Wesley Clark should not be a VP candidate

[bluestateguy]

I'm not so sure that he would be all that useful as a vice presdential candidate. Yes, he could beat Cheney in a debate, but look at the Lloyd Bensten and Dan Quayle debate in 1988. What did Dukakis gain from that? Maybe a point or two in the polls, which quickly vanished within a few days? The bottom line is that people just don't vote for vice president. Having well recognized buffoons on the ticket did not stop people from electing the Eisenhower/Nixon ticket twice or the Bush/Quayle ticket. Yes, Clark may help to slightly boost the nominee's standing on national security matters, but not as much as we all might hope. In the end, the issue will be the PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE'S record, and the PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE's poasitions on the issues, not who is supporting the nominee. If we want to out-perform Republicans on national security, we should consider Clark for the presidential nomination, not the second spot.

[Gore1FL]

1. I wouldn;t worry about it

VPs hardly ever come from candidates who ran for the nomination.

[CoffeePlease1947]

2. Yes and No

I don't think he should be VP if he can be President. But, if he can not win the nomination than I would rather have him be the VP than not at all on the ticket.

I agree that some others not running for President would help Clark more than one of the nine running.

A VP can help in some cases. Some candidates it doesn't matter because they are such weak or strong candidates that the VP has little weight. In other cases it is so close that the VP being from a swing state can make all the difference.

Clark as VP would help a candidate weak in foreign policy. However, Clark has numerous people he can choose that are strong in domestic policy. Nor does it matter if that VP has any foreign relations experience. Lots of people he can choose from. Breaux, Richardson, Richards, Hillary, Bayh, Graham, Warner, Neopolitan, and many more.

Mike

[w4rma]

3. IMHO, Clark would be a perfect VP for Dean because they are like Yin&Yang

Dean is the domestic policy expert.
Clark is the foreign policy expert.

Dean is the civilian doctor.
Clark is the military general.

Clark seems to pick up votes from supporters of all candidates except Dean.
Even on DU he grabs the votes of most of the non-Dean supporters when he is pitted against only Dean.

It's not strong vs. weak. Its a situation where they complement one another because of them having near opposite resumes while agreeing on nearly everything.

[unfrigginreal]

4. Talk about an underestimation?

To begin with Clark is from the South...Arkansas to be exact...secondly, he has shown his abilities in debate mode...you didn't see any of his appearances with Sean Hannity? He whipped his ass! Clark is no Cheyney or Lieberman. Thirdly, he was a four star General! Christ, whens the last time we had one of those in the Democratic party ( you realize that he was the same rank as Powell, don't you).

To take it further, he's a Rhodes Scholar, and it shows...he has NO problem dissecting a situation and offering solutions.

I can't even begin to imagine that anyone on this board would find him unqualified for either President or Vice President.

[stickdog]

5. Look at this from Dean's POV, and you'll see how it makes

perfect sense.

From Clark's POV, he gets the experience and high profile he needs to run for President later.

[w13rd0]

6. Yes, but we're living in a "post-911" world...

...one in which everyone damn well knows Cheney holds the power. It's time to shake things up, there's no rule written that says the ticket has to make the VP slot one of powerlessness and inaction. And wouldn't having someone to really take on Cheney be fabulous? Just see that apartheid supporting son of a bitch rended to pieces...