U.S. loss of life. Author of books on war. An Intellectual. Knows the Pentagon inside and out. Independent thinker. Not owned by anybody. Can hit the floor running in January. No "down time" to learn all about everything. Foreign Leaders 15 - 20 of them have given Wes Clark Awards because of their knowledge and respect of him. Please, I haven't even started - Edwards is NO MATCH PERIOD!

cidliz2004

"Besides Clark being a General, the GOP will still tar him with the "not military enough" brush." What does that mean????? A GENERAL IS NOT MILITARY ENOUGH??????? (No logic)

WHY DID THE GOP APPROACH WES CLARK TO RUN FOR OFFICE IN ARKANSAS AS A REPUBLICAN BEFORE CLARK REGISTERED AS A DEMOCRAT???????

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Hang on, cowboy...

I'm not an Edwards groupie so don't paint me with that brush.

I'm from the South. I have had a number of GOP voters tell me that they like Kerry but if he had Edwards on the ticket then that would seal the deal. I believe them. You see, the South likes its people. Edwards is seen as a man from the South - Clark is not seen that way. Don't ask me why, but he is not. Edwards is. He is more charismatic than Clark and he is a much better debater. I don't care if Clark was the captain of his debate team, he was very unpolished in many of the Dem debates I saw him in and that was the reaction of GOP and swing voters I know.

As for the GOP tarring him with the not military enough brush, what I was saying is that they have already attacked him (quite successfully) as being a lame general who doesn't have the respect of his peers. That is the word among GOP voters in the south that I know. So, yes...he can be described as not a good military man regardless of his rank. We are talking about GOP voters here, not logical beings.

I don't love or hate Clark. He is fine. I think he would be a fine VP - but I don't think he is the best choice for Kerry. I will go out on a limb and bet that he won't be Kerry's choice. If he is...wonderful...but I don't see it happening.

All I care about right now is getting Kerry elected president. I don't give a rat's ass about the Clark/Edwards debate that is ever-present on this board. From a Deaniacs perspective, Clark ain't it -but if he is the choice, I'll back him 100%.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi cidliz2004!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mia]

6. With Clark on the ticket, we'll win in November.

Clark has the ability to garner the votes of thinking Republicans and Independents. I'm a new Democrat because of Clark, and my Republican family and friends respect Clark for his knowledge of Foreign Policy and his devotion to our soldiers.

Having seen Clark speak at a dozen events in New Hampshire and Florida, I can attest to the fact that Clark is charismatic and energizes the audience. It doesn't hurt that he's brilliant and nice-looking.

He's a compelling speaker and will capture media attention.

[DrBB]

7. I come from a family of Republicans who increasingly don't like Bush

They do respect Clark. Nothing to do with his policy positions, which are if anything leftier than Kerry's. But because he's a Serious Military Guy, not a dingbat fratboy or a pie-in-the-sky neocon. Voting the "character issue" is everything to them, and Clark scores high by all the measures they respect. Clark's presence on the ticket could raise their comfort level considerably. Kerry is on the other side of the cultural divide for them, as defined by his having been a Viet Nam war protestor. Having Clark--also a VN vet, but not a protestor--helps them see Kerry in the light of one who volunteered to go to the Nam, rather than one who came back and protested.

Anyway, as long as it isn't Gephardt....

[swinney]

10. Amen Clark has has charisma and will not take junk