Ok with the * slogan "Kerry, wrong on defense"...

[Mobius]

dont you people think Clark would be the perfect Veep? :shrug:
What could they say about Clark's military service? How could they call him unpatriotic? Im sure they'd find a way, but THAT would make them look worse than making fun of Kerry's Purple Hearts.

[Bluzmann57]

1. They questioned Max Cleland's commitment to defense

and smeared him, so they would somehow try to smear Clark too. And they already look foolish trying to throw doubt on Kerry's military record, imo. These people will stop at nothing to stay in power.

[Mobius]

2. Well I have immense respect for Cleland,

but he was not a 4 star policy making General. Clark had to get his job done despite rethugs for 34 years, I feel he knows how to fire against attacks better, and has much more foreign policy experience.

[AndyTiedye]

3. One Can Only Hope It Backfires

Since it calls attention to Bush*'s, uh, military record.

Give me an A!
Give me a W!
Give me an O!
Give me an L!

[w13rd0]

4. Clark could be a good VP pick...

...but Kerry must do better than "an alternative to Bush's vision", he has to offer his own "bold vision". Trying to one-up the BushCo's military creds isn't all that hard, based on the facts, anyway. Play to the terms of debate that the GOP is trying to set, and we'll lose. We have to kick their ass, kick the ass of the media, and set our own terms. If Clark were the pick, he'd have to be offered up as more than just an addition of more shiny stars.

[atre]

5. I agree

...and while I do think that Clark would make a good VP, but his boosters here are getting to be a bit too much.

[no name no slogan]

6. Exactly. We don't win by being "like Bush"

we win by offering a BOLD ALTERNATIVE to the failed policies of BushCo and their military-industrial complex beneficiaries.

Let's not try to "one-up" Bush on issues important to Republicans. Let's define ourselves on the issues that are important to ALL Americans, like health care, good schools, no pre-emptive wars, etc.

[Mobius]

7. I beg to differ. Clark IS NOT MORE LIKE BUSH!

Obviously you don't know much about him and assume that every military officer is "like Bush". With all do respect you need to take your blinders off regarding Clark. By chance do you think Kerry is more like Bush because of his military service. How could ANYONE that has military service be "more like Bush", since Bush has no military service? :shrug:

[w13rd0]

8. Not saying that his military service is "anything Bush"...

...saying that trying to stack the ticket to carry an appearance of being all about national security is playing to their framing of the debate. Don't give them a narrow venue. As I said, it's not that I think Clark would be a poor VP choice. I just don't think he should be for the reasons most often cited by his boosters here.

[Mobius]

9. just because someone has a military backround does not mean

"they are all about national defense" Clark has MUCH more to offer than that. Being a "Clark Booster" , I had to routinely point out these other qualities and not wave his military status as his main qualification.

[w13rd0]

10. Um, that's WHAT I SAID...

...seriously, I said Clark has other qualities that might make him a good pick (namely not being in the Senate or House, for one). But I can already smell the DLC tactic of "overwhelming military force". As Kerry tries to attack Bush on the "national defense/security" front, he spotlights Bush, and not in a way that benefits him. Bold vision. It's an important issue, but it's not the only issue.