I believe it is more likely than not that the Democratic ticket will be Clinton/Clark.

[calteacherguy]

I'm curious this afternoon who agrees, and so....

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. We need a third option!

Because I just don't know!

:shrug:

[calteacherguy]

2. Oh, alright.

[jobycom]

3. I disagree, because I don't think Clark will be VP, but maybe. nt

[Stop Cornyn]

4. If we were having this conversation in December, it would have the feel of inevitability, but since

it's only September, it has the slight aroma of peaking too early.

[Lucinda]

5. A day is an eternity in politics

Way too soon to call.
I wouldnt object though....

[kimmerspixelated]

6. For one thing, Clark hasn't given any indication at all,

Unless I have missed something big today. Secondly, please don't put the idea of HC for the nomination out in the universe! Well, I can try to naysay it, anyway!

[calteacherguy]

8. I have heard...

"on AAR on Wednesday. WC Jr. was asked that if Hillary were the nominee would General Clark accept a VP role with her and WC Jr. said that, yes, he believed his father would be happy to serve or something like that."

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13308#comment-239261

[CTyankee]

14. Wow. I'm a bit surprised that Wes, Jr. said that out loud.

HC strikes me as someone who controls the message pretty tightly. Either he was a bit TMI or she has greenlighted this idea to get out in general circulation.

[mcscajun]

23. There's Clark's endorsement of Hillary today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1815987

[derby378]

7. I can't see it

The ticket won't pull in more voters from the Midwest or the Pacific Northwest. It certainly won't win over any NRA moderates or brand-new Democrats from rural areas, and this race is already shaping up to be a Dem-vs.-Repuke squeaker.

[calteacherguy]

11. Huh????????

I disagree completely with your assesment. Clark would bring national security credentials to the ticket and bring in independents and open-minded Republicans.

I have no doubt Clark would be the best choice for Clinton, based on an ablility to stengthen the ticket.

[derby378]

16. I think people are getting turned off by the whole "national security" theme

When the term "Homeland Security" was brought into vogue by the Bush administration, it meant that mothers of newborns were forced to sample their own breast milk at airports, New Orleans was allowed to crumble in the aftermath of Katrina, and Jose Padilla was physically and psychologically tortured as an "enemy combatant" for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I think the whole concept of "national security" needs to be redefined before it can be used as an actual campaign platform by Democrats.

[calteacherguy]

18. Indeed, Clark has defined national security

as environmental security, constitutional security, economic security, educational security, etc. in his own campaigning.

However, you delude yourself if you think the Republicans aren't going to play the same hand they've played before, and we can't afford to take ANY chances. Not this time.

[NanceGreggs]

17. Agreed.

As others have stated here, it IS too soon to call it. But it would be a VERY smart move on Hil's part.

[connecticut yankee]

9. Well, for one thing

I just received a message from Gen. Clark endorsing Hillary.

It begins --

Today, I am proud to announce my endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.

Senator Hillary Clinton has earned the support of millions of Americans in her campaign for president -- and today I am pleased to count myself among them. The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. I believe Senator Clinton is that leader, and I whole-heartedly endorse her for President of the United States. Senator Clinton and I share a worldview in which diplomacy is the best first-strike tool in our arsenal; in today's complicated global system, the United States should be making more friends than enemies.

Never before have so many Americans had our well-being so closely tied to world events. Our economic and national security has become more complicated than ever before, and we deserve a leader who draws on wisdom, compassion, intelligence and moral courage -- in short, we need Hillary Clinton. She is tough but fair, a rock-solid leader equal to the many weighty challenges ahead of us.

Could that mean a trade-off?

[last_texas_dem]

10. I would think Clark's endorsement of Clinton

would actually make it less likely he would be her VP pick. Although it's not a parallel situation, if Clinton were to choose Clark as her VP should she get the nomination, it would remind me of when * gave Cheney the task of finding him a VP candidate and Cheney recommended himself. FWIW, I think Clark would be a good VP pick for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, but I don't think his endorsement of Clinton makes it more likely for any of them to pick him, including Clinton.

[Colobo]

12. Obama will be at the top of our ticket.

[Mellowtone]

13. Too early to tell

A lot can happen in the next 11 months!

Clinton has the lead at the moment, that's all we can confirm. Going further than that is just speculation and wishful thinking for some.

Others wish for someone else. Wesley Clark would make a good VP choice,for anyone, if he wants it!

[autorank]

15. Only if Clark gets her an honorary degree from the School of the Americas n/t

[smoogatz]

19. If Gore doesn't run, it's very likely to be Clinton and somebody.

Or somebody and Clinton.

[SOS]

20. Hopefully!

Clark would be an excellent choice.

[Lobster Martini]

21. Have to say that the odds are better than 50-50

The question was about likelihood, not preference, so without expressing any opinion one way or another, I have to say that the odds of a Clinton/Clark ticket are better than even.

Hillary has a nice lead--much could change, but for now, she has a nice lead. W. is going to leave the next President, whoever it might be, with about 100,000 troops in Iraq, and some will be nervous about any commander-in-chief with no military experience, let alone a woman with no military experience. (Sexist? Hell yes. Still true. Hillary has to walk a thin line. If she's tough, she's a witch, and if she softens her image, the question becomes whether she's tough enough to be a war president.) Clark would provide the military experience and he's already on record supporting Hillary. Besides that, I think he'd be a good choice for VP no matter who gets the nomination.

So to answer the question, yeah, I think the odds are better than even that if Hillary gets the nomination, Clark might be her running mate.

[goodgd_yall]

22. No, it'll be Clinton/Biden n/t