Clinton-Clark

[question everything]

I think that if she is the nominee, Wes Clark should be her running mate.

I admit, I ignored him in 2004, and perhaps this was a mistake. But I am impressed with him every time he is on NBC commenting on military related matter.

As a former military man, he will add the needed weight to win the macho voters, the ones who cannot see a woman, especially from the left, as the "Commander in Chief."

As long as security and terrorism are high on the public agenda - and they are, no matter what we think about it - the ticket has to be heavy with military understanding.

[Captain Hilts]

1. He's also not that much taller than she is. nt

[question everything]

2. Huh?

I was away from my computer for a day, what did I miss?

[phylla]

10. I was thinking the same thing. They would "look" better together .

A tall guy towering over her would take away from her visual strength.

[Captain Hilts]

13. It would emphasize that she's short, and voters are VERY heightist...the taller candidate...

has ALWAYS won - except for our Third George.

[Lucinda]

3. I like Wes and agree with your evaluation.

I'm still playing mix and match with my preferences, but I think Clark would be a good addition for any of the candidates.

[cobalt1999]

4. I too think that Clark is Hillary's no. 1 choice as VP

It'll be a damn tough ticket to beat.

[emilyg]

8. Yes it would.

[kwolf68]

5. If Hill gets the nom...

I really wont care. I loved a Feingold/Clark or Gore/Clark ticket however. A Clark/Obama ticket would be fine...I thought Obama should have been VP. Hell, I don't like any of these candidates we have.

[question everything]

6. Think of the Supreme Court

As the extreme wrong clearly understands, a Republican president in 2008 will end Roe in addition to robbing us of more rights.

There will be one, perhaps three vacancies in the next few years, all of liberals. The court is already in conservative majority, thanks to 24 years of Republicans in the White House but only 16 Democrats (with the surprise of Souter).

It is OK to debate the candidates until election day next November. But by then, if many Democrats, or simple folks who care about our Constitution, will sit home, or vote for a Nader-like lefty, we can say good bye to forums like DU, to commentators like Keith Olbermann, to Air American.

And think of the irony of liberals cementing Bush's legacy of a Supreme Court full of Thomases and Scalias."

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Yup. If Hillary gets the nomination, even if Clark isn't VP, I'll work for her

There are two reasons why and the Supreme Court is one of them. The other is War and Peace. I don't care if Hilary is more Hawkish than some other Dems, the Republicans running with the exception of Ron Paul are all blood crazed. There is a big difference, and when it comes to war tens of thousands of lives are on the line.

When Hillary's hubby was in the White House and the drums of war were beating against North Korea over their nuclear program, Bill sent Jimmy Carter to North Viet Nam as his special envooy. Hillary may not be my favorite Democrat, but a Clinton White House would not be afraid to fully embrace diplomacy.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. She and Bill can suck up to the right all they want and they still won't win them over

It's absolutely amazing. After all these years of doing everything possible to curry favor with the reactionaries, they still press on. The third way is a moral and tactical disgrace of mythic proportions.

Even as they were tarring and feathering him with impeachment, Bill was still trying to play nice out of some bizarre need to be loved. As Junior's grand conquest was being revealed as a colossal blunder, Bill was defending him on Larry King.

I am so deeply, deeply sick of these two, and yes, it's fair to talk about them together: they've presented themselves to the world as a team, they function as a team and they derive all sorts of mutual benefits.

[Captain Hilts]

14. They're trying to get suburban 'soccer moms' that voted for GWB. It's working...nt

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Sez who?

Admittedly, MANY women can be counted on to come in from the cold of the conservative camp. (Much as NOBODY want's to admit it, gender is a huge issue here.)

So yeah, maybe she'll get the moms, but what about the dads?

But back to my main point: who says this? Care to cough up a stat or two?

[question everything]

20. This is correct. They are a team

and this is what is helping her.

Remember, Bill Clinton left office as a very popular president, and the impeachment has never hurt him. He can still be elected president if he were not subjected to term limits.

And, let's face it, he did erase the budget deficit that was then the highest than all previous years combined. And during the 90s most of us saw an increase in our wages.

So if she is elected by many who are hoping to revive the good days of the Bill Clinton presidency, I don't have a problem with that. As long as we pass the hurdle of the Supreme Court nominations.

[WCGreen]

9. Secretary of Defense...

Or State...

[Clark2008]

11. He can't be secretary of defense.

Federal statute required the def. sec. be out of active-duty military for at least 10 years. Clark retired in 2000; therefore, he would be out only 8 years in 2008 (or 9 years in 2009).

[WCGreen]

15. I thought it was eight years for some reason...

[Bucky]

42. The real problem is that he's better qualified to be Secretary of State

I don't think you necessarily want a former general running the Pentagon.

[RiverStone]

12. Clark-Clinton

In that order would be my preference.

Otherwise, I will not "assume" Hillary will be the nominee at all.


On Edit: I was really hoping Clark would run this time! My number 1 dream ticket is Gore-Clark!
Though of declared candidates - DK's my man.

[calteacherguy]

16. I almost wish people would stop posting this idea.

I don't want to jinx it. ;-)

[hayu_lol]

17. Clark, if he agreed to be a VP...

would be a tremendous asset to the party and to the country. He can handle the Pentagon and knows where all the deadwood is.

I had hoped that he would run again this year; on the other hand, why would he even want the job. He is the proverbial giant amongst pygmies.

[NCarolinawoman]

31. Yep, he has said he knows where all the Pentagon skeletons are hidden.

He always wanted to pay for health care by using money from the Pentagon. Matt Stoller said he once heard Clak say "He knew how to get the money and the other Generals knew he knew."

It doesn't hurt that he once worked for the OMB and has a degree in economics. Hopefully, Hillary would give him the green light.

[Colobo]

18. Obama/Anyone.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Yeah, an ex-General Military Officer and a Female War Hawk = Perfect!

:eyes:

Authoritarian RULE anyone? :thumbsdown:

[FrenchieCat]

22. Once a General, always a General; Ex is not a term used with this earned title.....

And tell George Washington and the other 12 Presidents that were Generals first that a Military Officer shouldn't be in the administration! :eyes:

Twelve presidents were generals: Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower. At the end of the American Revolution, the suggestion that General Washington become king circulated in the Army's upper ranks. Washington reacted strongly against the idea, saying, "no occurrence in the course of the War has given me more painful sensations."
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/prestrivia1.html

In reference to a "Female" War Hawk...what's the difference between a Male War Hawk and a female one? The distinction isn't a rational one! :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

25. Hello?!? He is an EX, or if you insist *FORMER General.* He doesn't get to use his pretty stars

any longer albeit those who ADORE AUTHORITY FIGURES just love to gaze at their splendor. :crazy:

Yes, HRC will be the next "war horse iron maiden" America's Margaret Thatcher. :puke:

No thank you - no need to catalyze the race to totalitarian rule. :thumbsdown:

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I was one of a handful of DU activists in 2006 who actually spent time

working for Hillary's Democratic Senate primary opponent; Jonathan Tasini. Do a search and you can find some of my posts from back then supporting Jonathan. I am not a fan of Hillary and I put my time and dollars where my mouth was to try to stop her. My thinking was if Jonathan (with almost no funding) could pull at least 20% of the primary vote against her, it might make her hesitate to run in 2008 knowing how much opposition there was to her in her own party. Well Jonathan got about 18%, if he got over 25% that strategy just might have worked.

Having said that, having the Clintons back in the White House if it comes to that is far far better than letting the Republicans renew their lease there. Like I said above, when push came to crunch Bill Clintgon sent a former American President to North Korea's capital as his personal envoy to negotiate for Peace when it looked like war might actually break out. It worked. And now instead of possibly millions dead the two Koreas are talking about a possible peace treaty.

I repeat, I worked hard to try to nip a possible second Clinton Presidency in the bud, unfortunately that tactic failed. Maybe another Democrat can still defeat her for the nomination, but if not she is all that stands between someone like Rudy sitting in the oval office in 2009 giving the order to immediately attack Iran. I will not pretend that there is no real difference between Hillary and Rudy. I live in New York and I know that there is.

A lot of people in the grassroots are angry over how the 2008 race is playing out, and I understand it fully. This isn't what I wanted either and if Gore against all odds still enters we might still have a good chance to stop it. But consider this. What if all of the current indications are correct and Clinton does sail on to the nomination? This is just my opinion but I think Clark waited long enough for him to believe that Clinton was the probable nominee before he endorsed her. He could have endorsed her last winter, or last spring, or during the Summer, but he did not.

I think Clark is looking at a probable reality most people around here don't want to see right now. Sometimes reality sucks. You and I can wait until the minute we enter the polling booth to decide who to support for President and it will make no fucking difference how much influence we will have over future American domestic and foreign policy. But unlike you or I, the point in time at which someone like Clark endorses a candidate has a very real impact on how much influence he can exercise in the policy debates within that candidtates camp.

Bottom line, blast Clark for that decision if that is what you feel, but it isn't as if Clark is out there pushing for another war himself. If Clinton becomes President and Bush hasn't already attacked Iran I hope she sends Clark to Tehran to talk with Iran's leaders. Clark is reading the writing on the wall regarding the nomination. Maybe you read it differently, or maybe you think there is still time to erase that writing and replace it with something more uplifting to read. Fine, like I said blast him for it all you want. But Wes Clark is still the guy who has done more over the last three years than anyone else to warn many terminally dense grassroots activists that the danger of approaching war with Iran is very very real. I know about Hillary's vote on the Lieberman amendment. Clark spoke against that amendment even after she voted for it. He does not control her and she does not control him.

All things considered, Clark thinks he can be most effective inside the camp of the very likely Democratic nominee. You may strongly differ, but it is a position that can be argued both for or against.

Maybe I need a new bumper sticker: "Don't Blame Me I Voted For Tasini".

[question everything]

32. Very well said. Thank you.

We have to capture the White House because the alternative is worse.

We tried once to run an anti-war candidate, in 1972, and the result was a bumper sticker that said: "Don't blame me, I am from Massachusetts."

And in 1968 many anti-war voters were not thrilled with Humphrey and stayed home.

And in 2000 many were unhappy with Gore and voted for Nader.

Does every generation have to screw up an election to prove a point, and live to regret it?

Still, the irony of many who dislike Clinton (either) but embrace Gore who was part of that administration. As a matter of fact, had Gore not chose to distance himself from Clinton in 2000 he might have now been on his last year in office.

[Bucky]

41. The pods gotcha

I'm amused by the sound of you anticipating surrender. I will join your chorus in a few months. Keep my seat warm.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. That's somewhat akin to the Fox gig, doncha think?

Is this going to be his "thing": influencing the dark side from within? At what point does rubbing elbows with conservatives, even with the intention to somehow nudge them in the "good" direction or have a voice within the forum of the opposition, become an endorsement of them?

Besides all that, at what point does compromise become surrender? This man is deeply troubling to me, just as Senator Clinton is: their thirst for power is such a craving that they'll apparently throw all sorts of things overboard in their rush to slake it. At what point do the policies even matter anymore? The position and pedestal seems so much more important.

As you know, I've taken the extremists in the Clark camp to task on a regular basis, but I've been gentle of late. I feel sorry for the many who are deeply disillusioned, AS THEY SHOULD BE. Touted as the Field Marshall of Altruism, he is repeatedly shown as a Line Officer in an ad-hoc scramble for tactical dominance.

They are not to be trusted. What few core beliefs they might actually have don't even stand much of a chance in the face of their rapacious expediency. That people think this is admirable is a sad testimony to peoples' need for being on a winning team.

To revere these people is to prostrate oneself in front of the superficial god of attainment; one might just as well swoon over the glory that is Donald Trump.

[Awsi Dooger]

23. I think that will be our ticket

And the aspect of Clark not towering over Hillary physically shouldn't be ignored.

Gad, what a difference in caliber of the person at VP, from Cheney to Clark. That would be some type of record.

[ShortnFiery]

26. OMFG! You now are considering height and you call us who know HRC is a warmonger

"superficial."

WTF is wrong with you people that you go "ga ga" over former General Officers?

Newsflash: They are NOT God Almighty OR the daddy that you wish you had. :thumbsdown:

[NCarolinawoman]

28. Clark found that Kyle Leiberman Amendment "worrisome".

He is also troubled that the Democrats will not have enough spine to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. This is what he said a couple of days ago at a book-signing.

So maybe Clark could temper Hillary. She wouldn't have to sound or act so hawkish with Clark at her side.

By the way, I read that Clark joined a bunch of net-roots people at the Drinking Liberally establishment in Seattle after the book signing. This hardly sounds like some aloof authoritarian General.

[Awsi Dooger]

38. Uh, I think you've got me confused with someone else

* I never labeled anyone superficial

* I'm not a Hillary supporter and have stayed away from the related threads, almost without exception. My problem with Hillary is trying to elect a female nationally in '08.

* I've always considered height in presidential years. In fact, I posted threads here in '03 estimating the height of each of our candidates based on still frames at a debate

* I've never been ga ga over Clark or anyone with a military background. Clark supporters on DU have routinely battled with me over the years for condemning them when they ambushed pro-Edwards threads. In '03 and '04 I always warned that Kerry's military background was ridiculously overblown as a benefit to defeat Bush.

I'm a handicapper and Clark makes the most sense as Hillary's running mate. Right now Hillary makes the most sense as the nominee our base is going to pick, based on every poll if not the wishes of myself or the bulk of DU. I try to live in the real world and this thread and its title comes far closer to that, than the daily ramblings on DU. Otherwise, have a swell day.

[riqster]

27. Not my personal preference, but it would be a winning team

And right now, winning IS the only thing. When you're bleeding to death, you don't concentrate on a nose job: you do first aid. That's where we are today. I'm a DK guy, but I'll vote for each and every Dem I can, so as to remove Reeps.

After we throw the Bushistas out of office and then into the slammer, it'll be another story.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Exactly. n/t

[Bucky]

33. As a hardcore Clarkie, I like it, but I doubt it'd happen.

A far smarter choice would be Jim Webb of Virginia. Clark'll get something in a 3rd Clinton Administration--Secretary of State being the post he's most qualified for. But I'm not sure he'd really add much to the ticket, election wise. Jim Webb could put Virginia and other border South states in play, an area where Mrs Clinton is bound to be weak.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Webb is good, but Webb also won by a razor thin margin.......

and it had a lot more to do with his opponent's "Macaca" moment than with Webb, the candidate himself...which is not to say that Webb isn't a potentially strong pick for Hillary, but it may mean that his senate track record is most likely too new to have provided him with the kind of advantage that would make him as strong as you speak of.

[Bucky]

36. But it was a run against an incumbant. You have to look at his support numbers

I think he'd be white hot on the ticket. If we know anything about the Clintons, we know they'll look at the polling numbers before making any moves.

[FrenchieCat]

37. An incumbent that badly stumbled, and who was aligned with a very

unpopular president.

One thing I hope is that Clinton doesn't do a "Kerry"...which to me means ending up choosing a Veep pick based on the media CW analysis........which is exactly how Edwards got on the 2004 Ticket. At the time, 9 of 10 media speculating story on who should be chosen as Veep were stories about Edwards. In the end, Edwards did not deliver the goods, and the South was lost with an even wider margin than they had been in 2000.

Sometimes a "Sure" thing is not so sure.

[Awsi Dooger]

39. You're still desperately bashing Edwards, with no clue what you're talking about

A VP is worth about 3 to 3.5 points in his home state. That's all he's worth. No one with multiple functioning brain cells was asserting Edwards would help a northeastern liberal like John Kerry win states in the South. For one thing, the GOP had fortified the South from '00 to '04. Ralph Reed was put in charge of the southern states and used the same registration and turnout strategy that he put in place in Georgia '02 to upset an incumbent senator and governor. That will cue the theft squad to jump in and insist we were Diebolded. Whatever. I read online papers and there were massive warning signs in every Georgia paper that Republicans were making huge strides in '02. Plus, Georgia polls routinely overstate the Democrat by many points. That has been true dating to at least '94, long before Diebold.

Anyway, Edwards was worth exactly the standard 3.5 points in '04. That's how much the partisan index declined in North Carolina from '00 to '04. The partisan index is the relationship between the state voting percentage and national margin.

You can't look at '00 and '04 without assigning the different national margins. Bush performed about 3 points better nationally in '04 than '00, so a statement like the South was lost by more in '04 than '00 is misleading in itself.

Jim Webb would be an excellent strategic choice for Hillary. Virginia is slowly drifting our way but it's still a slight red state in federal terms, all things being equal. Stick Webb on the ticket and the extra 3 or 3.5 points might be enough. Actually, Webb would likely yank more than 3.5 points, since Virginia has not been represented on a national ticket in so long. The same was true of Arkansas and Tennessee in 1992, with Clinton and Gore each pulling a more substantial tilt in their home state than typical.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Ooh boy, I'm "bashing" again.........

Just because I don't see what Edwards did for the ticket in 2004.

Excuse the fuck out of me for posting.

I forgot that I was referring to St. John without reading the script placed before me by those who have all of the answers. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

34. One of the best interviews by Clark that I have seen in a long time

is from yesterday, took place in San Francisco, and can be seen here: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=5689600

In it, he talks about a great many issues, including his stance on immigration and health care.

Those who make the time to listen to it, will echo the sentiments of the OP title. A Clinton-Clark ticket would be better than any other Clinton ticket that I could think of. This election will be about National Security Issues more than anything else......and anyone that thinks otherwise hasn't been following the public dialogue of the last 5 years.

And in order to be fair, we should acknowledge as a fact that Hillary would have a way smaller learning curve than any other candidate upon taking office. If we are to insure that competence is a priority over "pie in the sky" exciting but likely not to happen campaign promises, certainly Hillary is more than qualified.

Personally, I'd love me some Obama....but I will give Clinton the overwhelming edge as having the important "known quantity" factor.....and because she is a better known-quantity, swiftboating her will be a much more complicated task for the GOP. Voters already understand that everytime the GOP and its operatives open their mouths in reference to Hillary, most of what is said is overt generalizations, exaggerations, and made up shit. Voters witnessed, back in the '90s, millions of dollars and plenty of hours being spent attempting to discredit the Clintons without it really working. Voters don't like to be played (and this time around they suspect that this will mean shame on them), and so attacks against Hillary Clinton during the General Election may have a blow back effect detrimental to the GOP, and one they never included into their crystal ball equation.

For those who "Think" that the GOP "wants" Hillary as the nominee.......I believe that the GOP are believing their own bullshit without taking into account the factor that they cannot control; The Clintons' historical willingness and their refined ability to fight. And most unfortunate of all, many Democrats who cite their concerns of Hillary being polarizing are buying into the GOP mantra that I believe will be a gross miscalculation on their part; just as it was in 1992.