Is there any reason Obama shouldn’t pick Gen. Wes Clark? Older, white, southern, tons of military experience, media experience since 2004 as analyst for Fox/MSNBC, a Clintonista.
On my mock draft I have him going first.
Clinton: Brings her supporters and helps with women, but has baggage.
Edwards: Already said he doesn’t want it, but he fits the mold if Sen. Obama chooses to follow President Clinton’s idea of choosing someone like himself. Could, combined with black vote, deliver North Carolina – the only southern state that’s a possibility besides Virginia.
Richardson: Tons of experience, but asking America to take the jump with two minorities may be too much.
Sebelius: Ok on paper, but that state of the union response was a snooze.
Napolitano: With McCain on the other side, the remote likelihood of taking Arizona is almost impossible.
Evan Bayh: Oh, I’m sorry, I just fell asleep.
Tim Kaine: A fresh face, but may be too young looking. Plus, with Warner on the ballot I think Obama already has Virginia insurance.
Wildcards: Sam Nunn (may be too old and unknown), Chuck Hagel (good on Iraq, suck on everything else), Russ Feingold (may be too liberal, but that keeps the base happy)
What do you think?
I, as well, think Clark is the best choice, and even if Obama doesn’t pick him for Veep, Clark deserves at the very least the seat that Rummy used to occupy.
I would be happy with Richardson but I suspect Oliver’s right about the racial hurdles.
There’s been a lot of noise about Jim Webb, but others have documented why Webb is not the best choice, both for strategic and personality reasons (in short, Webb doesn’t actually campaign well, despite his image as a tough-talker in the Senate…he barely beat “Macaca” Allen, and besides, if Webb left, the seat he vacated would go red.)
I think taking Clinton as a running mate is a mistake for both sides. She’ll be more effective at passing policy in the Senate, especially if Ted Kennedy has to step down for medical reasons. And unless Obama somehow has the lunkheaded idea of leaving the VP position with the same power Cheney grabbed for it, it should revert back to its largely impotent role.
Clark would be more than acceptable to me, though I would first like to see Clinton offered the nomination. I’d love to see Vice President Feingold, and then of course in 2016, see a Feingold/Franken ticket.
I have to say I live in Az (to my regret) and I don’t know anyone that voted for McCain, meaning everyone, everyone seems to dislike him, including the local papers and radio stations.
I actually think with the right veep and a lot of campaigning, Az could be carried.
I am not thrilled with Napolitano as Governor, too conservative in many ways, and is not a strong advocate of civil rights, privacy rights, especially. Better than Sibelius.
What about Blanche Lambert-Lincoln, the senator from Arkansas? I’ve always liked her.
It’ll be Clark. For all the reasons Oliver says. Plus the guy has done a lot of fundraising since 2004 fundraising for Dems. That makes you very, very popular. And he got Iraq right back in 2002. The clincher would be if he gets on well personally with Obama. They’re both serious about nuts and bolts security — not like Bush — the real stuff like nuclear arms control, the environment, epidemic disease, etc. I think having the same priorities goes a long way.
SpiderJ:
Clark can’t take Rummy’s job for another few years. He hasn’t been retired from the service long enough.
Oliver:
Remember that Unity ‘08 nonsense? You do know who the two top vote getters were before they shut that thing down was, right? Obama was number one and Feingold number two. Go figure. Richardson has other issues. Someone asked him his favorite Supreme one time. He said “Whizzer” White. Yeah, Ricahrdson said it was because White was a football player once upon a time, but White was also staunchly pro-life. Can you say, Oooppsss!!!
Just a cursory glance and Sen. Lincoln – while fine for Arkansas – seems too conservative to me. She voted for the Contract With America in the House, voted to ban partial birth abortion without an exception for the mother, and voted for the Iraq War. I’m clearly pragmatic enough to know those are the kind of sucky votes needed to keep a Democratic senator from Arkansas. But not running mate material.
Webb is a non-starter, especially because that’s one of our shakier seats.
Calvin – Re: Clark as SecDef, I had no idea that was even an issue. Thanks for the info.
What about Jack Reed, the senator from Rhode Island?
Dunno who the veep will be, but I had to note this cute offhand comment from the brief snippet of O’Reilly I saw this evening. he had Dick Morris on to discuss this question and they went through Mark Warner (which Morris doubted because the Dems want that VA Senate seat) and Jim Webb, and Morris suggested that to negate some of the “experience” dings against Obama a possibility might be some of the other longtime Dem Senator presidential contenders, Biden or Dodd.
O’Reilly offhandedly said “It won’t be Dodd, he has too many skeletons in his closet.”
I smiled to myself because I know the one skeleton that has turned O’Reilly against Dodd forever.
Dodd failed to denounce the Daily Kos with sufficient fervor when O’Reilly demanded obeisance, and so I guess Dodd is now forever on Billo’s shit list…
Obama has several weaknesses. Female Hillary supporters – who tend to be liberal, working class whites – who can easily be conservative on issues, and Latinos. There is not VP candidate that, at this point, appeals to all three…except Hillary. But Hillary then turns off just about everyone else. Plus, there’s the Bill issue.
So, he’ll have to look to someone who appeals to two of those three. And is well known enough on some national scale.
If the liberals get caught up in a partial birth abortion vote, or even an initial vote for the war, you’re picking up the wrong strategy. Partial birth is too touchy of an issue to put of prime importance. And the only war stance that matters now is the one that Obama was stating. Many legislators voted for the war and many people initially backed it. What matters now is how to end it without damaging our national security or causing greater harm to the people of Iraq.
Clark, Richardson, Sebelius, and Edwards would be in my final four.
Clark has the strong military background.
Richardson could bring in the Hispanics.
Sebelius could bring in the female vote.
Edwards is a solid progressive.
Quite frankly, I wouldn’t care which one he chooses.
“…so I guess Dodd is now forever on Billo’s shit list…”
Which is reason enough for Obama to pick Dodd!
Michelle.
clark clark clark!!!
I still say Webb is #1 on the list.
His grumpy gravitas will balance Obama’s incandescence…and he articulates the appalachian experience as well as anyone…and I am sure VA can hold that seat with the changes in the electorate after this election.
Clark Sebelius Strickland (boo) and Bayh round out the list for me.
Picking a Clintonista like Clark would be a VERY odd way of showing loyalty to those who have been fighting for Barack from day 1. I think/hope it will be someone like Sebelius or Claire McCaskill who have been in the trenches for Obama and who are two women I would be damn proud to vote for (unlike “deranged narcisst” (h/t Jeffrey Toobin) Hillary Clinton).
P.S. I wouldn’t worry about Sebelius’s oratorical skills: Barack has enough for the ticket (and the cabinet too).
Ed Rendell…Clintonista…has national experience..comes from Appalachian state….
mark it down the PA boy picks one of his own
DODD.
(I know I know, no one cares but me. But still. DODD.)
A.
Clark is a Clintonista, true, but I can’t recall a moment in this primary season where he carried himself with anything less than dignity…for that matter, I can’t recall Clark doing anything more than quiet support. He avoided the negative kitchen sink strategy that was embraced by other Clinton supporters such as Ferraro.
I wouldn’t view Clark as a slap in the face.
Edwards would be my first choice but, as you mentioned, he already said in uncomprising terms that he doesn’t want it. I think, however, that Edwards would best serve this nation as A.G. Given that, I go with Clark. He neutralizes the “weak on national security” talking points from the other side and he likely brings the Clinton camp with him. Obama, Clark in ‘08!
JG.
The running mate needs to be someone who is pro-choice and at least decent on Iraq. Someone upthread said that a vote on the partial birth abortion ban doesn’t matter. It does. Especially to Democratic women. If someone voted for the ban – without the exemption for the health of the woman – they’re outside of the Democratic mainstream.
As far as Iraq, has anyone noticed how simple it is for Sen. Obama and those of us who are his supporters to speak about his Iraq record versus how it was with Sen. Kerry? Even if Kerry was essentially right – as is Sen. Clinton now – it’s a roadblock I’d rather not have.
If we’re also playing fantasy cabinet:
A.G.: Edwards
Sec. State: Biden (there will be pushback on this but he would be awesome at this job. Imagine Sec. Biden not taking any MALARKEY from other foreign ministers)
HHS: Dean (he’s leaving DNC after the election)
Education: Dodd
White House Office Of Farking Republicans: Me.
I would not be against making Hillary Clinton the Secretary of Defense. She’s done good work on military issues on the defense committee. And for all the drama she would be great at devising a way out of Iraq and cleaning up the Bush era mess.
I think that either Jim Webb or Wesley Clark would be great.
I like Edward’ ideas, but I don’t think he would carry any state in the south, including his own state.
A military person would militate against the Republican notion that democrats, and especially Obama, are too soft on terrorism and military issues in general. Jim Webb could carry Virginia; and Gen. Wesley Clark really knows how to handle questions from the media without putting his foot in his mouth. Plus, he’s close to Clinton folks.
Clark may be the best of all. I’ve been trying to figure out a woman candidate should be considered (besides Hillary, who has too much baggage). What about the woman Senator from Missouri?
Please, let’s not continue to mention Nunn. He doesn’t deserve to be in the party, let alone on the ticket. He’s one of the few people who would get me to think twice about my vote in the general election.
Of the others, I really only object to Clinton (evil), Richardson (a real idiot), Warner (who should be senator), and Napolitano (sadly, she won’t pass a background check). Sebelius would be fine.
The reason I was talking about Clark for VP even in 2004, and the reason I’ve been suggesting him this time around as well (seriously – ask my friends at work), is that he’s a social liberal in sheep’s clothing as it were. He promotes a liberal agenda using the corporate/military lingo and attitude that a lot of independents love. High on my list is the fact that he’s obviously a very smart guy. He also brings instant National/Global Security cred. What’s more, he – like Obama – was right on Iraq from the git-go.
Between him and Hillary, Arkansas might, MIGHT be back in play – but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
There’s really no reason – pending vetting, of course – NOT to pick him.
Bloomberg of New York.
Clark has many appealing qualities, but he SUCKS at campaigning.
Clinton has few appealing qualities, but she’s AWESOME at campaigning.
Edwards has many appealing qualities, but he’s OkAY at campaigning.
Richardson has many appealing qualities, but he SUCKS at campaigning.
Biden has few appealing qualities, but he’s GREAT at campaigning.
The rest either suck at both appealing AND campaigning or I don’t know enough about. My own dark horse is Congressman Joe Sestak for a myriad of reasons: white male from PA, hillary backer, vice admiral in the navy, photogenic, young(ish), congressman (i.e. we can afford to lose his seat if we must).
I might be way in left field, but why not John Kerry? Sure the man has a baggage, but Obama, in my opinion, needs an experienced white guy that has foreign policy experience. Who better than John Kerry? Sure the man has baggage, but he has FP and military credentials. Plus, he ran just four years ago and could’ve beaten Bush if he had the right advisors in place. He says some really repugnant things in the past, but the Dems need not beat up those that have failed for a presidential run. That seems to be the end-game: Hate the guy that lost us the White House.
What happened to Mondale in 84′ and Dukakis in 88′? They got bashed on and were shown the door. They need to stop burying their ex-presidential candidates and use them for what they’re worth. That’s just my two-cents. Before anyone retorts and calls me an imbecile for bringing up Kerry, but just think about it. The media ate his ass alive after his lost.
Not Sen. Kerry. There is too much baggage, possibly even more than Sen. Clinton. In all likelihood Kerry will stay in the senate, but the minute he leaves, there’s your Veteran’s Affairs guy. While Dems have not been kind to their ex-candidates, its not like Bush Sr. and Bob Dole have a lot of pull in GOP circles either.
Sestak is still getting his letterheads delivered. Too soon.
I think because of his work on TV Clark is probably a better campaigner than four years ago, but yes that is his biggest deficit.
If logic were to prevail, then
(a) No senators (Clinton, Webb, Feingold, etc) or ex-Senators (Nunn, Edwards). The top of the ticket is already a Senator. The legislative experience should be rounded out with administrative, military or diplomatic experience.
(b) No Republicans (Hagel) or recovering Republicans (Sibelius). It’s just not right to reward them for years of enabling the enemy. Sibelius can have her shot after she’s paid her dues.
(c) No guys with questionable attitudes towards women (Richardson, Webb). I think people are way overestimating the ability a female Veep candidate would have to pull in female voters who weren’t going to vote Democratic anyway, but anyone who seriously talks up Richardson or Webb is way underestimating the problems a lot of women have with these two.
(d) No former presidential candidates (Kerry, Gore). Whether deserved or not, they carry a loser image.
Of the names being floated, that pretty much leaves Clark and Napolitano.
“A.G.: Edwards”
I like. I Really like. Much better idea than having him as V.P., and having him as V.P. is a pretty good idea.
“Not Sen. Kerry.”
Definitely not.
I like Sebelius because she is a solid progressive, she will pull in the female vote that might abandon Obama if Clinton does fight hard for the party, and having a Black man above a White woman on the ticket would drive the racists nuts. So much so that their attacks would be absolutely brutal, so brutal that they will turn away all moderates.
(Same with Richardson, but having two minorities on the ticket instead of the Black / White thing.)
If you want someone who’s anti-war, staunchly pro-choice, a master media manipulator, and is a take-no-prisoners bulldog of a fighter, then there’s only one name: Keith Olbermann.
I disagree with Tommy about Clark as a campaigner. He’s charismatic, articulate, has integrity, and maybe if he had campaign problems before the Obama camp could solve that. He’d be an excellent VP choice. I’m from KS so I very much looked forward to Sebelius’s SOTU response. I stood there with my mouth open for a few minutes and then walked off. It was one of the worst speeches I’ve ever heard. I don’t know what happened but it does not represent her abilities or her record of standing up and doing what’s right. She’s a respected D governor in a highly R state.
BTW, I’ve been checking in on the No Quarter people from time to time and they have gone COMPLETELY out of their minds. It’s going to be up to Clinton now to get them to not vote for McCain. (??!!) Crazy.
Is there any reason Obama shouldn’t pick Gen. Wes Clark?
Because he’s a kook?
“It came from the White House; it came from people around the White House, it came from all over. I got a call on 9/11 – I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You’ve got to say this is connected. This is state sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.’” – Wesley Clark
Turns out it was nonsense. He said it came from the White House and ended up trying to say the call came from a friend at a Muslim think-tank in Canada, except there are no Muslim think-tanks in Canada.
He also claimed he had evidence that the Iraq war was just one in a series of six total wars the “neo-cons” were going to start.
He was fired as commander of NATO because he demonstrated poor judgment and was told by British General Mike Jackson, “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you,” when Clark ordered Jackson to send troops to intercept Russian forces who had entered Kosovo.
In the end it won’t matter all that much because nobody decides who they’re going to vote for based on who their veep choice is. But it seems to me that Clark would be somewhat of a distraction because all the above is going to be revisited.
Please God yes. I wish he’d run again this year instead of supporting Hillary, but he’s the perfect VP candidate for Obama as well. If nothing else, he’s Secretary of State material.
Kook this-
Pundits won’t stop spinning Clark’s phone call
No. No. No. Clark. Read his book “Waging Modern War”, he is a follower not a leader. The fact that he knowing carried out flawed biased US policies in a foreign country and wrote about it later is not a sign of a leadership but a good military leader who will not ask questions.
It would be a mistake to choose any other woman candidate – so the following are my male VP picks.
Vice President:
Jack Webb
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson
Secretary of Defense: Colin Powell
Secretary of Peace: Dennis Kucinich
Richardson, Edwards, Sebelius and Clark are my top 4. If he wants an attack dog VP, he could do a lot worse than Howard Dean. He could only pick another female VP if Clinton made clear she didn’t want it, or if it became clear that Bill’s business ties would be too big of a distraction AND Hillary accepted this. Richardson would win over latinos in two ways, first by the appeal of being the first one on a national ticket, and second from latino backlash when Limbaugh et al inevitably attacks him using ethnic stereotyping. Edwards has some experience doing this before, but the question is whether he’d be disciplined enough to do things the Obama way. Clark might be a solid pick, I don’t know if he adds too much, but being from Arkansas might win over some Appalachian votes.
“He also claimed he had evidence that the Iraq war was just one in a series of six total wars the “neo-cons” were going to start.”
You’re right … everybody knows it was WAY more than 6 …
“Vice President:
Jack Webb”
The Dragnet guy!?!?
Oliver, you’re a bit off base on the cabinet. Way off. Hillary ain’t gonna replace Rummy / Gates. Why not Shinseki?
I’m just throwing this out there…there is probably a good reason you didn’t mention him that I am not aware of, but why not Rahm Emmanuel, and steal Florida away from McCain?
Other than that I agree with your points on Clark. I think the idea of Hagel is so interesting…but probably not realistic.
Clark is my first choice as well. I have read “Waging Modern War,” and used it as a text in a Foreign Policy class. Even though I opposed the Kosovo war, I found his book an interesting read. I think he’d effectively counter the fear that there is no military experience, he’d be more effective than Webb — and more disciplined.
Has anybody mentioned Brian Schwietzer of Montana? He is an interesting possibility. I don’t think he should show loyalty to his supporters and avoid Clinton types — now is time to unite the party, not stay divided into teams.
Edwards has had his turn. Same with Kerry. We want real change, we need a new team. Though Wes Clark is appealing.
What about Jack Reed, the senator from Rhode Island?
Sebelius, Evan Byah?
Well, I’m from RI; talk about a snooze fest. Then again, isn’t the office of the VP supposed to be a snooze fest?
Also, BTW, a big shout out to Jim Webb for showing up to work every day during the recess so Bush couldn’t push through his underhanded recess appointments.
Rheinhard:
Biden is getting Condi’s job. Book it!! Everyone in Washington knows he wants it in the worst way. He wants that, not VP.
Scott Erb:
He’d leave the Montana bench very thin. And he can still be governor for another term. All that said, he’d be a good choice.
Hickenlooper fever! Catch it!
Wes Clark has been my choice for either one of them or Edwardds (if he had won). Across the aisle, Lincoln Chaffee, who was screwed by the GOPer right wing. Edwards is choice #2, although I’d rather see him as AG. Sibelius is a dud. Napolitano won’t bring us much of anything. Brian Schweitzer of Montana is the one governor I would pick.
He said it came from the White House and ended up trying to say the call came from a friend at a Muslim think-tank in Canada, except there are no Muslim think-tanks in Canada.
Wrong again, Jay.
He said “Middle East think tank,” not “Muslim think tank.” Let’s see…what other kinds of think tanks could be called “Middle East think tanks”?
Here’s one located in Montreal. What country is Montreal in Jay?
Isn’t there a rule about former generals not being SecDef? If so, that would rule out Clark for that position.
Clark, I think, would be an awful choice. He’s a political neophyte and he ran a lousy presidential campaign in 2004.
–}PW|–
What about Joe Biden?
And Hagel would take another red Senator off the floor.
I think Obama’s Veep is going to need some real Weight, especially on Foreign Policy.
Not that I would take cues from Little georgie 25%, but Vice President dick added weight to a cattle-less hat with the Right last name.
Who knows? If the Democratic 2004 ticket was flipped, it might just be President Edwards right now.
Put the charisma and charm out front and the weighty old experience behind the scenes. That’s what I say.
GObama!
BILL CLINTON.
OK, it’s a goofy idea, but wouldn’t it just drive the wingnuts foaming-at-the-mouth crazy?
Jim Webb is pretty good, but he himself said he’d do more good in the Senate. And really, so would Hillary.
Edwards? Good name recognition and I like him personally, but…
Ed Rendell? Same problem that Joe Lieberman had down south in 2000. (read: Jewish)
Clark to me seems like a good choice. I liked him best in 2004, and I hope to hell he learned from his experience.
But Bill Clinton for SecState. Yes, really. Thanks in part to Bill, Ireland got off their schneid and now they’re the richest country in Europe.
there is probably a good reason you didn’t mention him that I am not aware of, but why not Rahm Emmanuel, and steal Florida away from McCain?
Uh, two people from Illinois not allowed on the same ticket?
I like Feingold, and WI is in play. They love him there and he would bring it.
Feingold or any other true liberal. That will keep Obama safe from any nutjob that would think of taking him out.
After all, fear of Cheney has kept Shrub safe.
He’s a political neophyte and he ran a lousy presidential campaign in 2004.
Pffft! Who didn’t?
i loved the energy between obama and edwards at edwards’ endorsement, but i like edwards for a cabinet post.
feingold for VP would be excellent, imo.
i don’t like wesley clark for VP because i think it puts too much emphasis on military solutions when what we need are political solutions.
the military should never be a solution, it should be reserved as a tool.
Bob Graham from Florida would be good, but not great.
Brings more vote fom Florida – Good.
Doesn’t take a Senator from the incumbent ranks – good.
Rght on the Intel prior to the Iraq war, voted against AUMF – VERY GOOD
Not a great campaigner, too wonky – Not good
Health issues??
Fills the experience gap that a young Obama has – Very Good.
Just my take…
Clark: never held elected office. A big minus.
What about the governor of Wisconsin, James Doyle?
When the buzz started over Hagel my first thought was if you’re going to pick a GOPer, go with Lincoln Chaffee. If he would have switched parties his seat would have been his for life.
According to 10 U.S.C. § 113(a), “A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.”
General Clark retired in 2000 so he would not be eligible to serve as Secretary of Defense until 2010. However, Congress could waive the remaining year and a half as it did for General Marshall in 1950 after he retired in1945.