Why I think Wes Clark is a better VP choice than John Edwards

[MessiahRp]

Look I want to start off by saying I like both guys, but I think there are three significant advantages to having Wesley Clark as our VP candidate over John Edwards.

1. Both Clark and Edwards are extremely likeable guys and they ran positive campaigns that drew in Independents and Republicans (well in Wisconsin Republicans were scamming the Open Primary process openly, but that's another story)....

But Wes Clark was a Republican before and he still draws Republican support from many disenfranchised Repubs who refuse to change parties officially because of stubbornness or refusal to admit they might lean towards that now evil word in American Society: Liberal. Whatever the case I truly believe that Clark draws more support from the Swing voters who are crucial especially in battleground states.

2. Wes Clark's state is still in play, Edwards likely is not. We only lost Arkansas by a handful of points and the main reason might have been Gore's spiteful attitude towards the Clintons there. Wes Clark is still a hot item in Arkansas and he has Clinton support... he will win Arkansas if he is on this ticket. Also not to be discounted is Clark's very strong support base in Florida.

Look Bob Graham may be helpful but he's not going to carry Florida alone and I think neither is Bill Nelson, so we should get someone who can carry one state and play very strong in another that we might not have won without them.

Edwards won South Carolina and is from North Carolina but there's a slim chance one or both of the Carolinas would go to Kerry even with Edwards on the ticket. There's just too strong of a Republican base there.

3. The most obvious choice: National Security. I know it's a tired topic but with Kerry and Clark, what would Bush's strategy be to overcome their obvious military histories and therefore built-in security credibilities? Bush's first ads play up 9/11 yet again and if we had that ticket it would be hard to convince anyone that our ticket wouldn't be a stronger choice to prevent future attacks such as these. Also it would take away the Iraq War issue because you can pretty much count on the fact that Americans would likely trust a former General and a former Navy officer, both of which have won multiple honorary medals, can manage a war better than Bush could.

That to me makes Clark the best choce as VP. No offense to Edwards supporters or supporters of other candidates for the position but that's just my analysis on the issue.

Rp

[sadiesworld]

1. Sound analysis IMHO.

[LandOLincoln]

2. Excellent post! Just one quibble and one additional

point in Clark's favor:

1. He was never a Republican. He was a registered Independent who voted Republican during the Cold War.

2. He has an added advantage as VP (over Graham etc.) that maybe it takes a woman to point out, and that would be the "Elvis" factor. Of course John Edwards has it too, but he doesn't begin to have the foreign policy/national security chops Clark has.

[Bombtrack]

3. clark would be complete overcompensation if he were Kerrys vp

he would have made a good vp for Edwards, not Kerry.

Graham is the most popular politician in Florida, and you're stated "strong support base" is made up of a couple thousand at most anti-Bush people who aren't going to vote republican and will vote democrat, nothing compared to what Graham would bring to Kerry there, and Clark's ability to win solid SOUTHERN Arkansas for JOHN FORBES KERRY is absolutely nothing compared to .01 percent officially "lost" Florida

[LiberalBushFan]

15. "overcompensation"

Several Edwards supporters have been repeating the word "overcompensation" as to why Clark shouldn't be Kerry's VP. It's a word that sounds bad, but I haven't heard any strong points as to what will go wrong as a result of this possible "overcompensation."

[BootinUp]

21. i've yet to get an answer to that as well. -eom-

[leyton]

24. I think it's fine.

Gore and Clinton overcompensated when they had the Southern ticket in 1992, and it served them well.

[silver state d]

4. good analysis but...

Edwards charisma and intangibles could be very helpful in Ohio, w. Virginia and other swing states like MO. Clark isn't quiet the campaigner as JE but i must say the AK think is a definite tangible plus for him. It is a tough call but i suspect your right.

[citizen snips]

5. I disagree.

Edwards is the best candidate to get the independent vote.

[Cat Lewis]

6. Clark vs Edwards?

>Both Clark and Edwards are extremely likeable guys..

First of all, I don't think the "likeable" factor is relevant, in the case of these two men. Each is likeable to some people, but each has an inherent trait that sets some people's teeth on edge. To some, Clark is impossibly egotistical and a big turnoff - an occupational hazard among generals. Edwards has the typical southern charm, but people from other areas of the country find that drawl and nicey-nicey demeanor artificial, and react to it like fingernails on a blackboard. So I dismiss "likeability", because between these two men, it's a draw.

I also dismiss the national security issue, simply because polls overwhelmingly indicate that the economy and health care are more important to most voters.

In deciding which man is the better choice, it has nothing to do with issues, and everything to do with political savvy and the ability to think on their feet. Clark is a political newbie who has made so many dumb mistakes that were I the candidate, I wouldn't dare choose him. He's a walking accident. looking for a place to happen.

One thing you gotta say for Edwards, like him or not: his trial lawyer experience has prepared him to think on his feet.

He's the best campaigner, and with Kerry's tendency to put people to sleep, he's who we need.

[tigereye]

7. agree more because we need a Southern populist

[Adelante]

10. Welcome to DU, Cat Lewis

:hi:

[dogman]

22. Kerry has adopted more from Clark

than any other candidate. He had not defined himself until he saw Clark's stand on the issues. Edwards has delivered one stump speech from the beginning. Is he going to spend the next 8 months telling us he is the son of a mill worker and there are 2 Americas. In the debates he was caught short on the facts more than once as in defining Islam or the DOMA.

[OneBlueSky]

8. expanding a bit on your #3 . . .

a Kerry/Clark ticket is bulletproof on national security and defense . . . with those issues essentially off the table, the campaign necessarily moves to domestic issues, which is the one place BushCo doesn't want it . . . Kerry/Clark puts the campaign on our playing field rather than theirs, which is why no list of potential running mates I've seen thusfar has included Clark . . . BushCo and, by extension, their media minions are scared silly of a Kerry/Clark ticket, which is why they're pushing Edwards (or anyone else but Clark) so hard . . . Kerry/Clark is the last thing they want, and is therefore something we should seriously consider . . .

[Nimble_Idea]

9. your right

They were trying to bury Kerry,

Now they want to bury Clark.

They thought they could decide who our Nominee was before, now they are trying to pick OUR VP, it's so sad for them, This year the Dems are
ON POINT and ready to go at the Right with everything we have
and that means Kerry/Clark!

[arewethereyet]

11. Edwards can't help Kerry, no point in picking him

a midwesterner who can deliver a swing state is best. Failing that Clark can't do but so much harm.

[DaisyUCSB]

12. The only midwestern red swing states are Ohio and Missouri

Gephardt is doubtful to do as much help as his proponents say in either. He's just an unapealing person and a bad leader. Why not chose Bob Graham who has won the biggest swing state 5 times, is from the south, is a populist, and innoculates somewhat Kerry's limousin liberal stigma.

Graham appeals to rural Americans, that's proven. Gephardt is from an urban district and, like Clark and Edwards, does not have a proven track record of winning moderate states again and again

[arewethereyet]

13. lemme see, who is governor of Fla ? OH YEAAAAHHHHH

I love Graham but its just not going to work.

[MessiahRp]

16. I tend to agree with that point

I don't trust that slimey PNAC bastard Jeb one bit. I am pretty confident that he never corrected the voter registration lists that were extremely flawed in 1000 and probably if anything expanded the banned lists this time. This time there is a huge uprising and movement to oust his brother unlike in 2000 when people just voted for their favorite of the two candidates, so Jeb has likely been working overtime behind the scenes looking at ways to discriminate, disenfranchise, and straight out screw Democratic voters.

With that in mind I am not counting on Florida in 2000. Rather we should emphasize picking off TN, MO, AZ, AR, WV, and OH.

Rp

(edited to say Arkansas not Alaska)

[DaisyUCSB]

26. You think that Tennessee and Alaska are more likely to go to us than a

state that we lost officially by 517 votes, AFTER everything that happened, including the purgings. Their was only one list, so more voters are highly unlikely to be purged. The purging is more likely to excite the minority community and democrats in general, in addition to the Nader voters. Most of the states you named had Bush loyal governors. This is insanity.

[MessiahRp]

27. I meant AR not AK... I'll edit it

Sorry.. but yeah because we only lost Tennessee by a few hundred votes as well and Arkansas by a few points period. Florida should have been ours but you're acting as if we lost that fair in 2000 and that it will be fair again in 2004. I don't trust Jeb Bush at all and he has a track record of pulling illegal stunts to steal votes from us.

Rp

[looking glass]

14. One Problem

Clark repeatedly said that he did not want to be VEEP (I think Russert asked him at least a zillion times in one MTP interview).

He was quite clear about it.

If Clark is a man of his word,then he isn't in the running.

[LandOLincoln]

17. Except that was when Dean was still the frontrunner.

There's no way he would have been Dean's VP, but Kerry's a whole different ballgame.

[RichV]

18. No candidate for prez would admit he'd take the VP slot

eom

[dogman]

19. No one who is running for President is going to say they want to be

Vice-President. He has said he will serve his country and do anything it takes to remove B***.

[cosmokramer]

20. He's not going to be Dean's Dick Cheney...

...it was clearly meant to say he wouldn't fill the National Security gap in Dean's resume as Cheney did in Bush's resume.

He was refuting that he WOULD NOT BE DEAN'S VP.

ALSO, Clark can raise money far better, and faster, than Edwards.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

[gulliver]

23. Clark vs. Cheney

Clark would be an earnest, likeable, good looking war hero vs. a shifty old liar. Clark would humiliate Cheney. I'd trade Superbowl tickets to see it.

[David Zephyr]

25. I Agree, MessiahRp.

:thumbsup:

[Auntie Bush]

28. Clark could get the Catholic vote, the

Protestant vote, the Jewish vote, the American Indian the Hispanic vote. (His daughter-in-law is Hispanic) Richardson loves him.

[Donna Zen]

29. Baptist

Clark grew up Baptist, by choice...his parents didn't do to church.

[MessiahRp]

30. Won't we already get all the Liberal Catholic vote we're gonna get

with Kerry? I don't see how most Catholics will vote for us anyways, that is if they accepttheir Pope's ultraconservative views...

I like Clark because of a lot of intangibles, I'm not sure religion is one of the more important ones. :)

Rp