Does anyone else suspect that the VP will be Wes Clark?

[NNN0LHI]

THIS IS CONJECTURE! I have no insider tips on this. I just have a feeling about it. But it is a damn strong feeling. Anyone else think there is a good possibility of this? Wes and Gert are off right now getting tanned and rested for the real battle coming up soon I think.

Don

[Padraig18]

1. No.

I have always liked Gen. Clark (and still do), but I just don't see it happening...

[WiseMen]

54. It is largely in the hands of Clark supporters. The more involved they are

in the MeetUps and the campaign the higher Clark's visibility
will be in the Kerry supporter community. Clark is an excellent
choise, but there are many other candidates and their supporters
lobbying for the slot (Gov. of Virginia, Bayh of Indiana, Gep Missouri

[windansea]

82. I doubt supporters actions will matter that much

Kerry will take a good look at the electoral map and choose someone that can help strategically...which could be Clark or the others you mention

[Leilani]

231. To windansea

You have the most beautiful graphic at DU

Living in Hawaii, I may be prejudiced!

[windansea]

234. thanks...

I used to live in Kauai....what a paradise!!

[DemExpat]

2. I certainly hope so.....that would make my day/year!

It would be a great team IMHO.

:kick:

DemEx

[angryinoville]

249. It would make it worth my vote...

[BootinUp]

3. I don't want to get my hopes up

but he would be a hell of an asset to any Administration.

[sadiesworld]

4. A Rovian nightmare.

[bowens43]

31. Did you make a typo?

It should have been Rovian wet-dream.

[displacedtexan]

5. Actually, I'd like to see Clark as Sec.of State.

Just my opinion.

[Vagabond]

11. I would, too. n/t

[LandOLincoln]

42. I would too, but since cabinet appointments have to be

confirmed by the Senate, I can foresee a major battle if Kerry gives Clark the nod for SecState. You just know the Repubs will move heaven & earth to block the appointment (assuming of course that they still control the Senate after the election).

OTOH, if he's actually on the ticket there's not a heck of a lot they can do about it.

[BootinUp]

48. Pretty rare to block a cabinet appointment

I think they would need a hell uv a good story to justify that.

[LandOLincoln]

49. I wondered about that. I really haven't paid that much

attention in the past, so I have nothing to go by.

However, this is a year like no other, and we all know how BushCo hates and fears Clark--the media blackout alone makes that obvious.

[BootinUp]

50. to be honest

I think it was both the right and the left that wanted Clark to be minimized. (And some in the middle too). Nobody wants a Boy Scout for POTUS, too clean, no leverage. :tinfoilhat:

[LandOLincoln]

55. Good point. Not only is this an election year like no other,

but we have--or had--a candidate like no other. <sigh>

[robbedvoter]

89. remember what they did to Clinton? they were minority then!

Clinton had to bring 3-4 nominees for each position.

[BootinUp]

93. Guess I was one of the happy ignorant masses then

cause I didn't remember that.
___________________________________________

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.

http://www.aish.com/seminars/matrix/ignorance_is_bliss.asp

[BootinUp]

98. Here's some data for uploading

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/confirmationcontroversies.html

[LandOLincoln]

95. Oh yeah, I forgot Lani Guinier etc. etc.

[delete_bush]

209. Are you kidding? No battle at all

Dean accused him of being a Republican, and a lot of posters at DU had the same sentiment. He'd be a shoe-in.

[Tim_in_HK]

6. No, don't see it in the cards

And it bums me out b/c I'm trying to see where it's realistic for him to wind up so that HE CAN ONE DAY BE PRESIDENT!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. I think the VP will be...

as usual... someone no one's talking about right now.

[BeyondGeography]

10. I agree with that

Wes will be considered, but probably some dark horse from one of the industrial states, where this election will be decided, will get the nod.

[KittyWampus]

8. Yes, Clark Developed The PERFECT Stump Speech

which Kerry needs to be closely associated with. Clark talked about Family Values and Faith and how the Democratic Platform ACTUALLY represents accomplishing things while the GOP just uses empty rhetoric.

Also, Clark can immunize Kerry against the Vietnam crap (Hanoi Jane) and Soft on Defence crap (Military Budget cuts).

Clark's appeal is countrywide and his volumnious experience spans both Domestic and Foreign Policy Arenas.

It would be a great choice and MAY happen.

But I am cautiously optimistic.

[bowens43]

33. Which one?

The one where praised the bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice and Powell? Or the more recent one where he did a 180 and decided to try to be a democrat? Clark is either a liar or he has horrible judgment. That coupled with his complete lack of relevant experience should disqualify him from serious consideration.

His appeal is country wide? LOL! That explains his stellar performance in the primaries.

[deminflorida]

9. Clark is the most logical and intelligent choice by Kerry...

He has executive experience as a former Supreme Allied Commander.

His foreign policy experience is probably better than anyone else available. Will be able to repair the bridges that Bush burned and create new in-roads within the international community.

Strong on National Defense....counter-acts the GOP's "Kerry has voted against every major weapons system" MEME. Also does not allow Bush to run on the IWR issue as related to the War on Terrorism.

Regionally strong for the ticket... WILL win Arkansas, especially with Clinton support. Puts Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee in play for 2004.

In summary Wes Clark is the one guy that will cause Karl Rove, the right wing media, and the rest of the GOP to shit their pants and continue with the "Green-Apple quick step all the way to November".

[NNN0LHI]

17. Everything you and cryingshame said plus I just cannot see 2 Senators...

...on the same ticket. I like Edwards as much as the next guy but 2 Senators may not be just the ticket this time around?

Don

[blue agave]

61. How about Edwards for AG ?

.

[NNN0LHI]

65. Senator is more important than AG. Especially from Edwards state

I wish he would stay on there. He could make a bigger difference in that position I think?

Don

[LandOLincoln]

67. Yeah, but he'd have to run for re-election, and there's

been a lot of speculation that he'd lose, he knows he'd lose, and that's why he ran for prez instead.

Anyway, AG is plenty important and positions him very nicely for 2012.

[NNN0LHI]

68. There was a lot of speculation that Hillary could not win for Senator too

Remember? Can't win if you consider yourself beat before you get started.

Don

[BigBigBear]

12. Clark's a four star general

He's not exactly hard-wired to think in terms of being number 2.

Mary Landrieux? Hill Richardson? Dick Gebhardt?

[Tim_in_HK]

24. I think you managed to spell

every one of those people's names wrong . . . ;)

[BigBigBear]

28. Clark I got right

Hey, gimme a break. It's still early here. ;)

[bowens43]

32. or to think at all......

look at his so called policies. It's obvious that Clark knows nothing about how our civilian government functions. Clark's pie-in-the-sky rhetoric is painfully naive. Just goes to show you that being a Rhodes Scholar doesn't mean as much as some would have us believe.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

37. Talk about being vague...

What policies are you specifically talking about?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Carolina]

34. do you want to lose?

Sorry, but the country is not ready for a woman and besides, we need to keep Mary in the Senate. Dick is boring and not at all helped by his image in the Rose Garden cheerleading Bush on IWR. Putting him together with Kerry is a big YAWN. And we need to keep Gov Richardson right where he is.

Kerry needs someone with charisma and the ability to appeal to sunbelt and western states, independent and moderate GOP voters; the people who voted for Clinton but not for Gore.

Clark or Edwards in the #2 spot could do that.

[Jai4WKC08]

101. Not hard wired to be #2????

Are you kidding?

He was #2 to somebody his whole career. Part of being a good leader is being a good subordinate.

Unless your POTUS, I guess. Then you're supposed to work for the American people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:crazy:

[Vagabond]

13. No.

not gonna happen (Dana Carvey as Bush I)

[NicRic]

14. It would be a great team !

Two men that served their country ,against two chickenhawks ! Winning this election should be a slam dunk . However bush has so much money to run non stop negative ads close to election time and also who knows what trick they will pull. You know they will not go easily and all of us better be on our toes, and should react without delay to respond to all the lies they will try and spread ! Lets get this nightmare over with and get the bushes out of politics once and for all ! PLEASE, NicRic

[GreenArrow]

15. yep. been saying it for months

just a strong hunch.

[TruthWins]

16. Yes

I'm not a big Clark fan, but do think he is a good pick for both his Southern roots and his military background. I know more thanm one Republican-leaner here in Ohio that would be more likely to vote Dem with Clark on the ticket.

I actually think he'd be better as Sec of State but you gotta win first and I think he's a stronger running mate than Edwards.

[jpgpenn]

18. I have a feeling Clark as Sec. of State...

Is more the thinking within the Kerry camp.

[adadem]

19. I think so, too n/t

[SixShooter]

20. I agree

Clark as Sec. of State would be AWESOME! :bounce:

[jpgpenn]

22. I agree...

That is Clark's area of excellence. Let's put it to use!:toast:

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

193. Re; Clark as Sec. of State would be AWESOME!

I agree.

I am hoping for Edwards to be VP (I voted for him in our primary, and it just looks too difficult for him to overcome the momentum Kerry has going). He can attract the independent voters, the southern votes, and hopefully pissed off Republicans.

[Leilani]

81. Richard Holbroke is on Kerry's

foreign policy team.

He would be the natural pick.

[Donna Zen]

105. Holbrooke

Holbrooke has wanted SoS for a long time. Clinton passed him over for Albright, but he will definitely be the one this time around. Holbrooke brings very good ties with the press and an impressive roledex...I've read that no one has a better one.

[Adelante]

108. Ah, yes

I forgot about Holbrooke. Damn. :(

[LandOLincoln]

115. Except my best friend's sister works for State, and she says they hate

Holbrooke's guts. Not that that matters, of course, but apparently they'd much rather Kerry keep Colin Powell on as SoS. They love the guy, and think he's a great boss.

I asked about Clark, but no one had any direct experience of Clark so he's pretty much an unknown quantity to them.

[Adelante]

128. Interesting

I have read that he can be a difficult person, Holbrooke. I'm reading his book "To End a War" -- it's very, very good. I had started it a while back and forgotten it until a few days ago when I picked it up again. He certainly thinks highly of Wes.

[LandOLincoln]

158. Yes, I look forward to reading Holbrooke's book. Gonna have

to break down & order it from Amazon, since I've had no luck finding it here in Albuquerque either at bookstores (used or otherwise) or in the libraries.

Realchange.org (the "Skeleton Closet" guys) have the entire first chapter online, so I've been able to read Holbrooke's account of the Mt. Igman horrors and Wes's monumental bravery in rappeling down that mountain in the attempt to save his friends and colleagues.

Heady, heartbreaking stuff, although Holbrooke's account is still fairly laconic compared to some of the journalistic retelling I've come across. OTOH, Holbrooke is a friggin' blabbermouth compared to Wes himself, since Wes devotes one (1) whole paragraph to the tragedy in Waging Modern War, and doesn't say word one about his own role even so.

Anyway, here's Holbrooke:

http://63.147.65.175/books/chap134.htm

[BootinUp]

160. thanks for the link

I'll definitely take a look at it.

[Adelante]

168. Yeah

"Holbrooke is a friggin' blabbermouth compared to Wes himself" :7

[Tim_in_HK]

173. This is 100% correct.

State Dept personnel really dislike Holbrooke. He has a very bad reputation as a person to work for . . . and unfortunately the desire to not have him as a boss made more than a few of them vote for Bush . . . but they were then (like us all) surprised by the extent of Bush's foreign policy shenanigans.

Powell is very very well liked and he has been a phenomenal Sec of State from the standpoint of employees of the State Dept (finally got more money coming to the Dept after years of cuts, was able to increase the hiring of more diplomats (which Helms had severly restricted when he was head of foreign relations committee (this was before Albright started kissing his ass to get the spigot turned on again)), improved employee benefits, has been more open to subordinates and 'in-house' career Foreign Service Officers instead of 'outside' political appointees . . .).

However, it's unlikely Powell will stay as Sec of State even if Bush wins reelection . . . there are rumours to this effect and I think he's a bit tired of the politics of it all. And, note to people, Powell IS a Republican, and gracefully bailed out of the Clinton administration as soon as it was possible for him to do so.

On the bright side . . . I think this time many State personnel who voted for Bush last time will vote for the Dem nominee and risk Holbrooke as Sec of State. And I think it most likely that Holbrooke will be the pick if a Dem wins. I don't really hear anyone else mentioned.

Which then makes me wonder once again where Clark is going to fit in national politics . . . sigh.

[DancingBear]

21. Yes - have been thinking this for some time

With Chimpy now having given away the game plan re: his campaign (the military genius/homophobe/economic guru trifecta), Clark is the perfect foil. He will DESTROY Bush/Cheney on the military aspects. Imagine him sitting across from Cheney and explaining to a man with a lesbian daughter what true civil and human rights are. Clark's explanation of the gay marriage/civil unions argument lays waste to Bush's constitutional amendment garbage (anyone who has heard Clark talk of this in detail knows of what I speak).

As previously stated, he also inoculates Kerry from the ridiculous VVAW/Fonda garbage. Having a four star general vouch for your credentials will play very well. As the VP candidate, he can speak with a "rougher" tone than can Kerry, and he will. Those of us privileged enough to have worked on his campaign can tell you unequivocally that he detests the current administration, and it won't take much coaxing for him to tell you why.

Finally, for those who are thinking Edwards, I think Edwards showed in the foreign policy portion of last night's debate that he does not yet have the knowledge/experience to hold his own in this arena. Bush/Cheney will be War'04, and Clark gives Kerry a southern war hero to team with. That, my friends, is a winning combination.

[KittyWampus]

23. Honoring VietNam Veteran's Experience. Great Democratic Campaign Theme

Honestly, it would be great to see two men who both served in Viet Nam but went on different paths of public service afterwards on the same ticket.

Two men who encompass the ENTIRE Experience from serving, protesting, and rebuilding the military afterwards.

So much effort to STILL use VietNam as a wedge by the GOP... so much benefit FOR THE COUNTRY in helping to heal the wounds.

[bowens43]

30. Huh?

Great theme? Your kidding right? Here's a news flash for you, the war ended 30 years ago. It isn't relevent. Military service is not only irrelevant , it's a detriment to a civilian government.

[dogman]

103. You should have been there at the start.

You could have put a stop to that Washington fellow.

[Adelante]

109. Heh

Nicely done. :thumbsup:

[HFishbine]

25. Hillary Clinton

Mark my words.

[Padraig18]

27. Mark HER words.

She has aid repeatedly and explicitly that she intends to serve out her *full term* as junior senator from NY. Anyone who thinks she's going to be on the ticket is deceiving themselves.

[globalcitizen]

26. the astrologers say

That Kerry and Clark have a love fest going on and that Clark is the most probably VP unless it's someone less known at this time.

[BootinUp]

36. which astrologers?

not that I'm a believer but just curious.

[Adelante]

110. We have our own astrologers

;)

[BootinUp]

119. ohhhh, uh huh, neat.

:)

[bowens43]

29. I certainly hope not, talk about a ticket killer.......

Why Kerry would want someone on the ticket who did as poorly as Clark ? It's painfully obvious that the vast majority of Democrats want nothing to do with the neo-con general. Clark has nothing of value to offer.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

35. Your post is painfully embarrassing

to yourself.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

39. You spew tripe but nothing substantial...

Clark has nothing that aligns him with the "neo-cons", but your style of smear fits right in with their methods. Why don't you go educate yourself on the issues so that you can post something other than generalizations based on no evidence whatsoever.

[jpgpenn]

40. Thanks for the outspoken post!

Your candor shows your depth of understanding.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[LandOLincoln]

96. Boy, doesn't it? LOVE that ignore button. n/t

[Shanty Oilish]

51. Furthermore

Clark has eluded scrutiny so far, but as the veep candidate his military record would be explored in depth. If Clark's ambition is enough to risk that---I don't think Kerry's is.
Clark would be no asset in debate against Cheney, and as you point out, he didn't attract the votes in the primaries. He'd be a drag on the ticket, at best. No benefit, considerable risk.

[Auntie Bush]

102. If you weren't on my ignore list

and I didn't already know...I'd ask you why you have such a hatred of Clark? But, don't bother to answer because no one will be here to listen to your rants and........

"Clark has nothing of value to offer." I know someone else who don't either.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

38. I'm 99.9% certain it will happen

I see no downside to it. Polls seem to indicate it is a win/win.

[mikehiggins]

41. I'd love to see it but I doubt it will happen.

Still, Clark is out there drumming up the crowds for Kerry when there's nothing in it for him personally. The advantage of having a trustworthy, qualified VP might just occur to Kerry in time for him to make such a decision.

Certainly it would be better for everyone involved than having Clark in Powell's job, or Rumsfield's.

[jpgpenn]

43. can't be Rumsfield's title!

Clark needs to be out of the service for 10 years before he would qualify for Sec. of Defense.

[On the Road]

44. If Kerry Wants a Southerner,

Clark appeals more to ordinary Southerners and NASCAR dads. Of course, Clark adds strength in international and military experience, where Kerry really doesn't need it.

Despite Edwards's blue-collar childhood, his upper-class polish and trial-lawyer background don't sit well with a lot of Southerners. He doesn't seem to be one of them.

Of course, Edwards is a much better speaker and has emphasized the economic issues on which I think the election will be decided. He also adds excitement and youthfulness, and will bring more people to the polls.

It's a toss-up. Offhand, I can't think of anyone who combines all the needed qualities.

[Monte Carlo]

45. I have a strong suspicion as well.

I'm not certain, but I think a Kerry/Clark ticket makes a lot of sense.

[LandOLincoln]

46. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seemed to me

that Kerry dropped a broad hint the day Clark endorsed him, when Kerry said something like, "General Clark will not be standing behind me (in the campaign), he'll be standing beside me."

Something else to consider: while it would be ludicrous to expect a super-Alpha like Clark to play second fiddle to Dean or Edwards, since they're both younger and far less experienced than he is, Kerry is actually older than Clark by a year, and has just as much experience, albeit in a different area.

Finally, the vice presidency itself ain't what it used to be by a long shot.

For myself, I can see a Kerry/Clark ticket with Edwards as AG, or a Kerry/Edwards ticket with Clark as SecState, with Cleland for SecDef in either case. (Remember, Clark can't be SecDef because he hasn't been out of the military long enough.)

And the next person who suggests my guv Bill Richardson for VP, I'm gonna fly through cyberspace & personally bust 'em in the nose.

Just so's you know.

[Torgo4]

56. In Military, You're ALWAY Second Fiddle!

while it would be ludicrous to expect a super-Alpha like Clark to play second fiddle to Dean or Edwards,


Nobody is born at the top of the military. Clark had to be subordinate to SOMEONE his whole career!
Even 4-star generals have superiors! Chairman JCS reports to SecDef, a civilian.

[John_H]

52. Edwards sealed it last night. an Edwards/Cheney debate will be

Kennedy/Nixon of the 21st century.

[dogman]

112. Cheney is no John Kennedy!

What are you talking about?

[BootinUp]

113. not that I agree, but the poster obviously meant Edwards would

be Kennedy and Cheney would be Nixon.

You were just being sarcastic right? :)

[dogman]

116. You caught me.

To compare Kennedy and his skills with a used car salesman is absurd. On the other hand Kennedy's lack of foreign policy experience did come back to haunt him and us. The real problem is Cheney promotes the idea that there is a connection between 9-11 and the Iraq war and so does Edwards, so what will they debate?

[BootinUp]

117. Kenedy made mistakes but he caught on

pretty quick and had excellent advisors no? Also Kennedy did have that leader of the free world thing workin pretty strong.

I think Edwards really has no imagination or vision when it comes to foreign policy. He is trying to use other peoples vision. You were right to question. ;)

[John_H]

170. You guys are missing my, as per usual, brilliant point.

I love Wes less than Ms. H & the kids, but more than just about anyone else I can think of at the moment. I just think a Kerry/whoever ticket needs someone doing the "new frontier" thing to counterpoint Cheney's I'm-your-father's-grim-golfing-buddy thing.

Cheney served his adult-supervisory role in 2K. Now that Chimpster has apparently made it through puberty in the eyes of half the country, Edwards can turn Uncle Dick's sneer into a liability better than Wes can.

[windansea]

177. Cheney would eat Edwards for breakfast

JE has stumbled badly on FP questions in debates and interviews...against Cheney he would look like a schoolboy

[Leilani]

217. Agreed

Edwards should really be better on foreign policy by now, but he doesn't have a clue.

I think Edwards would be ripped apart by Cheney on FP & domestic.

[VOX]

219. This all presupposes that Cheney won't be dropped...

If the Democratic candidate(s) continue to outpoll * through the spring and early summer, watch him do a disappearing act off of the GOP ticket.

Since * II seems to be "correcting" all the shortcomings of Poppy's regime (getting Saddam, putting a corporate toehold into Medicare, etc.), * II will not stay with a bad-image VP like Poppy did with Quayle.

[Beetwasher]

53. Yes and I hope It Is. That would be a HELL of a great ticket!

n/t

[MoonRiver]

57. YES!

He's the perfect choice.

[ChiefJoseph]

58. Nope

I think he peformed too poorly as a candidate and said too many dumb things...the Dem nominee would be worried that he would slip up and say something stupid.

I think the VP nominee will be one of the following five people:

1) Edwards
2) Graham
3) Richardson
4) Gephardt
5) Bayh

[LandOLincoln]

59. In your opinion, maybe--and only in your opinion.

And consider yourself smacked in the nose, because I said that's what I'd do the next time somebody suggested my guv for VP.

[Thrill]

62. No chance

Clark is VP. Look for two guys Tom Vilsack and Phil Bredesen if Richardson is not the guy

[ChiefJoseph]

63. Come on

He entered the Dem primary without a coherent position on abortion, for Christ's sake. Then he implied that he supported absolutely zero restrictions on abortion up until the moment of delivery. And then he had to "clarify" his position. And that's just abortion, one of the most fundamental issues in the party. Do you think the Dem nominee is going to go with someone who is that shaky on the issues? No way.

[LandOLincoln]

66. You're really, really reaching. Anyway, Clark now knows the

whole "partial birth abortion" flap is a straw man, because I wrote him a long letter telling him so and providing links to prove it.

(I work with Ob/Gyns and there simply ain't no such thing as elective abortion up to the moment of birth.)

[BootinUp]

69. nonsense

His position on abortion was always that he would support a womens right to choose and appoint judges that would follow precedent.

Any politician running for National office can be trapped on these type of divisive social issues, same as Kerry and Edwards are being fenced with daily on Gay marriage.

[ChiefJoseph]

70. Keep the blinders on if you wish.

His position on abortion was a case study in incoherence. Note the Boston Globe article:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2004/01/23/clark_is_cautious_when_asked_his_stance_on_abortion/

The approach Clark used yesterday was strikingly different from the less guarded way he addressed the issue earlier this month, in an interview with the conservative-leaning editorial board of the Union Leader of Manchester.

At that time, Clark got into a far more detailed exchange with publisher Joseph W. McQuaid.

The Union Leader later printed a transcript of the interview, which was circulated by the Republican National Committee.

"Let's take an issue -- abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?" McQuaid asked Clark.

"I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion," Clark said at the time.

"Late-term abortions? No limits?" McQuaid asked.

"Nope," Clark said.

"Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?" McQuaid asked.

"I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and the law -- not the law," Clark said.

Clark has also given different answers, in the past, about whether he would appoint only judges who back abortion rights.

Earlier this month, according to the Union Leader, he told a reporter for that newspaper that he had no litmus tests for judges, but then called the reporter back to clarify that he was "not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life."

Simmons said yesterday that Clark would only appoint judges who followed established legal precedents regarding abortions.

[BootinUp]

74. "His position on abortion was a case study in incoherence"

No you're incorrect. The Clark campaign had policy papers and statements on women's issues at his web-site that were quite coherent. If you had said that Clark could not explain the legal details behind Roe v Wade and Casey on those occasions then I would accept it.

The question is do you trust him when he says he supported Roe V Wade as modified by Casey. Crise sakes he's not a goddamn constitutional judge/lawyer. And he wasn't a nominee to the Supreme Court either.

[ChiefJoseph]

77. Look...

This wasn't a matter of not being able to discuss the intricacies of Roe v. Wade. He flat out made a statement that said he supported zero restrictions on abortion at any stage in pregnancy! Even the most strident NARAL activists won't say that publicly.

"Late-term abortions? No limits?" McQuaid asked.

"Nope," Clark said.

That's as clear as it gets, but you're nevertheless trying to convince me that the sky is green.

[BootinUp]

78. So are you happy with his clarified statement?

Are you saying that because he was unprepared on abortion at that moment in time that he is unqualified to be POTUS or VP?

Every candidate has weaknesses, areas of unfamiliarity. The question is does Clark have the wisdom to learn as he goes. And I would say that he does. Your entitled to your opinion too.

[ChiefJoseph]

79. Yes

I'm saying that for a candidate to enter the Democratic primary - where one's position on abortion is a central issue - and to get his position so totally wrong suggests that the Democratic nominee would be wise to be wary of selecting that candidate as his running mate. And let's not forget that this was but one of a number of pretty strange or incoherent statements that Clark made.

I've always been suspicious of people who have to "clarify" their positions and end up essentially switching their position in their "clarification," which is what Clark did. He should have known EXACTLY where he stands on this issue and been able to offer his position clearly and succinctly without hesitation.

[windansea]

94. heh..if anyone could understand "clarification"

it would be Kerry....while I hope for Clark to get the nod I have my doubts...as far as your list of 5 potential VPs...I am quite sure it won't be Edwards or Richardson

[robbedvoter]

92. Lemme draw you a piture tu help you understand, OK?

[ChiefJoseph]

97. I'll assume from your pictures...

...that you are incapable of refuting the fact that Gen. Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, was incapable of coherently expressing his position on abortion in the interview I linked to. Why is it so hard to admit that from top to bottom, he royally screwed up his answer to one of the most fundamental questions any Democratic candidate will ever face?

[in_cog_ni_to]

166. This has been on his web site forever. Read it. It's his position...

on abortion, like it or not.

Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose
Thirty-one years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the guarantee of liberty in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends the right of privacy to encompass a woman's decisions related to pregnancy and child bearing. Time and again, during the last three decades, that right has been threatened. The Court's ruling has been tried and tested and affirmed - but it will be tested again. Wes Clark is committed to defending Roe v. Wade. Wes Clark will protect women's choice by protecting privacy and promoting the health of women and families.

Protecting Privacy

Women's decisions related to pregnancy and child bearing are personal decisions, not political decisions. Wes Clark believes that it is wrong to make a choice that should be left between a woman and her doctor and her family into a political issue. He will protect women's privacy by:


Standing up for choice. Wes Clark is pro-choice. He believes that the government has no right to come between a woman, her family, and her doctor in making such a personal and private decision. Wes Clark will protect the fundamental principle at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship: that doctors and women should make medical decisions based on what's best for the individual given her unique circumstances. He believes that the courts have struck the right balance between women's privacy and the complex issues that arise as pregnancy progresses.

Protecting women's safety and health. A woman, of any age, should never be forced to endanger her life. Wes Clark opposed the ban on late term abortion enacted by President Bush and Republicans in Congress last year because it didn't provide an exception for the health of the woman. And he has opposed parental notification laws that don't allow judicial bypass or notification of another responsible adult, because, while parental involvement is always preferable, it isn't always possible.

Nominating judges who will uphold the law. We as a nation have embraced several simple, important constitutional values, such as one-person, one-vote and the right to privacy that are settled law. Wes Clark is committed to appointing judges with the highest qualifications, from diverse backgrounds, who will uphold the law and enforce fundamental constitutional guarantees-- including the rights of privacy and equality.
Promoting the Health of Women and Families

Wes Clark understands that when we pursue policies that protect and promote the health of women, our families are stronger and our country is stronger. He believes our national priority should be to reduce abortion by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. He supports federal funding for family planning programs to better support families and work towards making abortions less necessary in this country. Wes Clark will:


Increase funding for family planning and support responsible sex education. Family planning services improve the health of women and families--they are an important component of women's health care. Wes Clark would increase funding for family planning services including counseling, health screening, and contraceptive services. He supports responsible, age-appropriate sex education which includes information about both abstinence and contraception.

Support insurance coverage for contraceptives. Wes Clark believes that women's basic health care should be covered by health insurance. Contraceptives have a proven track record of enhancing the health of women, reducing the chance of unplanned pregnancy, and improving the health of families. Contraceptives should be included in insurance coverage.

Lift the ban on federal funding for abortion. Wes Clark would work to lift the ban on federal funding for abortions and eliminate the "domestic gag rule" which prohibits family planning centers that receive federal funds from providing abortion services, and counseling about abortion or referrals. Wes Clark opposes singling out abortion and excluding it from the medical care generally provided under Medicaid. And Wes Clark opposes preventing women who serve in the military from accessing abortion services.

Protect access to services. Although abortion is legal, many women cannot safely access abortion services. Violence, harassment and intimidation curtail the delivery of abortion services and endanger providers and patients. Wes Clark supports the strong enforcement of laws that protect medical professionals and women from threats, intimidation and humiliation and ensure safe access to legal services.

Expand access to family planning services. Wes Clark supports expanding the scope and eligibility for family planning services provided under Medicaid. He will call on Congress to allow states to extend eligibility for family planning without going through the waiver process. In addition, he will work to make sure women in labor receive appropriate medical care.

Restore and protect funding for international family planning. Hundreds of thousands of women die from complications related to pregnancy worldwide. Many women lack equal access to health care. Millions of couples lack access to contraceptives - leaving them vulnerable to HIV/AIDS and other devastating sexually transmitted diseases. The United States has taken the lead in improving women's health and protecting women's rights worldwide. Wes Clark believes that we shouldn't back off our commitment to women's health. He would lift the "global gag rule" which forces foreign organizations to remain silent on the subject of abortion if they want to continue to receive funding for vital family planning services. He would increase funding for international family planning and work to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which funds family planning and reproductive health services in developing countries.

http://clark04.com/issues/choose/

[BootinUp]

203. thanks for jumpin in n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

220. My pleasure!

I'll defend Wes and his supporters......always. :loveya:

[ChiefJoseph]

233. Great

His web site featured his position on abortion. Too bad he wasn't capable of explaining it to a reporter when asked.

[Jai4WKC08]

245. Yeah, all "reporters" are just giving us the facts.

You're assuming that Clark was trying to explain it. Or that it would have mattered if he had.

This was a case of one of the "media jackels" (who coined that phrase anyway? dead on, in any case) trying to pin him down to a specific point when "life begins" (stupid question--"life" never stops). Clark had said before he wasn't gonna play that game, that it's not his decision to make. That is what he was saying here too.

Did he handle the situation as well as he should have? Don't know, wasn't there. Don't know what went before either, or what his options were.

But if you think he didn't know his own position on abortion, or couldn't articulate it in reasonable discourse, you're nuts.

You also hadn't listened to him before. Which is likely. Why on earth do you think NARAL backed him up after the fact? His good looks? They knew what his position is, that he's as solidly on their side as they could wish for. If they had any doubts, they'd have backed off and fast.

Planned Parenthood was one of the first people he'd visited in NH, back before he even declared his candidacy.

[Adelante]

111. NARAL

Kate Michelman, head of NARAL-Pro-Choice America, said she is satisfied Clark “will not only be a pro-choice candidate but will make it an issue in this campaign” against Bush if he wins the nomination.

“I think what the general is saying is that he supports a woman’s right to choose as protected by the law,” Michelman said. “We’re good to go with Gen. Clark.”

[ChiefJoseph]

232. So?

Look, I'm not suggesting he isn't pro-choice. I'm saying that he couldn't get his position straight when asked.

[Shanty Oilish]

64. Let's talk about Kerry/Bayh

Or as it would soon become, Kerry/Buh-bye.
John Kerry has solid liberal credentials without being scary to moderates and swing voters (so far). Nobody pays that much attention to the veep spot, right? So Kerry wouldn't gain much of an advantage with the center.
Then there's us. A lot of liberals can hardly detect Kerry's liberalism, and they're already not delighted by his frontrunning. If he picks himself a running mate like Bayh, some of those liberals are going to stay home or vote a third candidate.
While I don't know Kerry's strategy, one can assume he has ruled out disaffection of liberals for no useful purpose.
If he picks Bayh, DU will have more tombstones than Flanders fields.

Why isn't Kucinich on your list? He's the sentimental favorite here and he would bring to the ticket some excellent ideas. For example, see this page detailing a plan that most conservatives would be hard put to disparage:
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/domestic_violence.php

Forget Bayh. I'm a Kerry supporter myself but I'd be holding my nose at that ticket.

[cosmokramer]

84. The only one with a chance...

...in that entire group is Richardson.

First, the appointment of VP WILL NOT BE A SITTING CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR. Apply below where appropriate.

Bayh can't even deliver his home state (firmly Republican) of Indiana, and has no FP experience, and is far too conservative. OUT.

Gephardt is old news, and a Congressman, and might not even deliver Missouri. OUT.

Edwards is out--no FP exp, which the Kerry campaign said they would require. OUT.

Graham is not exciting enough (though I personally love the man), and can only MAYBE deliver Florida from Jeb. Plus medical problems and age. OUT.

Biden is from New England. OUT. (my addition)

So this leaves Clark and Richardson.

Clark is extremely rich in FP/NS/Military experience and diplomatic experience. Masters in Economics. A true 'hero' around the world. And endorsed by 55 Ambassadors. Speaks fluent Spanish. Was endorsed by Native American communities and publications, and many Hispanic publications. He was very popular in Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota.

He could solidify the Veteran/Military vote, bring Arkansas, for sure, into the Dem column, deliver Ohio, and quite possibly Arizona and definitely New Mexico.

[LandOLincoln]

90. Agree with everything but the fluent Spanish.

Trust me. I've heard him. Love that guy, but Ay chihuahua! :evilgrin:

[windansea]

99. good points n/t

[MAlibdem]

60. The way Clark endorsed Kerry certainly suggested it to me

"Permission to come aboard?"

Beautiful line.

[Thrill]

72. Could Clark even

carry ARK???? I'm sorry folks but the VP has to be able to carry his own state in this election. Sure people say people don't vote for the VP candidate. But I believe it is essential in this election. The governors Bob Wise of WV, Bresden from Tenn, and Vilsack of Iowa are all better candidates. All would help carry their states. Edwards can't win NC for us and Clark I have doubts could win ARK. Having to current Senators is not good.

[troublemaker]

185. Probably could carry AK

They would love to have another Arkansan near the WH. To a beat-down state like AK it's a big deal for them. Regional pride can count for a lot when you have an inferiority complex.

[LandOLincoln]

75. Actually--and as someone pointed out on the 13th--

that line is SOP for anyone wishing to board ship. The captain of a ship or boat, no matter what his actual rank, is still the captain, and even admirals (or generals) have to ask permission to board.

In fact (and I could be wrong) I seem to remember Captain Pelew of the Indefatigable asking permission to board of young Lieutenant Hornblower in one episode.

[Bread and Circus]

71. Yes, actually. And I am kind of surprised by it.

[Thrill]

73. Also on Bayh

How exactly is he better than Joe Kernan the govenor of his state. Sure Bayh has good looks but I think Kernan would be better

[citizen snips]

76. If Clinton has anything to do with it.

Clark might be VP.

[MrSlayer]

80. Yep. I suspect it will be.

And it will be good for everyone. Clark rules in foreign policy and national defense.

[cosmokramer]

83. Absolutely Clark as VP, and here is why!

Wes Clark will one day be President.

I didn't draft him to be Secretary of State. I drafted him to be President. That will never happen UNLESS he is VP. If a Dem is elected in 2004 (God, I hope so)whomever the VP that candidate chooses will be the next Dem nominated by the party. Otherwise, anyone wanting to seek the Presidency who is not VP will surely lose to the VP.

Further, Clark himself wants to expand his horizon outside of National Security and Foreign Policy. He wants to deal with jobs, the economy, healthcare, taxes, etc. He could not do this as SOS.

If Clark is offered VP, he will take it.

The Kerry camp said they would choose a southern candidate with FP experience.

That ain't Edwards.

Cleland would be more suited to Homeland Security.

Clark has an excellent shot at VP, and I will write and ask for this.

[democratreformed]

85. A story for ya

Last week, one of my suppliers came into my office and said "Sorry to hear about your man." Then, he said "Well, there's always 2008". I said "God, I hope not!" When he looked at me funny, I had to say "We wouldn't want him to run against an INCUMBENT Democrat!" (My supplier's a Bush-man)

[Crunchy Frog]

86. I would love it if it were to happen.

For a number of reasons, I think that Wes would be the best choice, but I really don't expect it. I think that someone much more "safe" and establishment will be picked, and doing so may cost the election.

I'm not saying that a Kerry/Clark ticket is the only electable one, just that playing things safe and establishment has not been shown to be a winning strategy recently, and especially not in the current political climate.

[LandOLincoln]

88. Which is precisely why I think Kerry will go with Wes.

As a matter of fact, I think it's already a done deal. YMMV, of course.

[Crunchy Frog]

91. I certainly hope that's the case

I'm just not willing to get my hopes up. I've already had my heart broken, not going to set myself up for it to happen again.:)

[Auntie Bush]

100. CLARK! Great choice for VP. And Kerry should alert the public

that the VP works for the pleasure of the POTUS and he will put his VP in charge of the war in Iraq and diplomatic relations. Then he shouldn't fill the position of SoS so Clark can be free to do both jobs at the discretion of the P. I know that is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking...but then he would be able to do what he feels/knows best without having to compromise with anyone. Yeah! He could be our NEW/2nd Dictator!

[Donna Zen]

104. Iraq

Yes, Holbrooke and Clark could settle Iraq, with Kerry taking all the front positions for the credit. But I would hope that Clark as VP could act as a special envoy to the ME. He knows the past negotiations well, knows all of the players, and has spoken about changing the regional dynamic with a new regional council. His ideas are sound and fair with a high chance of succeeding. Thinks outside the box that one; and the force is strong.

The problem with the state dept is its funding. State is practically hog-tied and getting worse. While I'm sure Clark would like to rebuild it, I doubt that any repub. congress would go along.

As vp Clark can apply that bi-partisanship that Democrats have chided him for, to actually get something done about the situations. There are still a few multi-lateralist left among the rep. ranks.

[LandOLincoln]

107. Does anyone know if Generals Clark and Abizaid

are acquainted, and if so how well?

Never mind, I think I just answered my own question:

"General Abizaid has a superb record of military service, with one of the most impressive compilations of joint duty that this committee has had before it in some time. The joint service operations, I think, reached an all-time high-water mark in the course of the Iraqi operations. Your prior assignments as director of the Joint Staff, director for strategic plans and policy, J-5 on the Joint Staff, and a participant in joint operations in Kosovo and Bosnia and in northern Iraq following Operation Desert Storm qualify this nominee, in my judgment, for the challenges of the commanding of the United States Central Command."

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/transcripts/20030605.htm

[welshTerrier2]

106. i've thought it would be Clark

since just before the Oklahoma primary ... and until recently, I was fairly confident that Clark would be the VP ...

Clark would be a great asset on the ticket to really emphasize defense and foreign policy ... that would be a lot of military to throw up against a chicken-hawk ticket ...

but lately I'm not quite as sure it will be Clark ...

Edwards' upbeat, mr. sunshine style and his southern roots are not entirely unappealing as a ticket balancer ... we may be at a point where the big dems at the top might yield to the conventional wisdom and go with Edwards ... I don't think he was their first choice, but I think he's continued to effectively make his case ...

finally, i'm not so sure that geography will be the determining factor ... it might come down to who can be more effective in battling for centrist independents and moderate republicans ... Clark has the "I've worked with both parties" thing and the "big man in the military" thing going for him ... but Edwards' win in Wisconsin and his strong showing among independents and cross-over republicans is worth some consideration as well ... and Edwards is still getting plenty of face time in the media ... if fighting for the center is indeed more valued than geography, you can rule mr. gephardt out of contention for the VP spot ... if not, the question becomes do you try to strengthen your hand in the south or do you play for the big swing states in the midwest ...

right now, i'm guessing it's a 50-50 toss up between Clark and Edwards ...

comments ??

[windansea]

114. Edwards win in Wisconsin?

Edwards has little chance for VP post...he "irks" JK...no FP experience...not enough gravitas to be a heartbeat away...Clark has a shot...why do you think he's stumping in the south for Kerry right now?

[mountainvue]

118. Yes!

I have a strong feeling that Wesley will be a player in the Kerry administration.

[BootinUp]

120. It would be a waste of talent

otherwise. ;)

[arewethereyet]

121. I'm sure that it will not be Clark.

[BootinUp]

122. *surprise*

not.

[democratreformed]

131. Title changed

I sure hope Kerry picks a good VP, whether it's Wes or not. If its Edwards, I will not longer be ABB.

Edit: I wimped out.

[BootinUp]

248. lol -eom-

[citizen snips]

123. I agree.

Clark does not have much expirence you could see that in this nomination.

[arewethereyet]

124. its more a matter of what appeal he would have

he can't deliver geographically, he can't deliver politically. He's an ex-general and current lobbiyist.

[citizen snips]

126. Clark is nothing but a political failure.

[arewethereyet]

130. I was going to try and be nice

but thats about the size of it.

[citizen snips]

134. Clark is a general.

His general status did not help him at all.

[arewethereyet]

137. can't order people to vote

[citizen snips]

141. hate to say it.

But generals just don't have the influences they had in past elections. So remember being a general has no political value in a primary or an election.

[mikehiggins]

194. Yeah, he only won one state since he started running in September

unlike Senator Edwards who won one state since he started running in 2002. Edwards has only one more win than Dennis Kuchinich and Al Sharpton. I guess that is because he is such a superior candidate.

Statistically, Clark even looks better. He only lost thirteen out of fourteen. How many did Edwards lose so far?

[citizen snips]

237. Edwards did better then Clark.

n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

247. Not significantly.

Not so far. Still only one state won.

You said Clark is "a political failure." Holding Edwards to the same standard, he is too. Maybe more so, since he hasn't won a state where he wasn't favorite son.

[incapsulated]

125. Why is VP so important to some Clarkies?

Is it because you think that being VP is the next best thing to being President? Because it's not. There are cabinet positions way more powerful than VP.

Is it because you think he would get the Presidency after Kerry? Well, we don't know Kerry would last eight years for one thing, and unless he does, there is no hope for his VP. Also, I know many disagree with this, but Wes will be pushing 70 in eight years. I think that is a factor and that people will consider it, I don't care how fit and youthful he is now. The Presidency is different than it used to be. Right now, appearing older and wiser is a plus because we are running against the Chimp. We have no idea what the sentiment of the electorate will be like eight years from now. But in general, it's a job people want to be sure that the man in office is fully up to, physically. Remember Reagan.

As VP Clark would be wasted. The only thing the VP is really expected to have some active hand in is the congress, exactly where Clark doesn't have experience. Anything he would be doing would be at the whim of the President, and he would probably not get credit for even that. Did Gore? He can't be put in a "job" where he would be in direct conflict with someone in Kerry's cabinet, like Sec. of State. The cabinet answers to the President, not his VP. So what could he really do? I don't want him twiddling his thumbs for eight years.

Clark is uniquely suited to be Secretary of State. Furthermore, the country needs his experience and leadership in that area now, not later. I want Clark to be handling Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East, we need him there right now, if not as President, then as Sec. of State.

In addition, those who think a Kerry/Clark ticket is so great aren't thinking the way I am at all. What votes does Clark bring that Kerry can't? In fact, one of the reasons for Clark's downfall was the rise of Kerry, they were going after the same votes. Clark could bring in some southern votes, but honestly, I don't think Kerry has much of a chance in the south, and that means he would do far better with someone who has strong ties to the Midwest States he would need. And, as a balance to the ticket, someone who was strong on domestic policy and had a "common man" touch, which Kerry lacks. We don't need "double gravitas" to win.

Well, that's my most recent rant on why I don't want Clark as VP.

 
 

[BootinUp]

127. You make some very salient points

And I do not disagree with any of them. I think the issue is that we want Clark to be in the administration somewhere and I for one am not going to say no to a VP possibility. In the end the nominee will go through all of this with his closest advisors. One thing to consider, is that the Bush/Cheny administration has shown is that a strong VP can play a vital role.

[Crewleader]

129. I agree Jim4Wes VP can play a vital role

and Clark will be a strong one! :hi:

[incapsulated]

133. Well, I'll go for two more ;^)

You can't use Cheney, the invisible puppet master, as some sort of workable model for the VP for Kerry. That is a highly unusual situation. Kerry will be "The President" in the fullest meaning of that description.

Second, all this talk abut how the VP can play a vital role seems to me more wishful thinking than anything else. It's not based on history, and it assumes that tradition will radically change in a Kerry administration, which isn't what I'm expecting.

I want Clark in the Kerry Administration as badly as anyone. But I want him in a position where I am certain he will have real role to play, not just the hope that he can.

[BootinUp]

136. If you didn't go for two more

I would have been surprised and dissapointed.

:hi: :beer:

[incapsulated]

138. You've come to know me too well, methinks :)

:hi:

 
 

[Adelante]

140. Incap is right

I go for Secretary of State, too.

Have a drink. Okay, don't mind if I do. :beer:

[BootinUp]

142. mine is

John Daniels

and you are having? :beer:

[incapsulated]

145. You two have one on me

I'm fueled on caffine and taking a break from writing a paper...

Maybe I'll have one after, to get to sleep. If my heart doesn't give out from the tachycardia. ;)

 
 

[incapsulated]

152. Ok, a Jack for my buddy Jim...

And and a Maker’s Mark with two cherries for my lady friend, who has very specific tastes.

:)

 
 

[BootinUp]

155. TY

next time its on me. ;)

[Adelante]

146. Maker's Mark

With two cherries. :beer:

[BootinUp]

148. hmmmm

I'll check that out next time.

http://www.makersmark.com/Flash/Flash.aspx

[Adelante]

149. Wow

They have a nice website, don't they?

[BootinUp]

143. Yea she's right

Some of you Clark supporters sure are smart, I have a hard time keeping up with ya.

[Leilani]

167. All you Clarkies are having a fun party

but as I noted in a previous post, I think Richard Holbroke would be obvious choice for SoS. He's on the Kerry team, & this is his life's work. I think Kerry has to choose someone who knows the State Dept, etc.

I love Clark as much as all of you, but I think there are people more qualified for State.

Sorry to be a skunk at the picnic.

[BootinUp]

174. Leilani,

I like saying or typing your name btw,

you are no skunk at the party. Thank you for joining us. Isn't it amazing we can still have these huge threads about Clark after he has withdrawn from the race? He has truly inspired me.

I am sure Holbrooke is a very qualified man for SoS. At the same time I believe that Clark is here for a purpose, and that purpose will find him. I am not concerned right now with the details, just that he will be involved and he will make a difference.

:toast:

[Leilani]

216. Mahalo Jim (thank you)

I agree with you on Wes.

I don't care what he does as long as he's involved, & I really think he will be. He has really inspired me too.

Sorry I was so snarky earlier; we've been having a storm here in the islands that is just unbelievable. Roads are closed, power outages,
unbelievable winds; people are tying down the outdoor furniture because it's so dangerous.

I'll be back to my sunny Hawaiian self soon.

Aloha!

[Crewleader]

184. That's my first choice....

Secretarty of State plus I believe Max Cleland will play a big role in Kerry's administration, and I look forward to both of them becoming reality!

[LandOLincoln]

132. All excellent points, but as I said earlier in the thread:

1. Cabinet positions have to be approved by the Senate, and a Repub-controlled Senate will give Kerry six kinds of hell over a Clark SecState appointment; in fact they'll do everything in their considerable power to ensure a Clark appointment of ANY kind gets torpedoed.

However, if Kerry puts Clark on the ticket there's not a damn thing they can do about it--except of course smear the both of them with every ounce of slime they can find, but they'll do that anyway so what's the diff?

2. The VP spot is nothing like it used to be, and even if it were, do you really think Wes Clark would settle for that kind of role? He's been a maverick and a thoroughgoing pain in the butt to whatever Establishment he's come up against his whole life. He's got where he is despite the Establishent du jour, not because of it.

He and John Kerry have known each other for a long time, and surely none of this is news to Kerry. I think they've already got it all worked out, and watching Kerry's indifference to Edwards' not-so-subtle blandishments last night just enforced my conviction that this is so.

However, my fond fantasies could all blow up in my face and it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Certainly wouldn't be the first time.

"Love, in a world where carpenters get resurrected, anything is possible."

[incapsulated]

135. Well, I know I always say...

never underestimate the enemy. But I highly doubt they could stop a Clark appointment to Sec. of State, myself. They may well try their damnedest, but I don't believe they would succeed.

 
 

[LandOLincoln]

144. Could be. The only sure thing is, this Anno Domani MMIV

is gonna be one HELL of a ride.

YEEEEEEEEHAAAWWWWWW!!!!!

[janx]

151. Whoops. I like Clark, but one thing you MAY NOT co-opt is

the Scream.

Nope. That belongs to Dean and to Dean supporters only. Take the other stuff, but the Scream is ours and ours only.

We know how it happened, how it was distorted, and how it was celebrated by certain creative people on the Net.

Edit: My apologies if I have misunderstood you.

[incapsulated]

159. Yeehaw! vs. Yeeeaaarrrgghh!

Two different things. One is the cowboy yell. The other is the Deanie Rebel Yell, hehe.

 
 

[LandOLincoln]

161. I accept your apologies and offer my own. Didn't even think

about The Scream. Just an ol' cowgirl who says YEEEHAAWWW a lot.

Well, okay, once in awhile anyway. :toast:

[incapsulated]

156. Were did you get that coolio pic?

Wes looks good on a horse! :)

 
 

[LandOLincoln]

163. Word.

As for the pic, I don't remember where I found it, but read recently that what he's doing is saying goodbye to his old 1st Cav troops at Ft. Hood immediately pre-"retirement" in 2000.

However, if you want it just right click on it, then click on "Properties" and copy the specs. (I just write 'em out; there's probably easier ways but I'm too computer-stupid to know.)

[incapsulated]

164. Right-click, save pic as...

It be mine. :)

 
 

[Adelante]

172. Like you waited for permission

:eyes:

[BootinUp]

175. Wesdem, sometimes

you kill me. :)

[incapsulated]

186. Busted!

:smoke:

 
 

[Leilani]

218. What a terrific picture of Wes on the horse

Cowboy Shrub is afraid of horses & pretzels.

[Jai4WKC08]

150. Oh Really?

Can you say Bobby Inman?

Four-star admiral, 30-something years of military service, Deputy CIA director under Reagan, nominated to be Secretary of Defense by Clinton and torpedoes over some trumped up inuendo about his business connections. Nothing ever substantiated. Nomination withdrawn.

Now, Inman had his problems, and I'm not trying to debate whether he was a good choice or not. But he was Clinton's choice, and he wasn't popular with the Republicans at the time.

You're dreamin' if you think a Repub Senate is gonna let Wes Clark be Secretary of State.

[BootinUp]

153. I can be naive at times

what is the reason they would be so against Wes Clark as Sec of State?

[Jai4WKC08]

162. You have to ask?

Well, off the top of my head...

Because he's good. Because he'll be successful. Because he might just come back and take another 8 years away (67 is NOT too old to run for president).

Because he's honest. Because he'll won't let business as usual be the order of the day between Big Oil and Saudi princes. Because he'll expose the crap that's gone on in the past and some people could go to jail. Because he will rebuild our alliances and disrupt Repub corporate hegemony. Because he try to renegotiate Kyoto and make it work.

Because he got Clinton's knickers out of a jam in Kosovo. Because they think generals are supposed to be Republicans and he's betrayed them.

Pretty much all the same reasons they've been after him since, oh, about March 2003, when they realized he wouldn't play their games.

[BootinUp]

169. Thanks. I think...

I will just go cry now or something. Highly depressing to see things that way, I think I prefer to be in the ignorant masses.

Wouldn't it be something if the Senate unanimously confirmed him for SoS because they knew he was the right man for the job. Thats my naive dream.

[windansea]

171. Wes is squeaky clean

pretty unsmearable from the right....or the middle...what's the worst they could do?? you praised us after 9/11??? you voted for Reagan??? they would look like fools!! I guess they could attach his pro choice position.....

[LandOLincoln]

176. That won't stop 'em . They'll just make shit up.

They'll accuse him of all kinds of sexual shenanigans, and because he's so damned pretty (and because of his ties to the Big Dog) people will buy it. A lot will, anyway.

Hell's bells, I read on Kos (I think it was) no so long ago that even before Wes I announced some RW slimebag had written a hit piece on Wes II!!! Content not specified, but one can well imagine.

[BootinUp]

180. sexual shenanigans?!!

what are you drinking by the way? :)

[LandOLincoln]

183. As a matter of fact I'm guzzling a nice Zinfandel, Mr. Smartypants.

But seriously folks, I saw a Rove trial balloon floated on this very forum not so long ago. It died a quick death, i.e. got v. few responses (if any) but it was obvious that's what it was.

The content? The poster claimed Wes had been relieved of command because of sexual improprieties--that that was the substance of the "integrity" issues Shelton was talking about.

[BootinUp]

189. Cat's got my toungue

:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:

[incapsulated]

190. Well, now that you mention it...

I know a lot of female Clarkies would love to commit "sexual improprieties" with Wes, lol.

:evilgrin:

[LandOLincoln]

192. NOW CUT THAT OUT! <snort>

[Jai4WKC08]

181. That's naive

Of course he's squeaky clean. Didn't stop 'em during the campaign, did it?

WWIII? Waco? "Character and integrity issues"?

When they can't twist the truth, they just make stuff up. It's not something we want to go thru, and Kerry won't want to start his administration off that way either. Not with a Repub Senate, House, and who knows how many old court justices would step down at the last minute for new appointments.

[incapsulated]

154. I still disagree

Clinton was too quick to back down, imho. I don't think Kerry will be.

It's worth the fight for it, either way.

 
 

[Adelante]

178. I also believe

We Dems just are not taking shit this time. Not a one of us.

[windansea]

157. LOL LandOLincoln

:yourock:

[LandOLincoln]

165. LOL! Thankee kindly, and likewise I'm sure.

[troublemaker]

196. re:

re:a Repub-controlled Senate will give Kerry six kinds of hell over a Clark SecState appointment

Doubtful. It's amazing how rarely the Senate beefs on the *major* cab. posts. Was Tower the last one? If the Dems could line up for John Ashcroft the Repubs will line up for Clark.

re:The VP spot is nothing like it used to be, and even if it were, do you really think Wes Clark would settle for that kind of role?

The VP spot is now the second most powerful job in the country. Gore was the most active VP ever. Cheney is running the country. The presidency may well be becoming a two man job.

I don't like Clarke at state. He's a project oriented person. State is more process. As VP he could write his own ticket. Develop a national service corps while being on the NSC. Could be worse. And it's not like Clark won't be playing Cheney to someone's Rumsfeld at Defense. Kerry would actively seek that input, too. A man that careful must like getting second opinions.

Also, if population trends continue in dems favor... The red states are growing, hence Bush gets short term advantage, but they are growing because they're taking in democrats. If FL and AZ became automatics like CA and NY... If Clark wants to be Prez his best bet is being VP when 2012 rolls around. That'll piss off Hillary but Safire will probably be dead and won't be able to enjoy it.

[BootinUp]

199. Excellent post troublemaker!

Earlier in the thread I linked some information on confirmation battles. The post was called data for upload I believe. Good to review history every now and then. The VP spot can be whatever the President desires. So Kerry and his choice would negotiate the role.

I am not concerned with whether Clark becomes President or not. He has already contributed to the good of our country and he will continue to do so, whether he is a VP, a SoS, a private citizen that was a 4 star General, or a President.

[LandOLincoln]

200. YAHOOOO! D'accord, my friend. I foresee a Kerry/Clark

co-presidency. You have read my mind--or at least between my lines.

[incapsulated]

204. Sorry, I'm not backing down on this

I'm sorry but this was not a co-Presidency with his VP. That was Hillary.

Gore. What did Gore do? Government waste. Technology issues. Environment issues. Now we have Clark doing National Service.

No thanks.

State is not just "process", especially not when we are occupying a country and have troops on the ground in hostile territory. Even Bush is trying to wrest control of the situation on the ground in Iraq from the DOD and give it to the State Dept. I want him involved in international affairs right now.

 
 

[troublemaker]

207. Nor should you

It's not that Gore did anything substantive but that his role was more substantive than preceding VPs. Cheney's role speaks for itself--we've probably had five presidents with less power. The office is developing into a catch-all. If Cheney went on a shuttle diplomacy mission nobody (except Powell) would find it that odd.

There's no electoral track record yet, but I wonder if Cheney will cause people to pay attention to the VP slot in future. I know people that thought Bush was retarded but voted for him because they assumed Cheney would be running things.

Wes may have skills as a negotiator and he's well respected abroad but the part of his resume that impreses me is his work with army training and planning... innovation in war gaming... that sort of thing. I wouldn't mind him pulling double duty as VP and intel czar --I'm assuming the CIA chief won't also be director of intel in a new admin.

Most importantly, I genuinely believe he's the best man for the VP for electoral purposes. It's often said that all Reagan needed to do in the 1980 debates was not look insane--that people were just burned out on Carter and would take any alternative as long as they didn't think he would really blow up the world.

Similarly, I think all the dems have to do is not look like they'll let the foreigners come kill us all. It doesn't matter if the electorate's rational. I'm just saying that will be the test. (Assuming people remain burned out on Bush. Funny thing about that... is Bush the first president whose re-elect numbers are always well below his approval rating? It looks like 5%-8% of the populace thinks it's unpatriotic to DISAPPROVE of the president, even if they can't wait to see the last of him.)

This is Kerry's to not lose. That's why I'm hopeful, because he's tennacious and careful and dull. Either people will be sick of Bush or they won't. If people are tired of Bush the only thing that will keep him in office is fear. Wes is good at dispelling fear. I have mixed feelings about the man but really warmed up to him the first time I heard him say that Bush's biggest problem was sowing fear. (It was radical at the time)

[incapsulated]

208. I remember

When Clark first said that they were planning to go into Iraq all along and all the insiders in DC knew it, they called him insane, heh.

When he said it again during his last debate, it made me proud.

Of course we can argue all day about what role he should have in our fantasy Kerry administration, but those fools don't listen to us.

Plus, Kerry actually has to win first! ;)

 
 

[mikehiggins]

197. Vice President is elected; Sec'y of State is appointed

VP is decided by the voting public; Cabinet officers have to go through the Senate.

VP is a steady job with a nice house and nifty cars for four years; cabinet officers serve at the will of the PResident.

Cheney is still Cheney; Powell is a meat puppet.

The bottom line is that if you are elected to ANY office you are in a better position than if you are appointed to any office. It is as simple as that, and especially in an administration like Kerry's would be.

As to pushing 70 in eight years, we haven't even won the election yet. No need to worry about what will happen in 2012 when the crisis is in 2004.

[incapsulated]

198. You miss my point

"As to pushing 70 in eight years, we haven't even won the election yet. No need to worry about what will happen in 2012 when the crisis is in 2004."


My point was toward those who look to Clark as VP getting the POTUS at the end of Kerry's term.

I agree the crisis is now, which is why I don't want him wasted in the VP slot. It is not anything he can make it, as some have said, it is what the President decides to make it, and that usually isn't much because anything he could do that would play to his strengths would be in direct conflict with those holding cabinet positions.

[DancingBear]

221. Oh no, there's ANOTHER Ranger fan on this board?

Let's commiserate together - "Fire Sather!"

[grannyfran]

139. Sure hope so

Cheney was only one pretzel away from the Presidency.  If
something happened to Kerry, I sure would feel better if Clark
was VP  --  not Edwards.  

[BootinUp]

147. thats a good point too.

Too bad Cheney is nothing but an egghead.

:beer:

[Adelante]

179. 'Night, Jim4

:hug:

[troublemaker]

182. Well, since you mentioned it...

I get this weird vibe that Kerry/Clark is a done deal.

Clarke stayed in the race just long enough -- he was practically blocking for Kerry in VA and TN.

Clark is campaigning for Kerry, not just an endorse and disappear. Are Gephardt and Lieberman actually appearing on Kerry's behalf anywhere? (I don't know)

The Drudge thing was a specific smear of Clarke who was out of the race. Why bother? Driving a wedge between the camps?

Last night Kerry placed special emphasis on the "as military men we know force should be a LAST RESORT" and also said he wanted to revitalize the concept of National service. Kerry has skillfully swiped everyone's material, but why steal from someone who's out of the race? I felt like Kerry had been talking national service recently and added it to his repertoire. Has he been hitting national service before or was that newish?

Then Kerry utterly dissed Edwards on the VP question at the end of the debate.

I think Clark is a risky choice because he's not the most cautious campaigner, but hopefully he can follow orders. If Kerry can fight Bush to a standstill on National Security we wins by 10+ points. The Edwards VP thing is no help. After 100 mil of ads Kerry's going to look like Neville Chamberlain in a dress so I'm hoping he understands that his Security portfolio isn't as full as he might need.

Best of all, it's a "theme ticket." Clinton/Gore was a thoughtful Bubba ticket just when that was the coming thing. Kerry/Clark is a Vietnam ticket... hearts and balls. As timely as can be.

America still hasn't heard of Clark. The media thinks he's crazy but the media's message has been misunderstood on these boards. The media plans to INSTALL the Democratic candidate. Throughout the primaries they've been saying "get the Hell out of our way--we are willing to put this man (Kerry) in office and you guys need to just not screw it up." They wouldn't have been willing to install Dean, but they feel just awful about the way they torpedoed Gore. Maybe they thought Bush was a better story, but have realized just how irresponsible they were.
Now the media is doing their silly "are we too powerful" bit and boosting Edwards, but don't worry about it. They will push Kerry over the top in November if everyone keeps their shit together.

[windansea]

187. heh heh

welcome to DU :toast:

and nice post!!

[LandOLincoln]

188. I don't think it's a "weird vibe." I think they've both sent some

pretty obvious signals.

OTOH, I could just be really, really drunk.

Except when I'm sober I still think the same thing. <hic>

[LandOLincoln]

191. Oh, and welcome to DU, Mr/Ms. Troublemaker. The more of

us Troublemakers the merrier, sez I. :toast:

[windansea]

195. red or white???

:)

[LandOLincoln]

201. Red of course. "White Zinfandel" is soda pop. Ewwwwwww...

[WesternPADem]

202. Maybe so--Hope so!

Kerry sure seemed to inkle that in response to Clark's endorsement speech. I think it would be an excellent combination. Kerry, the Vietnam vet who fought heroically and protested heriocally against it after coming home. Clark, the Vietnam vet who fought heriocally, decided to stay in, then excelled to the top and played a key role in reshaping the US Armed Services into the finest in the history. It could be a final reconciliation of the wounded generation that contains more votes than any other in this election. I am a young boomer, too young for Vietnam, but I saw much as a 12-year-old, and don't think we can underestimate the healing power of this combo. People like me, who held their New Deal Dem, WWII-Vet fathers in highest esteem, see a Kerry/Clark ticket as one we'd hoped for as kids.

A classic military combo for sure, but in answer to those who say the economy is THE key issue: Clark again brings in his experience as an Economics professor (way under-publicized thus far), and a man who helped run a large government bureaucracy very efficiently and delivered human services--including health care--to tens of thousands, much like a Governor. Edward's "two America's" theme is for real and resonates with sooo many who are wondering how to pay their kids' college tuition and how to pay for their own health insurance if it is cut tomorrow. Like Edwards, Clark rose from humble roots, has lived economic hardship, and--as he saw in the Army--sees government as a vehicle for fairness, opportunity, equity, and equality. This is a good supplement to Kerry's experience in economic legislation, which is lacking in administration experience like Clark's.

And the current state of international affairs calls for, excuse the cliche, GRAVITAS in foreign policy. Clark has just that in the event that he had to jump in to take over the Presidency.

Plus, tapping Clark taps into the great 'Net phenomenon which was essentially Dean and Clark. Many of these are the swing voters and indies who Edwards claims are his. The NEW voters were Dean's and Clark's and together they can swing an election.

All this said about him being a terrific VP choice, I also think Clark would be excellent as one of several cabinet sectretaries.

[windansea]

205. right on

:yourock:

welcome to DU :pals:

[WesternPADem]

206. Thanks and great to be aboard!

I appreciate the hospitality, windansea.

-- Jim, a life-long Dem and Pittsburgh Clarkie

"Give 'em hell and don't retreat!"

[Auntie Bush]

235. Permission to come aboard! WELCOME!

It is not as rocky as it used to be. The wind has died down! But it can still get a little choppy at times.

[FrenchieCat]

210. What do we need in '04

To win against an incumbent Wartime President?

In my honest analysis, I find that the “heavy medal” ticket of John Kerry and Wes Clark will be far more effective against Bush/Cheney than any other. The Republican criticisms that Kerry is soft on defense due to some votes against weapon systems would be taken right off the table with Clark at Kerry’s side. Criticism of what Kerry did soon after the Vietnam War would also become a non-issue with a Kerry/Clark ticket.

Clark is southern, photogenic, charming, a Veteran with honors, an expert in Foreign policy and national security matters. He was against the war in a rational sense, articulates well, has gravitas and scares the beegeezus out of the Republicans. In addition Clark had appeal to all parties, a positive message and yet is able to call the Bush Administration out effectively on many serious issues.

Remember, the VP must be an attack dog...not a whimpering puppy!

Lest we forget, Clark also raised an awful lot of money in a short time. His record of commanding the only NATO war without any casualties should trumped other VP candidates with records of votes that could come back to haunt them.

The fact that the Media did no justice to Wes Clark when covering him(starting with the infamous flip/flop gotcha by Adam Nargouney on the day Clark announced), which was not often, is why Clark did relatively poorly during the primaries....can you say no free media?

It does appear that the influential media whores are prepping John Edwards as the Vice Presidential candidate. Whatever the media says, I usually run the other way. Why, may I ask is the media pushing Edwards so hard? What does Edwards have besides Sweet-talking youth and charismatic charm? I find the charm evasive. I read it forced and phony. The two accents and the two Americas from the son of a Mill worker are getting tiresome. In fact, Edwards is what many are calling a Made-for/by-TV candidate.

Even with the media whirlwind blowing Edwards in front of every camera available, his showing has been short of mediocre. Compare Clark's performance, even with the national media barely mentioning him (which is why he had to spend so much on paid media, later a criticism leveled against him on how he ran his campaign), one has to wonder, what could have been. What if CNN, ABC, CBS and the rest would have bothered to mention Clark during the daily campaign recaps? Heck, Dick Gephardt even got more mention from the talking heads, and that’s when Clark was in a statistically tie with Howard Dean at the top of the polls (during the Media driven Dean love-fest).

Further, Clark would still do what Edwards is lauded for; attract southern voters (doable with decent media coverage unlike during the Tennessee and Virginia primaries). Clark is also attractive to the southwest voters (very important this election year). Remember that he came in 1st in Oklahoma, and 2nd in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota, in part due to the Indian vote that went Clark.

Clark would do what Edwards cannot; secure those Veterans voters on the fence for Kerry. Add Republicans who would crossover and vote Democratic during the General Election to get rid of Bush; unlike the Edwards’ Republican voters who crossed over during the primaries, the majority out of mischief (confirmed via exit poll analysis).

I would dare ask, how could General Wesley K. Clark, an American hero who through his 34 years career in the military received numerous honors and awards, including the Presidential Medal of Honor, and saved hundreds of thousands of people through his brilliant diplomatic, negotiating and organizational skills

be less appealing than

a first term senator, former Personal Injury attorney who has one speech taken directly from the old “Two New York” speech of another?

And this question; do we really need two candidates that both voted for the war, for No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and against the 87 billion dollar supplemental Iraq package? Will the double echo of voting for most of Bush’s policies really gain the Democratic ticket votes? I tend to doubt it.

As Vice President, Wesley Clark would establish a new standard of excellence and honesty. What if anything should happen to President Kerry? I believe that General Clark, whose unquestionable integrity, commitment and broad experience dealing with world leaders and the day-to-day needs of (service) men and women, could ably take the helm.

Yep...Heavy Medal....that's what can win in '04. Kerry/Clark.

[juajen]

212. Hi, Frenchie4Clark

That was a great post! The General is amazing and a wonderful gift to the American people.

:kick: :kick:

[Tom Rinaldo]

223. Heavy Medal lol! Frenchie, I love it.

Great post of course. A Kerry/Edwards ticket would be like the plastic wrapped pack of rock solid pale pink tomatoes that supermarkets try to pass off as food. Of course I would still consume them rather than the rat poison currently being served us.

The closer I look at Edwards, the slicker he seems to me. The media nowadays is acting the way record companies always have. They know how to pitch certain kinds of acts and they could care less who has what real talent, or if the acts really are what they are being promoted as. Fit Kerry into the "seasoned grizzled vet with gravitas who looks Presidential" slot, peg Edwards as the "charismatic young Kennedyeske peoples choice". Repeat selections endlessly on top 40 News stations.

Kerry will want someone on his ticket who can help him win a couple of states. He can go with the Clark option of fortifying the ticket across the board, with the added boost of inoculating himself from the charges that he sold out America's Viet Nam Vets during that war when he testified about American military atrocities in Viet Nam. Or he can pick a politician who has strong local appeal in a key swing state. OR he can buy into the media fueled frenzy about a Kerry/Edwards ticket being the best the Democrats can offer.

The swing factor could be whether or not Kerry cares about the chemistry between himself and his potential running mate.

[Crunchy Frog]

229. Hey Tom, it's great to see you back!

I've missed you, didn't know if you'd left us for good. I had been hoping you would stick around. As you can probably tell, we need your levelheadedness on this board.:)

[WesternPADem]

226. Heavy Medal ticket rules!

What a great slogan. Love it. It'll have the Bushies and his Neocons shaking in their non-combat boots.

I'm a native Draft Clarkie and he is hands down the best VP choice. But don't discount the message of the two Americas among folks who don't follow politics like we do. This year, the sign on the campaign headquarters wall oughta be: "It's national security, Stupid, and my job, health insurance, and kid's college tuition, Dummy."

Hey, I know it's too long but what the heck. Still, it's no match for Heavy Medal!

Steel Proud in Pittsburgh to be Clark Dem.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

211. I'm willing to bet my dog's life..

..on the fact that Wes Clark WILL be VP.
It'll happen. Watch!

[NNN0LHI]

213. 212 posts and only one deleted? Must be some kind of a record for the...

....General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum? :-)

Don

[nolabels]

215. Can't we all just get along?

All in all Clark seems to bring the most to the table, at least far as I can see. You don't get no second chances in the GE, wouldn't it make sense to take your best shot? And speaking of shots, does anyone understand the Quayle factor and its implications.
Just one more reason to punch a
(x) Kerry / Clark ticket

[Piperay]

214. No...

I don't see it. I think two war heroes on the same ticket would be a wash. I think it more likely he will pick Edwards.

[in_cog_ni_to]

222. Yes, Wesley K. Clark

will be our next VP.

[molly]

224. I think so

[Adelante]

225. My goodness

More than 200 posts for a man who's not even running for anything anymore.

I love all loyal Clarkies :grouphug:

[Crunchy Frog]

230. Love back atcha jersey,

and all the other Clarkies here.:grouphug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

227. Thematically, It Would Be the Best Choice, IMO

It would also be Kerry's best choice for a VP who would be instantly ready to step into the role of CIC if necessary.

God, I hope it happens!

DTH

[pacifictiger]

228. If not vp

absolutely sec of defense or state. His wonderful mind is needed. In fact I would like all of the candidates put into any key positions.

[Protagoras]

236. No

Clark seemed like a good guy but he didn't seem to pull in the swing state votes in any special way. Edwards appears to have more populist appeal and an even stronger base in a number of the souther swing states, and Kerry has enough of a military record that he doesn't "have" to have the general on the ticket.

If not Edwards then I'm betting Bill Richardson.

[Leilani]

238. What do you base that theory on?

Edwards has won 1 state.

Clark won 1 state.

Where is the strong base you are talking about?

[BootinUp]

239. Clark v Edwards

In every State where Clark spent time and money (except Edwards native SC) he competed very well against Edwards. Considering the momentum Edwards got from Iowa, you could even make a case that Clark was in fact the stronger candidate based on head to head matches.

[Crunchy Frog]

240. Also considering the fact

that Edwards was a media darling who was getting constant free exposure, while Clark was almost invisible in the national media, and he still did better than Edwards in the Southwest says something.

I really wonder how Clark would have done if he had gotten media coverage that was comparable to Edwards'. I think he would have demonstrated that he was actually a much stronger candidate than Edwards.

[Protagoras]

241. You sound like I just kicked Clark in the teeth

which is kinda humorous considering how much I actually like the guy.

Like it or not Clark came late and left early. Regardless of who could have done whatever, Edwards is the one who did get out the populist message and he essentially tied Clark in the one state that Clark "won". Moreover, he now has had a chance to firm up his national support. That makes him a much bigger impact name on the ticket at this point.

It didn't have to be that way. But that's what has happened now. Clark can still serve in a number of great ways, I just don't see him as being THE pick for VP at this time.

As for data...I look at states like Missouri, which, last I checked was right next to Arkansas.
Edwards 103,198 25%
Clark 18,328 4%

And Virgina
Edwards 104,813 27%
Clark 36,474 9%

And we can also look at Oklahoma
Clark 90,526 30%
Edwards 89,310 30%

Contrasted with South Carolina
Edwards 131,174 45%
Clark 21,011 7%

Arizona and New Mexico...oh and North Dakota are the only places where in a head to head battle Clark has beaten Edwards that I'm aware of and honestly I don't see either of these men making THE difference in the SW...at the point where that is your target you are much better off going with Bill Richardson.

The actual results...and the fact that Edwards now has much broader national exposure seems like a sufficient reason to predict (which is much different than Support) Edwards is more likely to be the VP pick than Clark.

[BootinUp]

242. Just so you understand my point

Clark spent no time or money of any significance in Mo, or Virginia. Both of those states were essentially decided by the momentum factor from Iowa.

In NH, OK, TN which are states both men campaigned heavily Clark won 2 out 3 despite the momentum factor.

[Crunchy Frog]

243. Actually, I wasn't even responding

to your post, I was responding to Jim4Wes. I hadn't even really noticed yours, but thanks anyway.:) I stand by what I said in my previous post, although it's just my opinion. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree. :)

[mike from ri]

244. i think it will be Bob Kerrey former Dem sen of Neb.

even tho i am a Clark supporter, i think Kerry will (and perhaps should) turn to his Neb namesake who is more politically tested than Clark, has exec experience, is a good deficit hawk, reinforces the Vietnam vet appeal, and maybe could bring around some states like Neb, SD and nd. his presence on the tkt certainly would make Iowa safely democratic.

[Leilani]

246. Bob Kerrey is now Pres of the New School

He married several years ago & had a baby. His wife did not want any part of poitics, which is why he left the Senate & went to live in NY.

I doubt that he would be interested in getting back into politics now.