Chicago Sun-Times columnist: Hillary eyeing Clark for VP.

[wndycty]

Obamarama . . .
It's no secret Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has her slacks in a twist over one potential Dem presidential sweepstakes entrant: fellow Illinoisan Sen. Barack Obama, who recently hit New York like a 45-minute freight train.
Chum? Nope. Yet Obama nixed most one-on-one interviews while in Hillary country.

Yum? The gloves aren't off yet. Obama heads on his annual holiday trek with his wife and daughters to visit relatives in Hawaii, where he reportedly helps cook. He told New York wag Cindy Adams his specialty is "a mean chili."

Hmmm: Speculation has it Hillary is eyeing retired general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark as a possible running mate.
-snip-

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/163812,CST-NWS-sneed07.article

[wyldwolf]

1. ahhhhh shit!

[Tiggeroshii]

82. It would solidify the south

They are both popular in Arkansas, but haaving them both being from there would guarantee them that normal Republcian bastion. Let's just hope that' snot all she wins if she gets the nomination.

[vogon]

2. What? Is she already the nominee or what?

Her arrogance has no limit.

[wyldwolf]

4. Not unusual for a candidate to do this. Dean did in '04 with Clark as well.

[vogon]

6. At least he did that after he declared he was running

and the primary season was well underway.

But Hillary isn't even running yet and she already wants us to believe she will be the nominee.

[wyldwolf]

7. Still makes Dean "arrogant" based on your criteria.

After all, he didn't have the nomination.

[vogon]

10. Yeah he was arrogant but not as much as Hillary

If I were Clark I would call her and tell it like it is.
Who the hell do you think you are?

[wyldwolf]

13. LOL! So we'll let vogon decide the appropriate time to seek a running mate.

[vogon]

14. She is not even running yet but she already decides

who should be her running mate?

You don't need my opinion to see the absurdity of that.

[wyldwolf]

19. She's only decided for herself. Seems you've decided for everyone.

[vogon]

21. Yeah and if I say the IWR was wrong and Hillary was an ass

to vote for it then you say
LOL! So we'll let vogon decide the appropriate vote for the IWR.

After all she only decided for herself so nothing wrong with that, right?

[wyldwolf]

23. And I say peanut butter goes good with jelly

[vogon]

25. That's your way to dodge the question.

[wyldwolf]

30. thats my way of telling you injecting the IWR is irrelevant to the discussion

[vogon]

32. That's your way of fallacious thinking

If you think it's fine to judge her for her vote on the IWR it is also fine to judge her for everything else she does -- including when she starts looking for a running mate.

[wyldwolf]

34. That's YOUR way of fallacious thinking... much like a rightwinger does...

..who can't discuss anything without stammering, "...but Clinton did THIS and THAT..."

[vogon]

37. No I didn't say Clinton this or Clinton that I stayed on

topic while you dodged the question.

If it's OK to judge Hillary for her vote for the IWR then it's also OK to judge her for everything else she does -- including when she picks her running mate. Can you argue against that or all you can do is to change the subject?

[wyldwolf]

38. The topic is timing of VP overtures, not the IWR. You DID NOT stay on topic

[vogon]

42. The topic is also about your fallacy that one cannot

decide whether something is right or wrong unless he himself is the one who does it.

Hillary did something wrong. If someone else did the same it would be wrong, too.

And don't pretend that you don't understand that because you youself judge other people based on their actions all the time.

[wyldwolf]

44. actually, that isn't a fallacy. There are no rules, written or otherwise, on this topic

To declare it inappropriate is a blanket statement.

[vogon]

48. So you think that it's not OK to judge other people based on

their actions?

Hello?

How many times have you done that in your life?

You said because it was Hillary's decision I cannot decide whether it is wrong or not.
That is a fallacy as the later does not follow from the former.

To declare it inappropriate is a blanket statement.

It's my opinion. Why, you never declare anything inappropriate?

[wyldwolf]

50. In a situation where someone does something not uncommon in presidential politics...

...to suddenly judge him/her negatively for it means you're either uninformed or have a bias against that person.

In your case, both seem likely.

[vogon]

53. Whether it is common or not itself is debatable. But as I said

just because other people do it, too, will not make it right.

Again, just because many people voted for the IWR it was still the wrong thing to do.
Similarly, if X number of candidates or potentional candidates had done what Hillary did it would still be arrogant.

you're either uninformed or have a bias against that person.

For a matter of fact you still couldn't show one example when Gore was looking for a running mate in 1998 even BEFORE he declared his candidacy.
So exactly how common is it?

Did Clinton look for a running mate in 1990?

It seems to me that it is your pro-Hillary bias which makes you think there is nothing wrong with this.

[wyldwolf]

54. not debatable at all. Common and absolutely correct to do so.

You're now trying to set caveats as to when it is too early.

[vogon]

56. Prove it that it's common. And this "not debatable at all"

reminds me of Ted Haggard and how he preached that homosexuality is not debatable at all.

Different subject, same type of arrogance.
First you tell me that I cannod decide whether what Hillary did is right or wrong because I was not the one who did it.
Now you say that whether it's right or wrong is not debatable because wyldwolf decides that it's not debatable.

That itself is quite an inconsistent position but back to the subject of how common it is:
which potentional candidate looked for a running mate even before he/she declated his/her candidacy?
Clinton in 1990? Gore in 1998? Dole in 1994? Dukakis in 1986? Who?

[wyldwolf]

61. Sure, but I won't use YOUR standards of how early "too early" is.

This isn't about WHEN the overture was made. Your ORIGINAL whine was that the overture may have been made before Hillary has the nomination.

1. 1940 - FDR decided on Henry Wallace before he even decided to seek re-election.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554(199712)91%3A4%3C855%3AT%22SCIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

2. "As early as Spring of '99, Mr. Gore discussed the job of Vice President with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts..."

http://www.amazon.com/Divided-We-Stand-George-Presidency/dp/0812932048/sr=1-12/qid=1165515341/ref=sr_1_12/102-2337716-7532126?ie=UTF8&s=books

3. Howard Dean offers Clark #2 place on the ticket:

http://clark04.com/press/release/136/

4. yes, the Dukakis camp approached Bentsen soon after the final primary debate with an overture.

http://www.amazon.com/Populist-Persuasion-American-History/dp/0801485584/sr=1-15/qid=1165516808/ref=sr_1_15/102-2337716-7532126?ie=UTF8&s=books

[vogon]

69. Of course this is about when the overtue is made.

It's not appropriate until you don't secure the nomination. That doesn't mean the day of the convention.
By the spring of 1999 Gore won Iowa and New Hampshire and all states on Super Tuesday. He was also leading the polls in every other state at that time. Bradley had no chance and everyone knew Gore would be the nominee.
If Hillary had been looking for a running mate under those circumstances I wouldn't say boo about it.
As I said what Dean did was also inappropriate but at least he did is after he was already a candidate.

FDR was a sitting president. Entirely different category as no sitting president lost the nomination (at least in modern history) if he was seeking it.

Hillary hasn't won anything yet. She hasn't even declared. Hence if she has done it it is just another arrogant political maneuver from her to create the aura of inevitability.

None of your examples is like what Hillary has done. I asked you which candidate did what she did.
Don't dodge the question:
Did Gore look for a running mate in 1998? Did Dukakis look for a running mate in 1986? Clinton in 1990?
Dean in 2002?

And even if these four cases would be like Hillary's case it would be far from a "common practice" as you claimed.

[wyldwolf]

73. LOL! Should I put you out of your misery now?

By the spring of 1999 Gore won Iowa and New Hampshire and all states on Super Tuesday.

Interesting, considering the Iowa caucus was January 24, 2000, New Hampshire was February 1, 2000, and all states on Super Tuesday was in March of 2000. :rofl:

As they say, you're entitle to you own opinion, but not you're own facts!

FDR was a sitting president. Entirely different category

Oh, a new caveat! :rofl:

So, not only are you absolutely wrong about the 2000 primary season, but you keep changing the criteria of when it is acceptable and not acceptable to approach a running mate!

You're a prime example of someone so desperate to be right that you're making things up and changing the criteria as you go along.

Next you'll be saying it doesn't count for anyone running in an even numbered election year!

[vogon]

86. You are right about the primaries but where is that quote in the book?

Kerry is mentioned according to the index on page 119,191,192 and 196 and there is not a word about Gore asking him to be his vice president.


There is a part in Chapter 9, USE AND LOSE, which starts with this:

WHICH BECOMES APPARENT WHEN IT COMES time for Gore to choose a vice president. It is just after the Republican Convention, Gore is way down in the polls, and now it is time for him to pick a running mate, preferably one that will generate a little good publicity, a little heat, someone who might help turn around the bad numbers.

There is not a word there about Gore asking Kerry about the vice presidency in the spring of 1999, either.

What's the page number?

If Gore in fact did that it was wrong. But certainly that would be strange as the same book talks about Gore picking Lieberman during the impeachment in case Clinton would be removed from office.


Oh, a new caveat!

No you compared apple and orange. When a sitting president picks a new veep that is not the same when a non-candidate
looks for a running mate. Hillary is not a sitting president as far as I know and she doesn't need a vice president now, right?
In fact that this is the best you could find directly contradict your claim that this is often done by potentional candidates.

You still couldn't came up with one example which is like Hillary's case and continue to dodge the question:

Did Gore look for a running mate in 1998? Clinton in 1990? Dukakis in 1986?
If not what exactly makes this "common practice" as you call it?

[caledesi]

75. What was absurd is Cheney searching for a VP, then chooses himself! nt

[vogon]

87. That was absurd. But not the only one absurd thing you can

in politics.

[vogon]

16. LOL! So we'll let Hillary decide the appropriate time to seek a running mate.

I'm way superior than Hillary. :think:

[wyldwolf]

17. LOL! She's only decided for herself. Seems you've decided for everyone.

[vogon]

20. Not everyone is as arrogant as Hillary. Gore for example didn't

do this. So how did I decide it for him, for example?

[wyldwolf]

24. Actually, he did

He was making overtures before the primaries were done.

[vogon]

27. What does "overtures" mean exactly?

And when did that happen exactly?
When he has already won 5 states? 10 states?

Hillary hasn't won anything yet. Go back to 1998 and find evidence that Gore was looking for a running mate then.

[wyldwolf]

28. if I asked if you're interested in being my VP, THAT is an overture

And there you go deciding at what point it is appropriate again.

[vogon]

33. And exactly when did Gore ask anyone

"are you interested in being my VP"?

Not in 1998 for sure.

Yes there are times when it's appropriate and there are times when it is not appropriate.

Just like there are times when it's appropriate to invade a country and times when it is not.

[wyldwolf]

36. Doesn't matter. vogon doesn't decide when it is the right time

[vogon]

39. I certainly decide when I think it is the right time

But more importantly when it is not the right time.

Just like I can decide that it's not right to vote for the IWR.
Get it?

[wyldwolf]

40. Sure. When you run for president, make you own decision

[vogon]

43. Gimme a break. You don't have to run for president to

judge those who do run or will run.

Or have you ever been president? If not you cannot bash Bush. At least according to your logic.

[wyldwolf]

46. no, but you also can't make a blanket decision on what a candidate can and can't do

[vogon]

49. I certainly can make a decision on whether a candidate's action

is right or wrong.

And you know that very well as you yourself are doing it all the time -- including here on DU.

I of course cannot order Hillary to be humble but that was never the issue.
The issue was whether what she did - if in fact the report is correct - is appropriate or not.

[wyldwolf]

51. In a situation where someone does something not uncommon in presidential politics

to suddenly judge him/her negatively for it means you're either uninformed or have a bias against that person.

In your case, both seem likely.

[Infinite Hope]

68. So?

That's just a petty attempt to find a difference so Clinton can be criticized. Having a rumor about a VP choice before nominated and before announcing "officially" is trivial.

[vogon]

70. No it's not. If this report is true then Hillary did something

rather unusual and not without political calculation, for which she should be criticized by everyone who
critize other pols - Dems and Repukes alike - for political game playing. Hillary does not deserve a more lenient treatment just because she is Hillary Clinton.

After all, would this be surprising from a person like this:

Exacerbating the problem is that, when it comes to Iraq, Hillary is telling Hollywood donors whatever they want to hear.

One major party donor, who is supporting Hillary even though he is against the war, told me that Clinton had assured him that she, too, was "against the war" but believed that there was no way a woman could ever be elected president while being against the war. "She is convinced," the donor told me, "that she'd be attacked as soft on defense and unable to deal with national security and the war on terror. And I think she's right. I'd rather she be anti-war, but I can't argue with her reasoning."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/2008-will-al-gore-be-the_b_8708.html

[jobycom]

8. Did you miss the words "Speculation has it..." at the beginning of the

proclamation that she is considering Clark? This story is about the media's fantasy, not about anything Hillary has said or done.

Maybe you should wait until she declares Clark as her running mate before assuming that she is thinking of Clark as her running mate.

[vogon]

12. If the report is correct then she is arrogant. If the report is shit

than the reporter is an ass, of course.

But that's a given. It's needless to say.

[jobycom]

22. It's quite needed to say, since we have no reason to believe it's true

Even the article says it's speculation, and then it fails to reveal whose speculation it is. The reporter's? The reporter's veterinarian? :shrug:

Most of the crap the Hillary-bashers spew is just like this. Half a story, pure speculation, or worse, planted disinformation by political opponents. Please don't fall for it. We saw this enough with the first Clinton--not to mention Gore, Kerry, and a lot of other Dems.

When you can read a full quote, in context, then trust it. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

[vogon]

31. I think it's needless to say for everyone who knows the political

media.

We couldn't talk about anything if we would always automatically reject what the media say.

I don't fall for it. I know that it may or may not be true. That's the default position.
But if it's true then Hillary is arrogant.

[jobycom]

41. Then stop saying she's arrogant until you have something to base it on

My point is, you started by saying how arrogant Hillary was for this. But it's not Hillary. Now you are saying that IF it's true she's arrogant, all the while saying you know it might not be true.

Don't trash someone unless you know it's true. You have no reason to even suspect this is true. Bash the source for bad reporting, not Hillary for what a sourceless rumor says. And no, saying "IF it's true, Hillary is arrogant" is not enough of a disclaimer, because the story is not reliable enough to even give it that credibility.

[vogon]

47. That's silly. How many times do you see people here to

tell their opinion about others based on press reports?

And still the chance is there that the report is wrong. Everyone knows that. But that alone does not prevent anyone
from telling their opinion about others, whether it be Bush or Hillary or Lieberman or anyone.


Don't trash someone unless you know it's true.

What I know is that this particular report claims that Hillary is looking for a running mate now.
If the report is wrong then obviously it's not my fault.

I don't think you set the same standard everytime you read something in the press about people you don't like, right?
But it's somehow not OK when it's about Hillary. Well no double standard, please.

Bash the source for bad reporting

I don't know whether it's bad reporting or not and neither do you.
Did Hillary deny this? Is there another source refuting this report?
If so I'd like to see it.

"IF it's true, Hillary is arrogant" is not enough of a disclaimer

It's more than enough except if you are a biased Hillary fanatic.

[jobycom]

52. Most DUers are able to tell when a story has no reliability. nt

[vogon]

55. Come on. You can't be serious.

You don't even know most DUers let alone most press reports that have been posted here since 2000, let alone how most DUers reacted to it.

But I've seen many examples where doubts about the accuracy of the reports are not expressed at all. Mostly if the report is something negative about Bushco. Still, does that prevent anyone from having an opinion about what the report says about them? No. And you will not find disclaimers, either. They are not necessary. Everyone knows that press reports can be wrong. No matter what the subject is or the source is.
But if every DUer always tried to fact-check every article that is posted you wouldn't see much discussion here.

[jobycom]

57. Yes, I'm serious, and you're grasping.

There was no source in that story. The story admits it is speculation. If someone posted a story about speculation about Bush, DUers would call them on it, though some might want it to be true. Search for any story coming from Capitol Hill Blues, for instance--like the one claiming Bush called the Constitution "A piece of paper." Only a few DUers give stories like that credence. This isn't Free Republic.

A story with documentation and sources might go unquestioned, and sure the facts and documentation could be wrong--that's not what I'm talking about, and that's quite clear from the discussion. There is nothing in this story but a mention of speculation. Most DUers won't fall for that.

[vogon]

58. Because you know most DUers, right?

No, with that kind of exaggeration you can't be taken seriously.

There are plenty of reports on DU which although do not use word 'speculation' also express nothing but the personal observation of the reporter without giving what you call "documentation and sources".
If your standard was followed ALL THE TIME and not just in this case noone would "fall for" any report, unless
they can easily confirm its accuracy using reports from other sources.

If this speculation is wrong then obviously Hillary has done nothing wrong.
But if it's right - and it would not be inconsistent with Hillary's long record of political manuvering - then she is arrogant.


Capitol Hill Blues

The Chicago Sun-Times is not exactly Capitol Hill Blues, for that matter.

[wyldwolf]

74. I'm certain jobycom knows more DUers than you do

[vogon]

88. I didn't ask you about more. I asked you about most.

You claimed that DUers know which source is accurate and which is not.
The only way to take that statement seriously if you knew at least most DUers and how they reacted to most press reports posted on this site.

But of course you don't know that hence your statement is a baseless exaggeration.

I registered yesterday so in that sense I'm a newbie but have been a visitor for at least 2 years and read hundreds of threads. Have seen many examples when DUers do not express any doubt about the source. Especially when the report says something bad about repukes. And exuse me, but I will believe my "lying eyes" any day over what you say especially when that is such an onvious exaggeration.

[vogon]

3. Clark should not be Hillary's second banana. n/t

[Bucky]

26. If she's nominated, she gets to pick her veep. She couldn't do better than Clark

I wouldn't want her as the nominee, but I'll accept whoever the party selects.

[vogon]

35. I think Clark is much better than just to be Hillary's second

banana.

[Bucky]

77. I think so too, but if she wins the nom, I'll work my ass off and take names on anyone who won't

To support the Republican party, even by inaction, after the last six years, is an act of hatred against the country.

[BOSSHOG]

5. I do believe the General should be at the top of any ticket

[jobycom]

9. That counters my belief that he should not be on any ticket.

I cancelled your vote. :P

[BOSSHOG]

11. That's why they call it the land of the free teammate

I will aggressively and wholeheartedly support the ticket nominated by the Democratic Party. And I think the next dem administration will be well served to have the General onboard in some capacity.

[jobycom]

18. I will support it, too, needless to say

But I hope his involvement is as a cheerleader and perhaps cabinet member. He's too recent a Dem for me to trust his ideology yet.

[Eurobabe]

64. Oh the pedigree argument again? Gimme a fucking break

n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I always find this interesting

It happened in 2004 and it seems like it will happen again. It's almost like Wes Clark gets talked about like beige walls for a new condo, or basic black in a wardrobe. You know: "he goes with everything". I have yet to see a single potential candidate for President (other than Clark himself of course) who a slew of pundits don't think could be helped by having Wes as their running mate. I say cut out the middle men (or women), let's run Wes and let the rest of them jockey to be his VP lol.

[Bucky]

29. I've always found the "X for President plus Y for VP" threads stupid but there's one ticket I'd hype

Clark-Clooney
think about it

[FrenchieCat]

62. Oooh.......

and if not.....

Then Clooney could play Clark in "American Son"...Clark's next book!

New Clark Book on the Way
December 05, 2006 6:27 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Continuing the symbiotic relationship between book launches and White House bids, Palgrave Macmillan recently announced that it has acquired the rights to "American Son," Gen. Wesley Clark's next book and possible vehicle for a second presidential run.

"America’s Son," which is slated for a fall 2007 release, promises to offer a "groundbreaking vision for America’s future" as well as a "personal account" of the military events that have shaped the world view of the four-star general who served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/12/new_clark_book_.html

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark writing book to be released in '07

The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said he is writing a book to be published next year but said political observers should not read too much into that.

Clark, who lives in Arkansas, has said he is considering running for president. But he said his book announcement is not evidence that he will run.

"I just want to participate in the American dialogue about where we are as a nation," Clark said Wednesday.
snip
"It's going to be about different aspects of America that I've lived through," Clark told The Associated Press. "I'm going to talk about growing up in the South. I'm going to talk about Vietnam and the Army. I'm going to talk about rebuilding the Army, and I'm going to talk about the post Cold War world."

The book will be Clark's third.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/07/america/NA_A-e_BKS_US_Clark.php

[Radical Activist]

78. It indicates Clark isn't seen as strong enough for the top of the ticket.

So he gets talked about for VP as a consolation prize.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. No one in politics worries about giving out consolation prizes

They worry about winning elections, and it seems a range of candidates think having Clark on the ticket could help them win the election. None of the other potential Presidential candidates of course will concede that they aren't the best person themself to top the ticket, so wanting Clark for VP would be about as strong praise as is possible under the circumstances.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Clark is a very attractive candidate.

And he has been working his arse off for the Dems.

[Eurobabe]

66. But there are some who say he is not BLUE enough

He's purple. See #11

[The Magistrate]

59. Now That, Sir, Would Be A Wickedly Good And Effective Ticket

[FrenchieCat]

60. Clark goes well with all....because of what he brings to the table!

However, Clark goes well with all with him at the top of the ticket as well.

If anyone other than Clark end up at the top of a Democratic Ticket, they would be most wise to have the good General on the ticket with them......considering that all of the CW "Frontrunners" have very little experience in the Commander in Chief stuff that goes with the office, including Hillary (even if she does have Bill). As we now know, War seems to rise to the top of importance these days, in particular during an election period.....and so this is why Clark is an excellent pick for those missing some "stuff" on their resume or those who feel reinforcement of their strength on the matter would be a good move. A Osama Bin forgotten Tape wouldn't play as well with Clark somewhere on the ticket.....and so that "ploy" would become null and voided. In fact, I daresay that if such would happen (or an attack or threats of an attack, or whatever the Repigs have concocted in the past) it would provide the Dem ticket a sort of inoculation not apparent with say an.....Edwards/Obama or a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Plus Clark is national, geographically speaking in terms of his appeal, and brings in a varied constituency that ranges from southern to southwestern to western and the east coast as well. In addition, Clark plays well in the midwest, aka, the heartland. Further, he appeals to those sane military members and their families, or/and alpha male or/and internationalists, and members of various party affiliations including the most coveted; white male Independents and security conscious surburban Moms--But also the Gay Community, American Indians, centrists, disheartened Repigs, and various groups of progressives, including a large chunk of the netroots.

In fact, Clark brings more as Veep to anyone's ticket as opposed to Biden or say even a Richardson or a Warner(other folks known for their Foreign policy expertise or specific geographical appeal) because of his reputation of not taking any shit.....an excellent reputation for the attack dog role gifted to the VP during a campaign, notwithstanding the fact that Clark has consistently demonstrated he excels at this as well as dealing with a partisan media.

So of course Clark is attractive to pin on one's lapel. Hillary as well as others would almost be foolish NOT to have Wes Clark on their short Veep list.......just like John Kerry would have been served better had he selected Clark, considering the issues that he ended up running against....IMHO.

We are in a time of war; McCain and Giuliani and even Rice are popular on the other side....so yeah, I can see why speculation would have it that Hillary would be thinking Clark.

I do hope that Clark will run himself, although considering the media's obvious ignores of him, and the media's obsession with others instead (as the CW will never "do" an intelligent analysis that might conclude that Clark actually has more strength than he does shortcomings for the top role--leadership and executive experience compared to those they now tout)

.....But I just don't know if Clark running would be the best thing for Wes Clark at this point. I want him to run, but I don't look forward to the uphill battle he and his supporters will have to mount just to get him the recognition he would need (and does deserve)from those who decides such matters for us. The Power-that-be are not in the Clark camp to be at the head of any ticket from where I sit....however he is very courageous, and so, if he doesn't think that the other candidates don't bring a "full service" package to the table, he may decide that it is his duty to run......even if it's just to make sure that the Democratic debate doesn't exclude foreign policy in a real meaningful way which is at the top of the Dems agenda, considering that it is widely known that the Democrats that will end up running would love nothing better than to avoid running on Foreign policy (as the majority of those running would still be questioned on the IWR vote) and concentrate on what they are known to be strong on......which is America's domestic agenda....which if Republicans have their way won't be the focus of attention (hence the popularity of a McCain and/or a Guiliani at top of their list).

[IA_Seth]

63. I don't think Clark would do it...

I've talked to him about this specifically in fact, and he certainly left the impression that he would not be eager to do it.

[vogon]

72. Good for him. Clark should either be president or stay where he is now.

He is much better than Hillary and joining Hillary would undermine everything he has said about the war as Hillary so far has been incapable to admit that she was wrong to vote the resolution or even admit that invading Iraq was disastrous decision. She criticized Rummy at a time when it was already politically safe to do so, and that's it.

[maddezmom]

81. welcome to DU!

So besides Clark, who would you like to see as a dem candidate? I know HRC and Gore are out. :hi:

[vogon]

89. Well, Gore is only out if he decides not to run

I assume you believe Gore is out in my book because you read my posts on the other thread.

I happen to think that if he decides to run and he doesn't lose weight he is toast.
I just do not overestimate the intelligence of the American people, especially not after what they did in 2000 and 2002 and 2004.

Gore would be the best but Clark would the second best.
Obama Edwards would be OK.
Vilsack, Bayh, Biden -- I don't know.

The worst among those whom I do know would be Hillary. She is an absolute disgrace.

[Lurking Dem]

65. She's smart enough to know

that putting Clark on the ticket would be the only way to get someone like me to vote for her.

[Infinite Hope]

67. That's what I've been saying...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2992287

[Donna Zen]

71. Never gonna happen

Wes Clark on a Hillary ticket?

Of all of the states outside of NY that Hillary's handlers must feel fairly good about, it would be Arkansas. So right off the bat, this is completely stupid wooden-headed thinking. Also, the party likes "youth" on the ticket to insure a front-runner in the future. That is not General Clark. Finally, General Clark does not agree with Hillary about Iraq, and he is not going to change his mind.

Personally, I don't know where stupid articles like this come from other than anti-Clark people. The source is just trying to knock-off someone who could beat Hillary in Arkansas.

Sorry to see this spew spread.

[Radical Activist]

76. Can I get a translator for this crap?

Sneed tries so hard to be clever but half the time I have to read three times to figure out what the hell she's talking about. Its so annoying.

[Crunchy Frog]

80. I would be very disappointed with Hillary at the top of the ticket...

and far, far more disappointed if Wes was on the ticket with her.

I don't think she can win the presidency, and I think Wes's legacy would be horribly tarnished by an association with such a ticket.

I prayed that Kerry would pick Wes as his running mate. I would pray even more fervently that he would NOT be Hillary's running mate.

I'm hoping that this is just another wild invention by the MSM.

[dogman]

83. Is this designed to build her support?

Or to undermine his? She has money, organization, and name recognition. He has gravitas. It would be a smart move on her part. I don't see much in it for him, but he does believe in public service. As mentioned above, there is a reason his talents are sought by others.

[MrSlayer]

84. Clark should be the headliner.

And Hillary should stay in New York.

[Gloria]

85. I hope he RUNS the other direction. I hope Wes Jr keeps him out of

harms way...

According to L. O'Donnell on Franken the other day, EVERYBODY wants Clark to be their VP.
Personlly, if he doesn't run for President, I hope he stays out entirely and doesn't sully himself...

[Clarkie1]

90. I doubt Clark would be interested in the VP slot.

If not the presidency, his expereince would be better as Secretary of State or Defense. I doubt Clark will play second fiddle for Hillary.

Just where is this "speculation" coming from, anyway?