Kerry doesn't need a VP who helps him win, he needs one to help Bush lose

[Tom Rinaldo]

Out of all the Dems running for President this year, face it; most primary voters didn't choose Kerry because of his eloquent oration. Nor was he the man who best fired up the Democratic Party base, or most inspired its hard core activists. Kerry did well enough in all those areas to win, certainly, but his win was not because of his exceptional appeal in any one of those realms. Kerry won because most Democrats believed he would match up best against Bush this year. Our Party is nominating a man who is considered a well seasoned and successful politician, with National and International experience. Unlike Wesley Clark, Kerry is an old pro at politics. Unlike Richard Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman ("damaged goods" each) Kerry is untainted by prior losses. Unlike Howard Dean and John Edwards, Kerry has military experience, and a long history grappling with International issues in the U.S. Senate. In short, Kerry emerged for most of us as the man best equipped to take on our Nation's leader in a time of war. For sad though that truth may be, this is how the majority of Americans see George W. Bush; our leader in a time of war. This election is George Bush's to lose. Fortunately for us, he has positioned himself well to do so.

There is a compelling reason why politicians reach to wrap themselves in an American flag, it's worth a lot of votes. In time of war the grab is less apparent. With a somber stance, but steely resolve, our President holds high the banner thrust in his hands by fate, as he leads our nation against foes hell bent to deny us our Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. That's the George W. Bush who's running against John Kerry. It's a guns and butter type year, with the stress on Guns. George Bush (or at least Karl Rowe) isn't stupid enough to ignore addressing the economy completely. It's in play and he'll play it. Bush can't win that match with Kerry, but Bush doesn't have to. Like a triathlon competitor, he just has to stay close enough in his weak events to gain overall victory with a strong showing in his forte.

Here's a political rule of thumb I sort of just made up, though of course there's absolutely nothing novel about it. Usually real hope will triumph over real cynicism, but real fear mostly triumphs over real hope. Hell, I'm more than uneasy about the world today. As an American, I know hundreds of millions of people automatically hate me, and tens of thousands would probably kill me given half a chance. Enemies are real, and so is fear. All things being equal people WANT to rally behind their leader in a time of danger. George W. Bush started this election cycle with the presumptive loyalty of a clear majority of voters. Real danger is the reason George Bush will get at least one or two more chances to rally this nation behind him. And clear incompetency in the face of real danger is the reason why George W. Bush may well be defeated in a Democratic landslide. This election could end up being fairly close, but I don't think it will be a squeaker.

Either George Bush will sufficiently discredit himself, through the manifest failure of his foreign policy and his inability to counter terror at home and abroad, so that he is solidly defeated, or George Bush will sufficiently discredit John Kerry as a leader suited by temperament and ability to replace Bush in leading our nation through perilous times, resulting in a clear Bush victory. Even in the better case, John Kerry will only win IF the public believes George Bush is incompetent to continue leading our nation at war. If our ticket does not project sufficient poise, experience, judgement, and resolve at facing the threats that confront us, most likely we lose. We have a horse race in midstream, and we all know the adage about horses in midstream. John Kerry doesn't need a VP who will help provide balance to the ticket, he needs a VP who will help underscore the danger inherent in allowing George W. Bush to remain in the White House. That's the issue, and that's the ticket to framing that issue in the most compelling terms for the American electorate. Wes Clark is the obvious choice for that job.

[DebJ]

1. I'm sorry, but I never want to ever see a 'man in uniform' at the helm.

I want a check and balance on our military....someone who thinks once, twice, three times, and more, before sending in troops anywhere anytime. It's too easy for a general to get engaged in military action.

[freetobegay]

3. So whats Bush's excuse?

Your premise does not hold water.

[dae]

5. If you look at American history it's not the generals that start the wars.

[Nay]

14. Exactly. Any of the military men we Dems can pick are not

warmongers, for the simple reason that they have been there and done the war thing, and don't have any big illusions about what it does, what it can do, and what it's like. They KNOW. Unlike the shrub, who still thinks it's the equivalent of playing with his GI Joes. It's the unrealistic, mindless, ideological jerks who get us into wars.

[Old and In the Way]

6. I know it is counter-intuitive, but

I think only a general of Clark's stature can reform the Pentagon. I sincerely think he can drive a restructuring of our budget that stops dumping all of our money into weapons and starts to reinvest in this country.

What good is a strong military for external threats, if the country is bankrupted and not investing in the future of our citizens?

[Justice]

23. Reform Pentagon

I think that is the ultimate - having Clark be able to reform the Pentagon. I've thought alot about that and what position he needs to have in order to do that. He can't be SOD, and probably couldn't do it as SOS (just look at Powell's lack of influence over the Defense Dept). Maybe as NSA?

I also don't want McCain as SOD, as I think about what Cohen did to Clark - and to Clinton indirectly -- in the end McCain is a republican, and he will always work to make the democrats look weak.

[Skwmom]

7. Are you serious?

It's the military that is the least enthusiastic about going to war. Have you read about the military being gung ho Iraq War? *ell no because they know what war entails - unlike the Republican chicken hawks.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Wes Clark,

the **** four star general, was the ONLY presidential candidate to warn this country about the "Military-Industrial Complex." He KNOWS what war is. He KNOWS what wars do to people and countries. Wes Clark will be the LAST person to recommend going to war. Trust me. He'll NEVER do it. I trust that man more than ANY politician.

[Exgeneral]

45. I think the exact opposite is true

Most generals are fully aware of the human cost of warfare. They weren't always generals, and at one time the function of notifying families of military deaths fell to them.

Even Officers of platoons write condolence letters when they lose a man.

It's the guys who have done combat that are most resistant to the notion of warfare.

It's conspicuous lack of these guys that cause the * administration to blunder into two invasions in two years.

[Nimble_Idea]

2. Brilliant

:tinfoilhat:

[chimpymustgo]

4. Sorry. Not holding water. Hope trumps everything.

But we can argue this till the cows come home. I hope our party runs on optimism rather than fear - fear is for the Rethugs.


Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond....

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Our party always runs on Optimism. We're Democrats.

We should and will run on optimism. Clark did during the primaries, though that part of his message wasn't given as much exposure because the media kept asking for Clark's opinions on War and Peace. No nation can prosper based on fear. Hope has always been the driving force behind our country. All true. But in times of crisis, fear is a biologically hard wired response essential to the survival of the species. To be ignored at great peril. For Democrats to insufficiently acknowledge the publics real fears right now would be at our political peril.

The message should be hope. The messengers should be reassuring.

[Skwmom]

12. Hope?

Oh yeah a personal injury attorney being a heart beat away from the commander in chief role really feels my heart with hope. Some bogus two Americas speech which is contradicted by Edwards own actions hardly feels me with hope.

[sparrowhawk]

19. And a Kerry/Clark ticket would give me a great deal of hope ...

hope that we can finally get out of this dark period.

[newyawker99]

42. Hi sparrowhawk!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jobycom]

8. Kerry won because the rest sucked.

"he needs a VP who will help underscore the danger inherent in allowing George W. Bush to remain in the White House."

Is there anyone on the planet that doesn't underscore that danger? Aside from Bush's staff, I mean.

One replay of Clark's "Thank God George W Bush is our president" video and Kerry can retire an also-ran. He needs someone who truly does underscore Bush. Clark's about the only person I've ruled out.

[Justice]

13. Kerry Won Because Kerry Won

give me a break. One doesn't build people up by knocking others down.

I love Clark, but I think Kerry should and will choose Edwards.

Clark will have a role in the adminstration. Clark will continue to campaign for Kerry, as an advisor.

[chimpymustgo]

16. Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Clark should definitetly have a role in Kerry's administration.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Don't think I'm knocking Kerry down at all

Why do you think I did? Calling someone seasoned with a depth of experience isn't a put down to me. Perhaps I "put down" Gephardt and Lieberman by calling them "damaged goods", but the perception that they were shelf worn was widely shared. Didn't say anything negative about Edwards (or Dean), and I won't now either.

[Justice]

21. Was Replying to #8 Not Original Message

Tom,

I have extraordinary respect for you and your posts. I wasn't reacting to your original post -- as much as I would like Clark to be on the ticket, I really don't think that is in the cards - I think Edwards is going to be the guy.

I was reacting to the post #8 which said Kerry won because the others sucked - and then went on to criticize Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. No prob. On reread that should have been clear to me

I think we can win with Edwards, and I think he would overall be a much better pick than most. I stay away from Edwards bashing. Obviously I don't think he would be the best pick though lol.

Good chance you are right about what Kerry will do. I suspect he will think he can have his cake and eat it too, by selecting Edwards for VP, and putting Clark extensively out there on the stump for him also. I am confident Clark would still have influence in Kerry's administration. I don't think any Democrat other than Clark has the potential of turning this race into a Democratic route though. If events start spinning dangerously out of control, I believe that a Kerry/Clark ticket is best positioned to pull in the broadest number of Republican voter defectors.

[Skwmom]

31. Edwards bashing?

What you call Edwards bashing I call trying to get the Democrats to see the light (before they once again commit political suicide). There's a reason so many Bush supporters in the media are pushing for the personal injury attorney (hint: it's not to help the Democratic ticket). Kerry already has image problems, the last thing he needs to do is add a personal injury attorney of Edwards caliber to the ticket.

As far as having his cake and eating it too do you really think the corporate media will let him get away with this? They will simply ignore Clark and have a field day taking down the personal injury attorney (the sad fact is that they really need only tell the truth about Edwards to do so). Clark as VP however, will be much more difficult to ignore.

Clark is the one man who wasn't in this for his own glory. Edwards is definitely in in for Edwards so as my grandmother used to say if he can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. While I share some of your concerns about Edwards

I don't think he would be a disaster for the ticket by any means. I think some of Edward's backers gloss over his liabilities, but that probably can be said about the backers of any candidate. I would have been much more concerned about Edwards as the Presidential nominee than I am with him running for VP. Whoever Kerry picks for VP, will be used in a role and situation that plays to the strengths of that man or woman with the electorate. That obviously can't be as well managed with the Presidential candidate.

Edwards is one of us, not one of them, so no, I don't "bash him". AS to Kerry wanting his cake and eating it to, I agree with you that Clark will be largely ignored by the media if he is not the VP choice, except from time to time when terrible things happen in the world. That should say something, shouldn't it? Who does America need one heart beat from the White House? How about the man people turn to when the going gets tough?

[Padraig18]

41. Who are these 'Bush supporters in the meida', Skwmom.

I've seen you reference them repeatedly, and I think some names would be nice.

[Bombtrack]

9. If there was an award for puffed up semantics

You'd definetly be in the running

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. How pithy n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. By the way Bombtrack (I forgot to mention this yesterday)

If in your critique you are talking about these puffed up words: "With a somber stance, but steely resolve, our President holds high the banner thrust in his hands by fate, as he leads our nation against foes hell bent to deny us our Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness"; that was intentional mockery of Repub imagery, such as that flight suit on the Air Craft carrier bit. If you meant the rest of what I wrote, well, I'll stand by those words, for better or worse lol.

[KittyWampus]

46. How Mean-Spirited. And I Swore I'd Keep Out Of These VP Threads

:(

[DancingBear]

15. Very well stated, Tom

Oh, and just for the record, bombast is in the eye of the beholder. :)

[Skwmom]

17. Great post.

The Democrats need to own the national security issue in this election or they are going to lose - pure and simple.

Both Democrats and Republicans agree it's not if we have another terrorist attack but when. Bush has done virtually nothing to make our homeland safe. Our chemical and nuclear plants are a ticking time bomb, first responders are ill prepared etc. With Clark as VP, the Democratic ticket can hammer Bush on this issue. Physical security trumps economic security any day of the weak. Yes the Republicans really play on these fears but they are valid fears none the less.

On another post, a comment was made that the military issue is owned by the Republicans so we shouldn't even try to compete. Well terrorism isn't going away anytime soon (regardless of what occurs in Iraq) so the Democrats need to rid the party of the image that it is weak on defense and denounce the Republicans for the chicken hawks that they are.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. I JUST saw a new poll on CNN

on who would do a better job in Iraq and it was 49!!!!! BUSH!!!! and 47!!!! Kerry!!!!! If THIS doesn't warrant WES CLARK on the ticket, I don't know what does! Wesley Clark is, HANDS DOWN, the man we NEED to WIN! We need to WIN people!

[PeaceProgProsp]

26. Why aren't there hypothetical Kerry-Clark matchup polls?

There must be some privately done. I wonder what they say.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. They surely have done some.

Knowing the press, if the polls were favorable to a Kerry/Clark ticket, they wouldn't tell us. My guess is...that is exactly the case. :grr:

[msanger]

25. sorry to disagree

But Clark on the ticket allows bush to play the "loose cannon" charge. I think rove would phrase it like this:

Clark has no elective experience, failed in his bid for the democratic nomination, and is hated by many in the military. If, God forbid, a terrorist attack on washington should kill President Kerry, do we really want an untested General to lead the nation?

I thought you were going to call for somebody like Sam Nunn, somebody with lots of political and foreign policy experience. Not that I would mind having Clark on the ticket, but I think that Kerry will play it safe and pick a VP that doesnt' allow the republicans any targets to shoot at.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I do want Clark, however...

I intentionally only mentioned Clark in the closing sentence because I think the theme is larger than just Clark for VP. Someone like Sam Nunn, or Max Clelend, or George Mitchell or Bill Richardson etc. might also strengthen the ticket in the manner I was suggesting.

I am confident that Clark would now easily handle the type of attacks the Republicans would likely throw at him, as you suggest. He would have a first class campaign team, he would have ample time and exposure to get his message out, and he is becoming oh so good at that lately.

I suppose there is an arguably higher risk of Clark getting caught off guard saying something in an unguarded moment that can be used against him than with a more conventional politician. But he is bright enough to think on his feet when unscripted. He did a masterful job with Tim Russet on Meet The Press during his campaign, he can take heat. Plus he has that life long record of service to his country that underscores Kerry's message, and contrasts so well with Bush/Cheney.

The big upside with Clark would hopefully NOT come into play during the campaign. If God forbid there is a major terror attack on American soil this Summer/Fall, Wesley Clark would far and away be the strongest VP running mate that Kerry could ever ask for.

[Adelante]

29. Can you back this up, please?

"hated by many in the military"

I can only imagine you are referring to Gen. Shelton, but "many" implies, well, many others. Can you be more specific?

[Skwmom]

30. You've got to be kidding.

If a terrorist attack on Washington would kill President Kerry, Wes Clark is just the man that I would want to be commander-in-chief. This is the argument that I posted earlier about Edwards (sorry a personal injury attorney would hardly calm the panic that would ensue after such an attack). To try to use this argument against Clark is ludicrous. There is not a man better equipped to lead the nation in such a crisis situation.

In regards to the military, there are many, many, many in the military who loved Wes Clark (in fact I handed out fliers with a soldier who worked with Clark and couldn't quit singing his praises). In addition, over the years, Clark won the praise of many highly-placed people. General Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point called him a "national treasure," and "one of the top five most talented people I've met in my life."

A war hero ticket will be extremely difficult for the Republicans to attack (can you say backlash - unlike adding a personal injury attorney to the ticket which will make it a free for all without fear of creating such a backlash).

As far as Clark not being a politician all I can say is thank God.

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. Clark is extremely vulnerable to attack.

The 'whistling through the graveyard' act by some of his supporters is just that--- an act. They keep whooping and hollering about his military experience because they know that Rove will SAVAGE him with a campaign of "Wes Clark; what he said then, what he says now" series of ads.

I'm sorry, but I do NOT want a man who voted for Reagan and Bush the Smarter both anywhere near our ticket, at least until he actually runs for, is elected to and serves in a partisan elective office.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Even though the debate at DU is mostly between progressives

Progressive voters are a free bonus Kerry will get with Clark. Would you like a Democratic landslide that takes Congress back from the Republicans this year? I would. All the hoopla for McCain for VP is not all media driven (though much of it is). There is a real hunger in this country for a less bitterly partisan brand of leadership. I trust Clark, you don't. If I am right he would make a great VP. If you are right he won't. But Clark's "prior support of Republicans" would NOT work to our disadvantage in the General Election. Much to the contrary. Richard Clarke started out working closely with George W. also, for the good of the country, and Bush has no fiercer enemy now. General Anthony Zinni was Bush's personal Peace Envoy to the Middle East, but he is tearing Bush a new one as we speak. With Clark we get to have a National Unity ticket without having to actually include a Republican, and we get a real Progressive on the team to boot.

[Cuban_Liberal]

35. I don't think Clark is a RW-er, Tom.

In fact, I suspect he probably did become disgusted with the Republicans and left them. My point, which I will make again, is that Clark is at LEAST as vulnerable to Rove's attacks as is any other candidate. No amount of hero-worship on the part of certain Clark supporters will change the fact that Rove will SAVAGE Wes Clark as a candidate. Talk about ripping someone a new one...

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. As I'm sure you noted above

I didn't take the bait to enter a discussion of Edward's potential weakness either. One thing I am certain of, the Republican attack machine is fully geared up to go after both Kerry and whoever Kerry picks for VP. Some Clark supporters my not be fully expecting that I suppose, but I think it more likely that some Edwards supporters will be thrown further for a loop by the waiting fury should Edwards get the nod. Edwards has been handled with relative kid gloves by the Republicans so far, unlike Clark who they went after from day one.

Without entering into ultimately useless and possibly dangerous speculation about possible covert Republican campaign tactics, I will simply state that the Republicans HAD to go after Clark immediately, because Clark challenged the Crown Jewels of the Bush Presidency, the perception that Bush is an able leader of a nation at war. The Republicans simply could not afford to allow the type of attack that Clark represented go unchallenged for a day, let alone an entire primary season. They have had more of the luxury to keep their powder dry regarding Edwards, but you KNOW they have a munitions dump waiting to be tapped. That is their style, they have one for EVERY Democrat, it's just that they haven't had to flash their hand regarding Edwards yet.

I don't think that being a former trial lawyer is inherently negative, but it is Republican dogma that it is. Trial lawyers have traditionally been more or less in the Democratic Party special interest camp, as opposed to the corporations who trial lawyers are often attacking on behalf of their clients. The Republicans are highly skilled and well practiced at presenting trial lawyers as demons who are destroying America. Believe me I am confident that their research team has been pouring over every single case that Edwards ever had a hand in, looking for dirt or anything that can be spun into the appearance of dirt.

Do I think Edwards can stand up to the Republican attack? Yes. Do I think Clark can stand up to the Republican attack? Yes. The advantage Clark has is that the Republicans were forced to show some of their best cards against him already.

[Cuban_Liberal]

38. I wasn't trying to bait you, Tom.

I was, however, shining a bright light on some facts that MANY Clark supporters prefer to 'gloss over'. I think they could both withstand the attacks, but I'm just getting sick of the arrogant assumptions that Clark doesn't have any major vulnerabilities as a candidate, because he damned sure does.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. I don't think you were baiting me CL

Actually no one specifically has. This has more or less been a positive discussion. I meant earlier in the thread, where the potential weakness of an Edwards campaign was raised. That could have been an opening to trot out anticipated Republican attacks on Edwards. I think we can agree that the Republicans will come our full force against either Edwards, or Clark, or anyone else who gets the nod. And they won't be firing blanks...

[Cuban_Liberal]

40. Exactly!

This 'my guy is bullet-proof but yours will be whipped like a red-headed step-child' stuff is so disconnected from reality that it becomes both annoying and amusing. That's the point I was making, aadmittedly a bit forcefully.

:hi:

[Padraig18]

43. Kodak moment!

A reasonable Clark supporter and a reasonable Edwards supporter actually DISCUSS the relative merits honestly and unheatedly, rather than beat each other about the heads with platitudes and half-truths! Kudos to you both! ;)

[returnable]

47. And...?

"I'm sorry, but I do NOT want a man who voted for Reagan and Bush the Smarter both anywhere near our ticket..."

Edwards said he couldn't even remember whether he originally registered as a Democrat or a Republican, and admitted that prior to his Senate run he didn't even vote in a number of elections.

So what's your point? :shrug:

I think this whole debate over which potential VP candidate is more "bulletproof" is kinda silly.

The GOP smear machine has dirt on everyone.

But the reality is, the VP isn't all that likely to draw much fire from the opposition, anyway. At least not as much as some here seem to be worrying about. In recent elections, with the possible exception of Dan Quayle, I don't remember a VP being a real lightning rod of conversation. (Heck, in 2000 Lieberman actually took most of his heat from the left.)

The guy or gal Kerry picks will be the person he feels best personifies/completes his campaign themes. The decision will help define his candidacy for a lot of voters.

But in the end, Kerry will still be the one taking the GOP bullets. Not the VP.

[BootinUp]

37. Its seems obvious to me

That it is the incompetence in Iraq that is hurting Bushes numbers more than the economy was last summer. In other words I agree, Americans will tend to stick with Bush even with a sour economy if they believe the republican ticket is the right one to lead our foreign policy and the WOT. I anticipate a ratcheting up of the talk of terror threats all through the summer by those with a partisan interest in seeing Bush re-elected.