Kerry/Clark = An inspiring Democratic ticket.

[Skwmom]

I posted this at the end of that huge Will Pitt post. Since, I got up at 5:30 to put my thoughts to paper (and it's torture for me to do so - I'm a much better verbal debater) I'd like for it not to get buried at the end of a long thread that turned into another Edwards/Clark back and forth.

WHY CLARK?

There are so many reasons that Wes Clark is the right choice I don’t know where to begin.

It would be a ticket of extraordinary substance (and quite frankly I think many Americans are coming to realize what happens when you elect a moron to office). However, unfortunately for many Americans it still comes down to which party does the better job of marketing its ticket. From a marketing standpoint , it would be one heck of an inspiring ticket. The battle between the war heroes and the chicken hawks, between two guys that have served their country for many years (they just took two different paths of public service) versus two guys who have shamelessly used their positions as elected officials to raid the U.S. treasury for themselves and their cronies. (Clark can really hammer this home. Soldiers - husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers - have died in Iraq because they didn‘t have the necessary protective equipment, while Halliburton has reaped millions in illegal profits and Bush’s brother has made millions from selling educational software as part of the “leave no child behind” mandate. Clark can sell this outrage to the American public better than anyone because the Republicans won‘t be successful in alleging that the accusations are nothing more than politics as usual. In addition, Kerry’s own outrage against the Bush administration will also be viewed in a more “genuine light” and not just politics as usual.)

Kerry and Clark both have heroic Vietnam stories (in addition, at 53 years old Clark rappelled down a cliff, under fire, in an attempt to aid those whose vehicle had rolled over a cliff). The Republicans try to paint Kerry as a boring, aloof, rich, liberal guy from the northeast. It will be hard to carry that off with this type of ticket. When Clark says a guy like Kerry didn’t have to go to Vietnam (but he did), he didn’t have to spend years trying to pass legislation for working Americans (but he did) that really means something. It rings true because it is coming from a non-politician like Clark.

It will turn the old “Democrats are weak on national security” meme on its head. National security concerns are going to be a major election issue for years to come. Yes Bush shamelessly uses fear to garner votes. However, Americans have reason to be afraid (even many Democrats are on record stating it is not if we have another terrorist attack but when). The Democrats have got to be able to own this issue. They have a golden opportunity to do so with a Kerry/Clark ticket. By putting Clark on the ticket Kerry demonstrates that he gets it - that national security is a major issue - and that he will do something about it. As Rove plays the fear card it will be the war heroes who reap the electorial benefit, not the chicken hawks.

Clark can close the deal for Kerry. They always say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. I think many people on the fence will look at Kerry’s VP pick as evidence of the type of man Kerry is. The Republicans are hoping to use Kerry's VP pick to reinforce the negative images they have tried to attach to Kerry. Clark, however, reinforces the positives about John Kerry. When Clark compares his record of service and dedication to the country to Kerry‘s service in the senate, stating that they took different paths but fulfilled the same objective, it casts Kerry’s senate service in a whole new light. They become two patriots, who truly love their country, dedicating their lives to public service.

The Republicans favorite defense seems to be “you’re just engaging in politics as usual.” With Clark this argument won’t work. Furthermore, by tapping Clark Kerry will demonstrate that he truly wants to be a “uniter” and not a divider. Clark can make this argument for Kerry because of his past non-partisanship as demonstrated by his voting record (and praise of the administration for doing the right thing in going after the Taliban in Afghanistan). I am sick of partisanship. Our country is in crisis domestically and abroad. As Americans we have got to come together to get this country back on track (I keep thinking of the old saying “A divided country cannot stand.”) Clarks dedication to this country is without question and by association Kerry’s dedication will also become evident. “Country before party” is a theme a Kerry/Clark ticket can sell to many of the fed up republicans and republican leaning independents (and doesn’t have the many downsides of a Kerry/McCain ticket). During the primaries I often argued - are you going to put your blind allegiance to a political label ahead of doing what is best for this country?. At the risk of sounding immodest - this is a good argument to use.

The populist theme has never worked for the Democrats because the Republicans have always successfully portrayed the Democrats as engaging in class warfare. However, Clark casts this argument in a whole new light. I remember when Clark was discussing his tax proposal during the primary. The interviewer asked General Clark something along the lines of “Shouldn’t the middle class be required to pay it’s fair share of the cost of fighting terrorism.” Clark replied they already paid their fair share because it was their sons and daughters and loved ones who were required to pay the ultimate sacrifice in fighting the war on terror. Let Rove try to counter that argument!

It will also be hard for Rove to do an all out, no holds barred assault against a Kerry/Clark (war heroes)ticket for fear of voter backlash.

Once elected, I believe a Kerry/Clark ticket can rally public opinion to push Kerry's agenda through Congress. “Country before partisanship.” That’s what its going to take if we are going to have a prayer of getting out of this mess we are in. Unfortunately, I don't think your typical politician/politician ticket will be able to rally Americans around this concept because this country is so bitterly divided (and so wary of politicians). However, a Kerry/Clark ticket can and it's a ticket that I can be darn PROUD to support.

On edit: I'd also like to add: Many suggest that Clark should be SOS (well I think there are many people capable of fulfilling that role). I think Clark is needed right here at home. He has experience with bringing together bitter enemies for the common good (which is certainly an apt description of our two major political parties). If Kerry were to pick a Republican, I think that partisan rancor would only increase.

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Don't count on it.

Kerry/Clark is an uninspiring ticket, at least for me.

[boxster]

2. So uninspiring that it inspired you to start a new thread, hmm?

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

23. As inspired as I am......

I just cancelled you out....so there!

[cosmokramer]

25. But you'll vote democrat anyway, so does it really matter?

[julialnyc]

34. Safety and security inspires me to vote!

[wyldwolf]

3. Great post!

[markm]

4. Kerry / Clark inspires me!

Not only is Clark the most liberal of the possible VP choices, at least socially, he is the best a selling liberalism to the middle. Besides, Kerry needs that vision thing and Clark has it.

[boxster]

5. I think it's a great ticket.

You're right - this election is very much about national security and foreign policy. Clark is tops in both areas and solidifies Kerry's already strong counter to Bush's false military bravado and pathetic foreign policy record.

At the same time, Clark's stances on the issues, particularly social issues, are pretty liberal. I'm sure that he'd be very involved in policy making as VP.

I'll gladly vote for Kerry, regardless of who his running mate ends up being. But, I would be extremely happy if it ends up being Wes Clark.

[TexasSissy]

6. Clark has some problems...so Kerry can't take him on.

I'm a former Clark supporter. I would've loved for him to be Prez. But he is probably not the right candidate for VP.

(1) He was terrible at debating.
(2) He is too new to politics, which requires fancy footwork and fast on your feet responses to media, the public.
(3) He was not good in dealing with the media.
(4) He only recently became a Democrat (not an issue w/me, but was with some others;;; however, Independents may like this fact)
(5) I think he made some disparaging remarks about Kerry (I'm not sure about this one). If true, this would come back to haunt the duo over and over. That's not needed, when there are too many other issues to deal with.
(6) Having two military guys on the ticket is too strong a statement for some. And it's not needed; Kerry already has the military vote, to the extent the Dems will get it.
(7) Clark can't reel in any state in particular, so what advantage would be bring to the ticket?

I know you'd think he'd make a great VP. But that's not the point. The point is: What votes would he bring to the ticket, that Kerry doesn't already have? In particular, what area would he fill in that Kerry is lacking in?

There are so many others who would bring more to the ticket than Clark. Clark would be great in the cabinet, though. National Security Advisor?

[Skwmom]

7. Let me answer you point by point:

(1) He was terrible at debating. (After the debate in Iowa many were declaring Clark the winner. In some of the other debates Clark was nothing but attacked from start to finish while many others were given one softball question after another.

(2) He is too new to politics, which requires fancy footwork and fast on your feet responses to media, the public. (The fact that Clark is a non politician is a great plus. Guess what, it makes the man believable. I've seen him take on Russert on the hardest news show there is (MTP) and come out on top (unlike someone else the media is pushing). Since many in the public love the man he must be doing something right (maybe it's the fact that he comes across as sincere).

(3) He was not good in dealing with the media. (I think he could have used a better press staff but that can be easily remedied. In addition, since the press is controlled by the corporations who have a vested interest in four more years of Bush, they haven't been the cheerleader for Clark that they have been for others - which should be a BIG CLUE for the Democrats as to who Rove is afraid of. Since Kerry seems to be sending Clark out to do all these news shows (I use that term loosely) obviously he does not agree with your assessment.

(4) He only recently became a Democrat (not an issue w/me, but was with some others;;; however, Independents may like this fact). My God Clark is not a partisan hack. How refreshing!! And your right independents don't like hard core partisans (that's one of the reasons we're independents). The Democratic voters are there. Those aren't the one Kerry needs to target.

(5) I think he made some disparaging remarks about Kerry (I'm not sure about this one). If true, this would come back to haunt the duo over and over. That's not needed, when there are too many other issues to deal with. (Clark never really played the role of "attack the other candidates" in the primary. There was some made up stuff they tried to float but that has been debunked, debunked and debunked again.

(6) Having two military guys on the ticket is too strong a statement for some. And it's not needed; Kerry already has the military vote, to the extent the Dems will get it. (No disrespect to Kerry but Kerry alone cannot lay to rest the long held believe that the Democrats are weak on defense - which the Democrats need to do if they hope to win (and get re-elected in 2008). Clark appeals to much more than military voters (and will also garner more of the military voters for the Democrats). There is a post somewhere which eloquently makes this argument. I will try to find it. Furthermore, Clark isn't your typical "military" persona as voters will come to realize. I've known Clark supporters which covered the political spectrum - from conservative republican to green party.

(7) Clark can't reel in any state in particular, so what advantage would be bring to the ticket? (In so many states the polls are so close. Clark appeals to such a broad spectrum of individuals that he will deliver enough states to the Democrats. In addition, Clark will deliver AK).

[Scoopie]

8. That's the thing

Clark can do just about anything - VP, SoS, NSA - but all Edwards can do is preen for the press.
:P

[BootinUp]

9. I don't think any of your points

are valid.

1. Clark performed fine in the debates. The subjects he was given for responses were very limited, usually Iraq/Foreign policy. Give a specific example of where he did terrible.

2. Clark does have political experience in his military career and dealing with the media and the public. I guess you meant as an elected office holder?

3. What do you mean exactly? If you mean that his campaign did not get enough free media coverage and you fault Clark for that, then I would agree he deserved some criticism for that. Specifically that his staff did not get the job done there, and he accepts responsibility for it. Clark and his staff still did a damn good job considering he entered the race on Sept 17th '03 with no position papers, no staff, and no money. If you mean he was not good in interviews I would totally disagree.

4. Clark voted for Clinton in '92, '96, and Gore in 2000. What are you talking about?

5. Clark was the first major primary candidate to endorse Kerry and campaign for him and that was 48 hrs after he announced his withdrawal. The story I think you refer to has been refuted by eyewitnesses.

6. Kerry was not as strong with moderates as Clark was through much of the primary season. Clark brings a hell of lot more than you give him credit for. Go read Donna Zens post in the Will Pitt thread about Clark for VP. Not much point in repeating what she covered so well.

7. Clark has strong support in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Ohio, to name a few. I don't think any of the top VP short list folks guarantee a swing state this year. Clark would help in all the states above and more.

I would rather see Clark as Sec of State myself, but he would be an excellent choice for VP as well.

[cosmokramer]

11. Bullshit.

[Skwmom]

12. Nothing like being short but to the point. :) e/o/m

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. That's funny!

Best laugh I had all day. Thanks!

Go Wes! The great debater! President of your debate team at West Point.
:bounce:

[FrenchieCat]

22. Clark can give

John Kerry a lot of "REAGAN DEMOCRATS"...And we need some of them to win.

So good that Clark voted for Reagan....especially after the big Reagan Death tribute we endured for a couple of weeks.

[venus]

29. What votes would Lieberman have brought in

in 2000, if that is a criteria? Your other points are pretty salient, though. I still think he'd be great for the country as V.P.; totally wasted as NSA or SoS, imo.

[Donna Zen]

35. Lots of people have opinions too

(1) He was terrible at debating.

-head of both West Points and Oxford's debate teams. Your point is how many times can a person answer gotcha rather than substance questions and do well in that circus that Terry Mac put on. Well_I don't remember anyone looking especially good in those debates. I do remember Clark bringing tears to a questioners eyes in RTV, and Dean talking to himself.

(2) He is too new to politics, which requires fancy footwork and fast on your feet responses to media, the public.

-he tells the truth with complete answers. I would like to raise the level of politics in America, and that would seem the way to begin.

(3) He was not good in dealing with the media.

-Clark has been the most frequently used surrogate for Kerry on tv. Not to sound snide, but someone disagrees with you. Clark is the only Dem. who never gets eaten alive on Fox or Russert.

(4) He only recently became a Democrat (not an issue w/me, but was with some others;;; however, Independents may like this fact)

-As I recall McCain is a life-long republican. 'nuff said...unity wins

(5) I think he made some disparaging remarks about Kerry (I'm not sure about this one). If true, this would come back to haunt the duo over and over. That's not needed, when there are too many other issues to deal with.

-currently ranks as a non-issue that has been debunked many times. On the other hand, I recall a candidate during the primaries getting caught with a dirty tricks "play book." Now who was that guy?

(6) Having two military guys on the ticket is too strong a statement for some. And it's not needed; Kerry already has the military vote, to the extent the Dems will get it.

_Kerry has some of the military vote, true; however, it is basically the same military vote we always get. The military vote, perhaps more than anyother, is teetering, but not fallen into the Dem. camp. Time to go after its 25 million voters located in red and swing states.

(7) Clark can't reel in any state in particular, so what advantage would be bring to the ticket?

-See military vote. Also, if you think a non-gun owner can bolster our chances with what in my state is a considerable voter demographic, then keep on keeping on. And no, those gun owners do not trust Kerry, I've already checked. And yes, they do trust Clark. I'm not here to justify their answers, I'm just campaigning for Kerry in a rural area.

[cosmokramer]

10. Absolutely CLARK...all the way...

...there is no other logical choice.

[robbedvoter]

13. hear!hear!

[annabanana]

14. I think you're right.

The world is WAY too dangerous right now for Kerry to have a VP who doesn't have extensive foreign policy experience. I'm tired of the whole "democrats are bad on national security" baloney. What could be a bigger boost than a liberal General!

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Welcome to DU, annabanana!

:hi:

[Scoopie]

39. Wouldn't it be great if

the Democrats suddenly became known as the Security Party? Job security, health care security and NATIONAL security? :)

[Gloria]

15. Without Clark, I'm afraid we'll see a campaign run like the

midterm elections......and wasn't that a great success?

Clark...guts, clear, concise, tough....

.

[Auntie Bush]

16. Clark will also inspire the RELIGIOUS to vote for a K/ C ticket.

He can discuss religion in the Southern states when necessary without sounding hypocritical. He will appeal to both Southern Baptists and Catholics, not to mention Jewish. He is a dream choice for the religious. What more can we want?

[LoisC]

17. Clark is a gift to the Democratic Party..

This is a chance for the Democrats to have it all,an intellectual giant with a gift of military and foreign policy experience.....I hope Kerry sees fit to unwrap this gift.

Originally I supported Clark in his presidential bid as I felt he was the ONLY candidate that could beat Bush. Then I spent a lot of time looking into his policies, researching in detail his books, and his policies.I also read a lot of opinion on him because he is mentioned by many historians. Lo and behold I became a full-fledged supporter. ..and an excited one.

I cannot understand the excitement over Edwards. To me he is extremely shallow and phony. I guess it just shows that it's different strokes for different folks.

[Skwmom]

21. Saying thanks but no thanks to Clark

is like the Republicans saying thanks, but no thanks to Reagan (who delivered 12 years in the Whitehouse).

[Justpat]

18. I agree with markm

about Clark being able to articulate the "vision thing" which Kerry
has not yet been able to do. Clark speaks with energy and passion
about his vision for this country.

[Gloria]

24. Excellent post. There has not been one other "potential VP" that

has gotten out there, week after week since the primaries, to explain and answer questions about the unfolding developments. And, the American public needs to have a lot explained to it in clear terms, in the words of someone who has a truly credible perspective.

The issue of security is paramount...but not just physical security...There is a part of the American psyche that has to be put back online...pulled back from the manipulation of the Bush fear machine.

Clark's clarity, directness and ability to make sense out of chaos could do the trick....by projecting confidence, he could bring a sort of comfort and encouragement to the political wars....

[cosmokramer]

26. No one speaks on this issue better than Clark.

He was right in 2001. He was right in 2002. He was right in 2003. And he is right in 2004. The many never misses on these FP questions--he hits it dead-on. There is no one smarter than him when it comes to these issues.

[union_maid]

27. Don't know who it's going to be, but I just love Clark

He's still my favorite candidate. I'm happy with Kerry, but Clark is definitely the one that moves me. Also, he would be the best one to step into the president's shoes if it were necessary at this particular moment in history. He's great on foreign policy, understands strategy as well as anyone alive and he's good on domestic issues as well. And, they'd look great together on the campaign trail.

[cosmokramer]

28. Someone called it...

...

Two Bars and Four Stars


vs.


What Are the Three R's?


:evilgrin:

[Skwmom]

30. Two patriots/ One mission. e/o/m

[cosmokramer]

31. Full Metal Ticket...

...come one, I know you got more in you!

:evilgrin:

[julialnyc]

33. they have more medals than bush/cheney have dui's

[cosmokramer]

38. Great...

...keep 'em coming...

[Skwmom]

32. Hmmm

How about Kerry/Clark: Securing America's future at home and abroad.

[xkenx]

36. WES CLARK VP

skwmom, your posts are the most coherent I've seen. Here is something to piggy-back your post.

Why General Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. way, and This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that. Look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead. Kerry can co-opt the national security theme on Bush.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's & MIAs. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is "squeaky-clean."

There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:

1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. He has earned the respect of European leaders (he has knighthoods or the equivalent from 18 European nations) and understands the Arab world. NO ONE has Clark's credentials to help repair our alliances around the world and gracefully resolve the Iraq problem. Plus, something that many people do not realize, as one of our major military commanders, Clark had "domestic affairs" responsibilities similar to those of mayors and governors. He was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advancement, etc.) of those under his command, numbering hundreds of thousands at times.

2.Clark brings a "common man" background, someone who grew up poor, earned an appointment to West Point where he finished 1st in his class,
became a decorated war hero--someone with the brains, talent, and drive to go into the business world and make lots of money--who instead chose to serve his country for another 30 years or so. If this man isn't a true American hero, I don't know who is.

3. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free
Trade, and most domestic issues.

4. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush/Cheney on all issues, especially those
where Bush would like to think he is strongest.

5. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background makes people feel secure. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control.)

6. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Cheney to millions of swing voters. 4 star hero vs. the
"chickenhawk."

7. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

8. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

9. Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim, "TWO PATRIOTS, ONE MISSION." This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

11. Is VP the best position for Clark? Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected by the President in National Security issues.

[Auntie Bush]

42. Welcome aboard Ken! Nice to have another articulate ,

knowledgeable Clarkie on board!

[Skwmom]

43. Excellent post!

Welcome to DU

[cosmokramer]

49. Welcome to DU!

[dkcdraw]

37. great ideas!!!

i agree that without Clark as V.P. Kerry does not have a good chance at beating out Bush........ Clark has so much to bring to this country and he has already shown he is willing to do so. I think Clark is THE wisest choice Kerry could make for V.P.!!!!!!!!!!

[Auntie Bush]

45. Did anyone ever welcome you aboard?

:hi: and a belated welcome.

I think Clark is THE wisest choice Kerry could make for V.P.!"

You are obviously a very wise person!

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. It would be an inspirational ticket

The culture war division over the Viet Nam War will finally be healed, on Democratic terms, and the concept of men seeking our highest offices as a means to serve the people rather than enrich their friends will be fully restored. No one can question the patriotism found in a Kerry Clark ticket, or the commitment those men have to protect the security of our people, at home and abroad, from all threats, military and economic.

[shivaji]

41. Kerry will NEVER choose Clark because Clark Outranks him.

Kerry does not like to be out-ranked (eliminate Clark)
Kerry does not like to be out-smiled (eliminate Edwards)

Kerry will choose either Gephardt, Cleland or M. Braun
(dark horse candidate)

[MoonRiver]

44. Inspiring? Oh, yes!

Also, awesome, unbeatable, with supernova like star power!

[Nashyra]

46. I can only dream

What a great thread. It is so nice to be able to read about Clark, again and again and again. He is a gift to the Dem party, I hope we take advantage of it. I liked the comparison to the Repukes getting Regan, we get Clark in reality no comparison at all.

[cosmokramer]

47. He is beyond compare...

...and I am certain Kerry recognizes this.

[floridaguy]

48. Clark is my choice

I will be energized beyond belief.

[Used and Abused]

50. that's a boring ticket

and I'm still not convinced that Clark is on our side. Where has he been? Is he campaigning for Kerry? Forgive me if I'm off base on this one.

[LandOLincoln]

51. Off base? I think you could say that.

A better quetion would be, where have you been? Clark has been Kerry's official surrogate for months now.

[democratreformed]

55. Definitely off base.

He has been actively campaigning for Kerry and other Dems since he left the race.

[ArkDem]

52. The race is to close. Kerry can't afford to put up with the mistakes

of a political amateur.

[Skwmom]

53. If the corporate/media (Rove) created meme about

Clark keeps him off the ticket, I suggest that the Democrats hire a political strategist who is actually capable of seeing these types of manipulations for what they are.

[ArkDem]

54. A strategist wouldn't be able to keep misstatements from

coming out of Clark's mouth.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Hopefully he could keep misstatements from coming out of

... other Democrats mouths, I think that was the point. There was no Democrat more experienced as a National politician in the country in the year 2000 than Al Gore (excepting Clinton of course). The Republicans decided on a MEME of attacking Gore for being a flaky liar who kept making outrageous false claims. That was never reality, that was the spin that Rowe's attack machine stuck on Gore, and it worked because the Democrats did not sufficiently go on the offensive against Rowe's politics of character assassination.

If you use as your standard whether any comment a human being utters in the course of countless 15 hour days spent talking can be taken out of context and distorted, or whether everything a person says is 100% factually correct in every possible regard, than every politician who has ever run has made countless misstatements. It's all in the spin.

The Republicans came out firing live bullets at Clark from the instant he declared because in the words of Bob Marley's Sheriff, they wanted to "kill it before it grows". Bush is running as a War President. Clark actually led our nation's forces in War, so he is very dangerous to Bush. Rowe's people, and his allies in the media, immediately gave Clark both the Gore treatment AND the McCain treatment (used against McCain in the 2000 primaries). That's how worried they are about him.

[ArkDem]

57. >The Republicans came out firing live bullets at Clark

This would be as opposed to what kind of bullets?

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Blanks

Trial balloons, probes for areas of weakness. We are talking about September of last year. The big guns usually don't get fired at that stage of the campaign. The disadvantage of doing so that early is the loss of surprise later when the contest counts the most. Ever notice how smear hit jobs often are released in the final days of a campaign when there is little or no time to refute them? They were going for a quick knock out of Clark. They got a draw instead. Clark isn't the nominee but he is alive and kicking butt for Kerry on the nation's air waves virtually every day.

[ArkDem]

60. Blanks aren't bullets

[Qutzupalotl]

62. Use metaphors much?

:eyes:

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Actually, I should have said "real bullets" or "live rounds"

That was the strategic blunder in my earlier post, where I was conceptually setting up a contrast with the use of "blanks". Instead I said "live bullets", which was unbelievably dumb and just opened me up to devastating counter attacks. I mean, who ever heard of dead bullets, right? See, that is EXACTLY the type of misstatements so much concern is being expressed over. Rowe would have ripped me to shreds over that one, and then what could I do? Good thing I'm not running for office.

[ArkDem]

64. Very good!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Thank you ArkDem :) Without humor, where would we be? n/t

[Skwmom]

58. Great reply Tom

You said it much better than I could have.

[cosmokramer]

61. This race is so close...

...Kerry cannot afford to put up with a VP with no foreign policy experience. Period.

[Larkspur]

66. I don't like Kerry or Clark, so the ticket is uninspiring to me

It'll be a smash with the Dem hawks and those that are easily seduced by men in military uniform, but this pro-military ticket would just cause more problems for the USA and Democrats if Clark is allowed to continue feeding the Military-Industrial complex trough with foreign coup d'tats, like in Venezuela. I see a Kerry-Clark ticket, a pro-military ticket, continuing the decline in America's image with Muslims abroad and those that support democracy based on the indigenous peoples' interpretation, not that of corporate dominated American government.

[Skwmom]

68. Obviously you know nothing about Clark

if you think he would continue to feed the Military-Industrial complex. Clark has a wide, wide, wide base of support from Green party members to republicans (and everything in between).

[cosmokramer]

70. Have you ever heard of Kosovo? MUSLIMS view Gen. Clark as

...their savior from the slaughters of Milosovic (you know, the one on trial at the Hague?)

I can hardly believe you even stated that Clark would 'continue the decline in America's image with Muslims' without even THINKING about what General Clark has actually done in his life to HELP Muslims populations. Gimme a friggin' break!

[Joe Fields]

67. Having Wes Clark as Veep would scare me as much

as when Al Haig announced he was in charge after Reagan got shot.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Not me

Though I've protested just about U.S. military intervention or involvement there has been including and since Viet Nam (starting in 1967) with the exception of Bosnia and Kosovo (I would have supported fighting Hitler too, I'm not a literal pacifist), I have never trusted a politician as much as I trust this honest General.