We Need Clark.

[GarbagemanLB]

- He is a Hillary supporter, so it would help bring Hillary supporters into the fold.
- He is a respected military official, so McCain's strength in national security issues will be negated.
- He will help dispel the 'below the board' campaign that WILL be waged attacking Obama's patriotism.


Hillary herself as VP only brings baggage. We know the GOP has a visceral dislike for her, and I frankly don't see how she can bring something to the ticket that addresses Obama's weaknesses.

[Bensthename]

Agreed 100% Obama and Clark would be a great team.

[NJmaverick]

1. CLARK! CLARK! CLARK!!!

He is the man! If he is on the ticket, it will be unstoppable!

[crankychatter]

2. ok you... you're the one that can answer my question

Clark targeted civilian infrastructure in Bosnia

true or false?

Clark is a born-again Democrat that supported Bush in 2000

true or false?

Clark approves of U.S. neoliberalism and U.N. actions in places like Africa and Haiti.

true or false?



Having said that... I listen to him... he's brilliant... and in 04 HE WAS THE BEST on Constitutional issues. I suspect he's a real Patriot.

Do you really think we need "gravitas" or that the old "southern strategy" is still viable considering shifting demograhics in the U.S.?

Some very smart people (a lot smarter than me anyhow) believe that the West is the new South. That we need a VP that will bring us some true "swing states."

[GarbagemanLB]

4. Not sure. All I know is what he would bring to the ticket. I mean, people like Richardson are good

because they actually bring a state with them, but to be blunt I really don't think having two minorities on the ticket will be a good thing. Richardson was my first choice for president, but I just think having both on a ticket will be pushing the envelope. I could be wrong.

I really think it has to be an experienced older white guy. I guess that's just the cynic in me talking.

[Fly by night]

9. "The west is the new south". That's why Obama/Richardson is the real deal.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. If you could turn Arizona it would be. You can't.

Colorado and New Mexico are insufficient. Nevada is insufficient.

You need a state like Virginia or Iowa and Richardson won't play well there unless he comes out strongly against NAFTA, because he is Hispanic.

I don't see why Obama or Richardson DON'T come out strongly against NAFTA to be quite frank!!!

I am sick and tired of "capitalist free traders" masquerading as liberal pro-immigrant groups,
while pushing scab policies that undermine labor.

The people they're appealing to would be considered right-wingers in Mexico.

[crankychatter]

15. I totally agree, with a caveat or two

that if Obama were MORE of a threat to the corporate status quo, he'd be watching the debates on television, drinking beer with Gravell and Kucinich.

We need a free press, restoration of the Constitution, and Public Campaign Financing...

THEN, we can "go there"

I dunno... it don't say "genius" anywhere on my resume'

[roguevalley]

19. Clark appeals across the board. My wingnut brothers love him. He

is smart, dedicated to the party and the country and puts that first. No, he didn't target civilians and he has been one of the most selfless dedicated dems in the party. He also said without a fucking whimper that he was proud to be liberal when it cost something to say that. My nephew would walk over hot coals for him (Bosnia-UN, Danish contingent, US Army) and so would I. I am a dyed in the wool, flaming radical dem from a family of flaming liberal dems that go back to 1796 when the party was founded. He is the man. The only man. Michael Moore called him a gift from god. I trust him more than anyone outside my family. No one in the world gets that from me.

[crankychatter]

13. Well the OP's concerns @ Richardson reflect the Dobb's effect on the Public

He thinks it might be too much, given immigration and anti-Hispanic sentiments.

I'm from California... not the new California with all the Eastern influx and anti-Hispanic reactionary crap....

Old California... Old man from Pancho Villa country... first love and best friend... all Hispanic

So, I don't know... subjectively... I'm for Richardson

Objectively... you'll have to ask someone else

My opinion is that Dobbs is softening up the Public to the presence of internment camps on U.S. soil... to desensitize us to the plight of those with no legal rights...

I think the illegal immigration question is the Start Button for a police state... scares the bejeezus out of ME.

[tokenlib]

3. I'm running out of Clark threads to recommend...Wes has the killer resume!!

It's kind of fun to see all the Clarkies come out of the woodwork--and all the newer people who know little more about Clark than that he is a retired general...

[WA98296]

5. Disagree. I was a Clark supporter last election...now, I don't see pandering to Clintons in any way.

[nomorewhopper]

6. bah, we don't NEED clark

he's a good man, but i dont think we NEED him by any stretch of the imagination

lots of generals out there, good ones too

[GarbagemanLB]

7. It is a way to appeal to some Hillary supporters. Of course, some will be whining till November

that Hillary wasn't on the ticket, but the majority of rational ones will see Clark as an appeal to their camp.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. It has little to do with appealing to Hillary supporters. Clark makes the most sense.

The only other obvious choice would be to target a hometown favorite in a battleground state, like Strickland or Kaine. This again, has NOTHING to do with appeasing the Clintonites.

Choosing a Senator is RIGHT out.

Richardson would help Obama in McCain's strongest area and hurt him with racist voters who are currently polling for Clinton in the northeast, South and Midwest.

[roguevalley]

20. how many of those gits actually spoke up against the war? A general

has to defend the troops and almost none of those gits did. He went on fox to fight the dead heads. He is an economist, a Rhodes Scholar, a purple heart war veteran, headed NATO troops in war, lost NO ONE in that war and is involved in business that is working on green energy and technology. He is experienced in admin. by running huge bases and has the respect of the entire world. His decoration collection from other countries is ENORMOUS and their affection for him genuine. No one has his resume. No one.

[screembloodymurder]

8. Clark would be a horrible choice.

Obama needs someone with experience. Someone who is tough. Someone like ...http://biden.senate.gov/senator/

[roguevalley]

21. Biden can kiss my ass. He is the reason everyone is dying under

the credit card shit. He sold us out. Delaware is credit card company territory and he sold us out. No grace periods, penalized if you keep a zero balance, no bankruptcy. He put millions of people into poverty and he can kiss my ass. He also has health issues. He has had strokes or something if I remember right. He can't make himself right to me.

[Jennicut]

11. Obama just needs a sane normal person who will be loyal, lots of Dems like that

[WA98296]

14. This is a DLC ploy. Politics as usual. Why...are we looking for another mid-east war?

[roguevalley]

22. you don't get Clark. He was against the war.

[Jim Lane]

16. I like Clark, but I wish he'd been elected dogcatcher somewhere

I have some concern about taking someone who's never been elected to anything, who's run only one brief and unsuccessful campaign, and thrusting him into a national race.

I agree with looking for an older white guy with executive experience and military/security/foreign affairs credentials. That's the best complement for Obama. Ideally, though, it would be someone who's demonstrated his skill on the campaign trail.

Of course, ideally it would also be someone who could flip a swing state, the way Brown or Strickland might flip Ohio. Obama won't find an ideal candidate who checks all the boxes. Successful campaign experience is a pretty big box to miss, though.

If Clark is not the VP, I expect and hope that he'd be offered an important appointive position in the Obama Administration.

[nichomachus]

18. If you rise to the top in the military

you have an awful lot of political experience, because that's all it is . . . The only thing more politically vicious than the military is academia.

[Jim Lane]

25. True, but military politics is vastly different.

You aren't constantly making speeches in public, with reporters waiting to pounce on any trivial misstatement that can be wrenched out of context. You aren't in televised debates where image is everything. I assume that, as in academia, military politics is more of a one-on-one variety.

It might be a lot like the contests for Congressional leadership posts, but nothing like a modern presidential campaign.

[truebrit71]

17. Agreed 100%. Spot on.

.

[Sundoggy]

23. Not wild about Clark

I'd be OK with him, but because of the Clinton association, he is not my first choice.

[weeve]

24. NOPE

Not a good choice. We don't need a Clinton-ite on the ticket, nor a military man.

Edwards, Feingold, Boxer ... hell, even Gore if he'd do it!