I think Clark is the best VP choice. Talk me out of it (or into it) #2.

[Padraig18]

The original post:

WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-15-04 01:21 PM
Original message
I think Clark is the best VP choice. Talk me out of it (or into it).


I like Edwards, but since I don't think Kerry would be wise spending resources in the South (where, sadly, he won't do very well), that puts Edwards lower on the list. I like Dean, but a dual New Englander ticket just won't work. There are a lot of other excellent candidates, but for my money, Clark is the cream, and rising.

Am I right? Wrong? What do you think?

[AP]

1. Kerry's speech on the middle class was the best speech he has given so far

That's the message that Democrats can win with. It gets to the heart of what is not working about America right now. It gets to the heart of what the Bush administration is all about (shifting all the wealth created by people who work for a living, whether blue or white collar, to the wealthiest people in America).

I don't care who the VP is so long as the ticket is organized around that theme.

Just kidding. I do care. I think Edwards embodies that message better than just about any Democratic politician in America today.

(Debbie Stabenow and Ruth Ann Minner are two others who do that, by the way.)

[cosmokramer]

4. We organize it around that theme....

...and we will most definitely LOSE.

Moderates and Indy's will not oust the sitting 'War Preznit' without having total faith and confidence that the alternative will keep them safe, secure, and free in the world. This election isn't going to be about domestic policy. If it were, you would be justified in believing a 'feel good middle class' ticket/theme would work. But it is not 1992. It is 2004--POST 9/11--and the Iraq war, terrorism, international relations, and foreign policy will be the top issues for this election season. For the sake of all of us, and for our reputation in the world, lets pray Kerry chooses someone who reinforces those issues instead of going with domestic puff.

[TLDHOME99]

41. hilarious that no one ever gets tired of this debate

Second posting, same topic, and everybody is just as heated up over it as they were the first time.

Of course, the people with good taste and common sense can see that Clark is the best choice for VP!

1) 4-star general
2) NATO Supreme Allied Commander
3) First in his class at West Point
4) Rhodes Scholar -- Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University
5) Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, Panama
6) Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
7) Military awards -- Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart
8) Honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments
9) Commander of the French Legion of Honor
10) Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.
11) Author of the best-selling "Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat"

Wicked smart, personable, thoughtful, and determined to unseat Bush.

Would be an easy decision for me, I dunno about Kerry.

[venus]

42. I disagree. There a LOT of disaffected voters who don't

get all hot and bothered over Iraq. They are more concerned about jobs, taxes, and civil rights. Which is why Clark would be a great choice for V.P. He is brilliant at carrying the Dem economic message. Remember his "American values" meme during the primaries, where he likened values to economic and social justice. Actually I heard Gert articulate this policy first. She relates very well to the hardships of raising a family almost poor; as well as Edwards does IMO.

[BootinUp]

43. yes, there's both

I loved Clark's "valuing families" speeches. An excellent example of creating the right message to counter the repukes. I hope we get to see a lot more of it.

[Skwmom]

51. Your're right and Clark has talked about these issues.

And so has his wife. But the thing is when Clark talks about these issues I actually believe what he says (unlike the phony Edwards).

[BootinUp]

52. lol

The two America's speech never did anything for me. I don't know if its because there wasn't enough substance there or what. I hate to call him phony though. I just don't think he's qualified.

[AP]

5. Cosmo, the point of Iraq is to shift a great deal of wealth to the wealthy

At the core of the Iraq War is a class war.

I'm not saying ignore Iraq, or sound weak on national security. I'm talking about telling a story about what's going on in America that is not only true, but puts together the pieces for eveyone in a way that is compelling and that makes sense of not only what's happening on the other side of the world, but what is happening in your families and in your jobs and in the tax code and in the pubic schools.

[cosmokramer]

7. I fully understand what you are saying,

but you give the public waaaaaaaaaay too much credit for being able to understand the nuances and the trickle down effects of the war.

Bottom line is, if voters don't feel 'safe', they are not going to vote for Kerry, and nuancing and complicating the issue will not accomplish this.

Safety & security--and if we don't make these our keep objectives in this campaign, we are going to lose--big time.

[AP]

11. Cosmo, I think people will understand why they should vote for a Democrat

if they can understand Iraq as a wealth transfer.

if they understand it only as being about safety, I don't think Dems have much over Republicans.

[cosmokramer]

15. People don't understand, AP...

...which is my point. Sometimes those of us who are so heavily involved in politics forget that the other 98% of the voting population isn't paying any attention.

I am definitely no fan of Howard Dean, in fact, I think he was a terrible candidate though his ideas were good. I agreed with him, however, that many southern impoverished voters vote against their better interest. They vote GOP, even though it is the GOP that keeps them impoverished. However, telling those voters this will make no difference to them--they will not change their minds. To them, the most important issue is security/fp, and the democrats traditionally have not been the most publically prominent sec/fp party.

That, coupled with the fear mongering the Bush/Cheney ticket has mastered, means only one thing (if we want to win): We take them head on on this issue that they have adopted as their mantle for so long. Make all voters know that John Kerry will keep them safe, and will do the right thing in the name of America in the rest of the world. Let them know the democratic party is the party of good foreign relations and military accumen.

If we run this election on domestic issues, we will have a Dukakisesque loss in the fall, guaranteed. And I don't know about you, but I am not willing to roll the dice on domestic issues and end up with snake eyes back in office for four years. Hit the son of a bitches head on on foreign policy, show the voters how incompetent and unqualified they are, and win big.

[Jai4WKC08]

18. What a GREAT line!

"...I am not willing to roll the dice on domestic issues and end up with snake eyes back in office..."

I love it.

[cosmokramer]

60. Aw shucks...

...thanks!

:pals:

[AP]

16. If this election is ONLY about fear, and only about responding to fear

it will be an uphill climb for Democrats.

This is exactly why FDR said that we shouldn't fear anything but fear, and why, throughout WWII he made people feel like the best thing they could do to keep America safe was to keep working, and keep accumulating economic, political and cutlural power.

He knew that if put on a uniform and said, "you have to elect me because this is a frightening world and there will be danger and disaster if you don't" that that would play into the hands of Republicans and Republicans would win.

Republicans use fear to make people accept less wealth and power so that rich Repubicans can have more.

If the Democrats run only on fear, people will say, 'what the fuck, it's a scarry world and no matter what Democrats say, I know Republicans are always willing to take protecting me one step farther than Democrats." They'll accept less democracy and less political power if you tell them it's all about fear.

I'm not saying run from defense, but I am saying that Democrats, to win, have to keep voters' eyes on the prize, which is more democracy, and more economic, political and cultural power for people who work for a lving, just like FDR did. And I think you do that best by running candidates on Edwards's message (which was the message of Kerry's AFL-CIO speech, which has clearly gotten more attention than any other speech he has given so far because it hit the nail on the head).

[BootinUp]

20. Clark has the competence, intelligence, and integrity

to be a leader and important part of the Administration which is exactly what Americans are looking for right now. You won't hear the media questioning whether he was qualified to be President, which I could imagine in the case of Edwards. BTW Clark was on CNBC Capitol Report talking economic issues last night, Clark is not a one issue guy, don't let the 4 stars keep you from looking at the whole package.

[AP]

22. Reagan was an actor. Clinton was a governor of a tiny state.

I know people talk about competence, but I really don't think anyone cares beyond the people who think the person they're supporting is more competent.

I don't think Edwards is better than Sharpton or Kucinich because of their experiences. I think he's better because of what he stands for, and how he delivers it. I think that's the way most voters think.

I didn't think Clinton was better than Bush because of their relative level of experiences. I thought he was better because he didn't have the experience Bush had -- being rich, privileged, CIA director, etc.

[LandOLincoln]

34. "Reagan was an actor, Clinton was a governor of a tiny state...."

and neither of them ran for office in a post-9/11, post-Afghanistan/Iraq world.

John Edwards, Barak Obama, Harold Ford et al are the future of the Democratic Party. John Kerry and Wes Clark are the present, and I for one can't wait for the time when this election is over and a couple of tough, experienced and scary-smart non-wingnut non-idealogues are in charge of this badly-listing ship of state.

Johnny Sunshine would have been an excellent VP for Wes Clark, and I dreamed about that ticket from the time Clark announced until Iowa at least.

However, he isn't the perfect VP for John Kerry, and his continuing campaign for that position makes me wonder if he isn't putting what's best for JRE ahead of what's best for the country.

And to paraphrase slightly something Clark said about himself vis-a-vis *, Wes Clark has forgotten more about foreign policy/national security than John Edwards will ever learn.

Also, Clark had head of state status as SACEUR, and if necessary could step into the Presidency without missing a beat. This ain't no time for learning on the job, and favorable comparisons between JRE's and the first JFK's relative (in)experience are inapt to say the least.

In short,

FORGET HISTORY

and

BE HERE NOW

Thank you.

[cosmokramer]

21. We can agree to disagree, AP...

...but I think history will prove me correct.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. But after Pearl Harbor

FDR ran as a war president and won because people believed he could best prosecute the war.

He sure as hell didn't try to say, the war is about the transfer of wealth. That view is labelled "socialist" (true or not) and Repubs tried desperately to paint FDR as a socialist. They failed precisely because he had always wanted to fight the Nazis and didn't coddle the Japanese, whereas the Repubs were the isolationists. When WE were attacked, FDR's message came thru loud and clear.

The legacy of Vietnam gives us a different world in how middle America sees the Democratic leaders with respect to an ability to defend the nation. Doesn't matter that Vietnam had nothing to do with national defense. It's a matter of perception.

If we don't change that perception, we lose.

Most people already think Democrats are better equipped to handle domestic issues, and far too many are still undecided about who to vote for.

There's no doubt in my mind that Kerry is in fact strong on defense, and has the right foreign policy experience to salvage whatever's possible in Iraq. But he has a long Senate record that the RNC will use against him, and they will be feeding prejudices that are already strong within the voting populace. It's much harder to change an existing perception than to create a new one and Kerry will need all the help he can get.

[AP]

24. Read Pallast's Best Democracy... His father was in the army and was very

proud of his service because he saw himself as battling fascist imperialists. During WWII, Americans felt that they were fighting for all the things FDR gave them, things that the New Deal and the GI Bill emobodied: a gov't which cared to put wealth in the middle class, and which believed in opportunity on a level playing field for everyone.

Fascists in the US wanted to carry out a coup in 1934. The fascism the US fought abroad was the same as the fascism FDR was fighting at home. That people had a sense that they were fighting for democracy and against fascism was one of the things that held everything together, and which gave America the mandate for buidling up the middle class after WWII (and the success of which which made it so important for Republicans to use the red scare to counter those impulses).

There wasn't this disemobied fear that drove people to fight in WWII.

Democrats were able to crate a coherent narrative about why we were fighting which very much revolved around economic opportunity for all, democracy, building up a middle class, and fighting against fascist imperialism which didn't believe in any of that.

I don't think we can win on the issue of Iraq unless we fit it within the same sort of compelling narrative. Why is it wrong to be in Iraq? Because Americans are isolationists? No. It's because we are not fascist imperialists who use war as an excuse to transfer tons of taxpayer wealth to corporations who bring no value to society.

It's not that Clark doesn't believe that is the problem. It's that he doesnt' help deliver that compelling narrative. I really think that Edwards gets much closer to what FDR was doing before and during WWII when FDR was fighting back the corporate fascists on Wall St as well as in Berlin.

I think Edwards helps people put the big picture together.

[BootinUp]

25. So in a General Election

you really think an economic conspiracy message regarding Iraq is going to work?

[Jai4WKC08]

26. First off, I don't think Clark does believe that

Or Kerry either.

Oh, Clark recognizes the economic component to be sure. And he has often complained that the Bushies won't tell us, honestly, why we went to war in Iraq. But I think he thinks the real reason was political. Granting that you can't divorce Republican politics with accumulating wealth, but indirectly in this case. Defeating al Qaeda and islamic terrorists was too hard. Taking out a state, with a standing army far inferior to ours, was much easier.

Secondly, it's not a matter of winning "on the Iraq issue" per se. Iraq is merely a shining example of how incompetent BushCo is on national defense in general. They took us to a war based on bad and likely manipulated intelligence, they claimed "mission accomplished" when it wasn't even close, they were caught with their pants down when the Iraqi people didn't react the way they expected them to, their plans there now are driven totally by domestic partisan political considerations, they dropped the ball in Afghanistan, they diverted resources needed to fight al Qaeda to take out a two-bit dictator that had no immediate capability to hurt us, and they have wrecked the very international relationships we NEED to fight terrorism effectively.

That's what they've done wrong, but Kerry needs to show that he can do it right. So the larger issue, bigger than Iraq, is who can defend America against the REAL threats to our safety.

If you think terrorism is a "disembodied fear" you haven't looked at the NYC skyline recently. And if you think voters can be convinced that terrorism isn't a threat to American physical safety and economic well-being, every bit as much as fascist imperialism in 1941, you are seriously out of touch with public opinion.

[louis c]

2. I think you're correct

If this election is going to be argued, as I believe it will, on the lines of war, peace, and national security, Clark's the best choice, by far. If Kerry wants to argue his case along the lines of the economy, then Gephardt is the guy. The way things a shaping up, it looks like Clark.

[cosmokramer]

3. Exactly.

[onehandle]

Clark is my choice....

Midwestern/Southern, Military, Smart, and Charismatic.

Ultimately, whoever the number crunchers pick is the one we want and fine with me.

[eileen from OH]

6. It depends on what you think Kerry needs MOST

1. Is it a firming-up of his foreign policy/military credentials? I thought that was the single biggest plus argument for his candidacy. Do we want a VP that adds to what Kerry already has?

2. Is it a "geographical" candidate that can deliver his or her state or region? Polls don't seem to indicate that any of them has a particular lock on that.

3. Is it a "constituency" candidate? One that could bring labor, ethnic, African American, Latinos, etc.?

4. Is it to shore up what may be perceived as a weak policy area for Kerry? Of course, then you have to ask what that is, and what plugs it best.

5. Is it experience? Is it the who-can-we-picture-as-Prez if, God forbids, something happens to Kerry?

6. Is it the excitement/enthusiasm area? Does he need a VP to infuse some charisma and buzz?

I'm sure you could think of a few more. But all of the suggested candidates can cover one or more of these. But which is the MOST important? How would you rank 'em?

(I say #6 is the most valuable, meself. I think Edwards wins that one, hands down. Clark to a lesser extent.)

eileen from OH

[onehandle]

8. Both Clark and Edwards would look like a movie star....

....sitting next to heart attack with a sneer.

I can't wait.

[cosmokramer]

10. Eileen...

...in regard to your #1, YES, we want a VP who also has this. Why? Because every single poll done regarding Kerry vs. Bush, Kerry loses the poll on the issues of National Security/Foreign Policy. Kerry beats Bush on every domestic issue. He doesn't need help on the domestic issues, but he most certainly needs help on the natsec/FP issues.

[venus]

44. Kerry probably needs someone from the South.

Therefore it will probably be Edwards or if Kerry is somewhat risky - it would be Graham. Best choice would be Clark because he is the "everything" man.

[74dodgedart]

9. I agree, Clark can carry Arkansas, I don't think Edwards can deliver

a state. SC hasn't gone democratic in forever, and NC is leaning Repub

Clark gets Arkansas and a boost in the South..

I would prefer to see Clark as Sec of State

[AP]

14. Ark is 4 EV (?) NC is 15

A safe 4 might be better than a chance at 15. But an OK chance at 4 might not be as good as a slightly riskier chance at 15.

[74dodgedart]

17. I agree, but the polls I've seen have Ark leaning Dem and NC leaning Rep

I would take the safe four and any additional bump you may get in the south. (Possibly Oklahoma)

[AP]

19. Sounds good. But today is a snapshot. You have to draw the arc out.

Do you think NC is stalled where it is? Do you think Bush will be stronger there in a month? Two months? Or do you think Kerry Edwards or Kerry Clark would trend upwards.

I think the arc for NC started low for even Edwards, then trended up as the primaries wore on, and I think attaching him to the ticket keeps that arc going up.

Last poll I saw from NC had Kerry-Edwards as the ONLY ticket beating Bush.

15 EV. That's a lot of EVs.

[74dodgedart]

28. That's a snapshot

"Last poll I saw from NC had Kerry-Edwards as the ONLY ticket beating Bush."
Arc it out...I like Edwards, but I think his career as a trial lawyer and lack of experience could be used against him. promise him a position in the administration and use him to campaign in NC.

I think Clark offers a striking contrast to Cheney. As much as repubs try to say differently, I think his military service counts when compared to Bush\Cheney's lack of service .

It will be hard for them to criticize Clark without criticizing the military.

[AP]

31. Edward beat Faircloth BECAUSE they started talking about his career as

a trial lawyer.

He was down ten points. Faircloth wanted to put the last nail in the coffin, ran a trial lawyer commercial. They brought out former clients who talked about their cases. He went from 10 down to 2 up and won in less than two weeks.

[venus]

50. Who is the most popular in NC - Dole or Edwards?

I think Dole is from NC. If so that state is probably leaning Repub, because they are pro military,IMO.

[Radical Activist]

63. Ark has 6 not 4

[Radical Activist]

64. Edwards probably has more name recognition in AR than Clark

Clark has a lot of support from Democratic insiders and activists in Arkansas, but he doesn't have strong ties to the state beyond that. In terms of the average voter, they probably know more about Edwards than Clark.

[cosmokramer]

71. Bull crap! That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.

When a person from a state runs for office, EVERYONE in that state knows about the native. Gimme a friggin' break! That was just plain lame!

[robbedvoter]

12. Clark. Competent, feisty, inspiring - not a war profiteer.

[cosmokramer]

27. Great tag line, Robbed...

Vote Clark -- Not a War Profiteer

[Exgeneral]

13. I wish it were true

This would indicate that the Kerry campaign is serious about WINNING.
That just isn't the concern for them it would seem
But we'll find out soon enough.

29. Back to Dean

Why won't a dual New England ticket work? I haven't heard a good reason for this, and it seems to be the only downside to a Dean VP slot--unless you listen to the people who have nothing to say about Dean beyond the annoying whine of "He's a looooser."

More important than geography is compatability. Dean and Kerry seem to have become good buds recently. Also of importance is experience and readiness. Dean is certainly capable of stepping in to handle the top executive slot.

So as I asked -Why NOT a dual New England ticket?

[cosmokramer]

30. Dean capable of handling top spot?

Huh? You have got to be kidding me. He hasn't 20 seconds worth of foreign policy experience which, among many, many other reasons, disqualifies him completely.

[drfemoe]

32. LOL . n/t

33. You're very humorous!

Previous foreign policy experience is actually pretty rare for a Presidential candidate, unless you mean to say that going to a foreign country to kill people is foreign policy experience. If so, any grunt who has seen duty passes that test - and if THAT is so, then such a test is next to worthless.

Lack of direct foreign policy experience is by no means a disqualification--as long as the candidate understands the ins and outs of US foreign relations, and can listen to, and accept expert advice.

Obviously, listening to Dean, it is clear that he has the required intellect to direct foreign policy, and to select a first class line-up of advisors.

We're all aware of your support for Clark, cosmo. But I asked a serious question about Dean, and if you can't answer the question, kindly keep your sarcasm in check and go find a thread where you can support Clark on his merits

[LandOLincoln]

35. So, you really want to compare the foreign policy experience

of a man who held head of state status as Supreme Allied Commander, who held a fractious 19-nation coalition together while successfully prosecuting a war against a genocidal dictator, with "any grunt who has seen duty" killing people in a foreign country?

and then go on to disdain Cosmo's "sarcasm??"

Oh, puhleeze...

45. I didn't bring up foreign policy experience

because I don't see it as a pre-requisite.

Obviously, with some Clark supporters, you have to create a special need for your candidate, claiming that his main strength is a absolute requiremnt, and the primary measure by which all other candidates should be judged.

While I like Clark, and think he would make a fne VP, I'm not buying your straw man argument. My original post asked why a dual New England ticket would not work.

So far, your only answer is to ignore the question, and create a diversion.

As for sarcasm...well, I didn't start the fire, but I'll be happy to use a controlled burn if it suits my need.

[LandOLincoln]

48. You may not see it as a prerequisite, but Kerry and the

American people do. So sorry.

As to your question about the dual New England ticket, if I'd thought it was in any way, shape or form a serious question I might have suggested a few answers, but it wasn't so I won't.

49. Thats convenient for you! LOL

"Your question isn't serious, so I wont answer"

That's funny enough to let stand, I won't try to diss you.

Just let me assure you, I was extremely serious when I asked my question. It was in NO WAY rhetorical. I was hoping for a serious answer.

If you can't provide an answer, then dont. Don't make excuses. :)

[LandOLincoln]

54. Two "pansy-assed Eastern libruls??"

Please. :silly:

[cosmokramer]

55. Silly, ain't it!

:dunce:

56. Mega-Dittos To Rush, Or Did You Make That One Up Yourself?

Is that really the best you can do?

How pathetic. Your answer amounts to little more than "We can't do it because the nasty Republicans will tease us! Whaaa! "

When you learn to think for yourself, maybe we can discuss this rationally. Untill then, go hide your head in shame.

[Jai4WKC08]

59. If you think it's ONLY nasty Republicans

Who would be "teasing us" about a NE ticket, you don't understand the way a LOT of Americans think.

Or rather don't think. I agree that it shouldn't matter where the nominees are from. The world is getting smaller, yada-yada, and ideally people should find out what their prospective leaders stand for, not where they were born.

But it just doesn't work that way. A LOT of people, people who don't want to vote for Bush, are very uneasy because they see Kerry as being too liberal. And a large part of the reason for that is because he's from Massachusetts. Adding someone from Vermont to the ticket will make it just that much harder to reach those people.

You know, I generally support the Democratic principle of trying to get everybody registered and voting. But sometimes I have my doubts. There are an awful lot of stupid people, or far worse, people who can't be bothered to turn off Survivor or ESPN or whatever long enough to see what's really going on in their country. If that's an "elitist" attitude, so be it.

Shoot, I think I even remember hearing Dean himself write off the possibility of a two-NE'er ticket. He's at least that politically astute.

[RafterMan]

36. I was not a Dean fan

but I agree with you about the cheap shot.

On your original point, what would you see as Dean's role in a Kerry administration? My impression of the Dean phenomenon was that his campaigning style was a sort of promise for a blunt, open and confrontational governing style -- something he could not choose to do in somebody else's administration. Do you think Kerry would pull a good cop/bad cop routine? I just don't see how he fits in.

47. Dean's Role?

As a possible VP, I see Dean using the office as a bully pulpit, speaking out about blanced budgets, universal health care, grass roots democracy and fighting voter apathy, and using common sense in our "war on terrorism. Despite the protests to the contrary seen in this thread, Dean has shown enormous common sense in his statements and actions regarding American foreign policy.

More so than any other candidate, Dean could reinvent the office of the VP.

Dean could also fill the traditonal role of Executive Pitbull. the man speaks his mind, and though he often gets blasted for being a loose canon, his aim has proven very accurate, and his vison has shown to be nearly prescient.

Dean would attract some of those Nader supporters who have left the party, some Gore supporters who might otherwise sit this one out because Gore isn't running, and some straight-talking McCain supporters who were never with the Dems to begin with.

Dean also has a proven ability to raise the big bucks, and has an existing internet following. More than delivering a single state, Dean could deliver the online commnity, drawing from many states.

dean could also head up task orces formany of the ideas I presented in my "bully-pulpit" paragraph.

Dean isn'tthe only choice for VP. As I said, I DO like Clark.

But I categorically rejectthe idea that Dean is in ANY way unfit for the job, or for filling in as Pres if need be required.

And still, NO ONE has explained why an all New England ticket would be unworkable.

[venus]

53. I think Dean would be a great choice too, after Clark and Graham.

He atleast would be an "honest broker" in his Middle East foreign policy, something noone else is bold enough to assert. I'm still trying to figure out why we keep buying this media-created bias against New England liberals too. I won't beat a dead horse because I posted this on another thread.

57. I also like Clark and Graham

it just strikes me as funny how some Clark supporters seem to have these strange masculinity and machismo issues.

Reminds me of that old Gang Of Four song--"I Love A Man In Uniform":

To have ambitions was my ambition
But I had nothing to show for my dreams
Time with my girl I spent it well
(You must be joking, O man you must be joking)

The good life was so elusive
Handouts, they got me down
I had to regain my confidence
So I got into camouflage

The girls they love to see you shoot

I love a man in a uniform
I love a man in a uniform...

[venus]

65. Now I think your trippin' and you just hate a man in uniform.

Just because he defended his country so folk like us could keep our freedom does not mean he's a warmonger, or whatever prejudice you have against him. Are you also mad at Kerry for participating in a war? I think your disdain is showing a bit too much. Please chill out.

70. Oh Barf!

I was 4 years in the US Army with an 11H MOS, spent between South Carolina, Georgia, and California, firing and training others to fire TOWs.

I never saw any action, but I was lucky. There didn't happen to be a war at that time.

Just because I don't have a political orgasm everytime I see 4 stars doesn't mean I have disdain for the uniform. I wore it, and then got over it :)

[cosmokramer]

39. HA!

Yes, we see where no previous foreign policy experience got us with Bush now don't we?

The world is different, demwing. You can't gauge now with the past. And I seriously doubt that Dean has the intellect required to direct foreign policy in a manner any way as effectively or competently as someone who has experience in that area.

And as for your little dig at the end of your post, did I say a single word about General Clark in my post? Uh, no, I didn't.

[RafterMan]

40. I give Dean a little credit

for having common sense enough to recognize the war was a stupid idea.

It puts him above several others on the list for me, although I am no Dean fan.

46. Do you have to say anthing about Clark?

Your signature picture of Clark underwrites every other point you've tried to make!

And your point about Bush's lack of foreign policy MIGHT weigh heavily, if you believed that Bush actually directed his foreign policy.

I don't. The man is a puppet.

His masters, on the other hand, have ton's of foreign policy experience.

To paraphrase your own good self--We can see where previous foreign policy experience got us, now don't we?

[Cocoa]

37. the thing that might hurt Clark

is possibly something none of us knows about.

I thought he was great in the primaries, and my favorite thing about him is how much the whores hate him and fear him.

[annabanana]

38. We'd have heard by now.

If there was some kind of "skeleton".. they would have trotted it out already, during the primaries. The mainstream media (as you may have noticed) is VERY Republican, and I think that Clark is seen as a threat. (There is also, on CNN where he used to work, the occasional personal axe-grinding going on). I think his qualifications are stellar and tailor-made to the situation this country finds itself in, thanks to the idiots running the place! IMHO

[OnionPatch]

58. I think Clark is a great choice

....and I'm a pretty bleeding-heart type liberal who has never been all that thrilled with military types. Aside from all the pros some of you have already listed, and all his credentials and obvious intelligence, there is something about Clark that makes me feel like I could trust him and it's surprised even myself. Just the fact that he voted for Reagan would normally have made me write him off immediately but there's just this gut-feeling I have about him that he's a genuine, good person. I'm thinking he might inspire this feeling in other people as well. And, liberal as I am, I don't think it would hurt to have someone with military experience in these times.

[venus]

66. Why do 'liberals' have to disdain the military?

That bias is what gave Clinton such a black eye among Conservatives. I mean after all, Jimmy Carter was a Navy officer, so what's so bad about a man defending his country. It is honorable, not dis-honorable.

[Radical Activist]

69. Some people don't like the destruction of life and property

Others wonder why its ok for the military but not OK for those fighting opression that get called criminals and terrorists.

[Zorra]

72. OK: If wars were really fought for the defense of our country,

war would probably be obsolete by now.

Can you tell me why we went to war in Vietnam, and why we invaded Iraq? The Gulf of Tonkin "incident"? Why did Bu$h and the rest of the goons deliberately lie about WMD?

Folks that join the military usually do so to defend our country. They have noble intentions, and for this they have my utmost respect. (People that evade military drafts or forego military service also have my respect, because they understand that our wars are no longer fought for defense purposes alone, and they refuse to kill others under these circumstances).

And then people like Bu$h and the fascist neocons lie them into combat in a place like Iraq or Vietnam that was, realistically, little or no threat to our country.

I'm a liberal. I am grateful for the military. It's a dangerous world, and anyone with even minute knowledge of human history understands the need for a society to be able to protect itself from invaders. But mis-leaders :puke: like Bu$h and the neocons abuse our troops, and our tax money, and use both for unnecessary offensive purposes, usually to enrich themselves, trans-national corporations, and members of their class. They are nothing but meglomaniacal, callous war profiteers that wantonly and consciencelessly spill our own soldier's and other innocent's blood, and waste the labor and resources of our country for their own gain.

So, how does a career in the military qualify a person for elected office? Do high ranking military personnel recognize that the reasons for many of our wars are total BS, and yet "do their duty" despite knowing that the war that they are fighting has absolutely nothing to do with the defense of our country?

Leading a nation like the US in the world today requires, it seems to me, much more knowledge and experience than a career in the military.

(And I don't mean to disparage Gen. Clark by this post, because as far as career military folk go, Gen. Clark is a very intelligent and broadly educated man, who has a Masters Degree in Economics, Politics, and Philosophy).

Interesting article that leads me to speculate that one reason for the invasion of Iraq was to secure a long term enemy (al Qaida, and Arab nations in general) in order to justify continual US military intervention for the (PNAC) purposes of "rebuilding America's defenses", unwarranted continual US imperialistic aggression, and long term war profiteering:

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday June 19, 2004

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1242638,00.html

So maybe this is why many "liberals" disdain the military. It would be nice if we could have faith in our government to use the military for it's proper purpose: defending our country.

[armymom]

61. Kerry/Clark ticket

Sen Kerry has Clark and Edwards both out raising money, BUT since Edwards BOMBED on Imus 6-8 weeks ago, I haven't seen him on any tv or radio program for the Kerry campaign. Not only is the General on tv, radio, and writing substantive articles for the campaign, Kerry has placed the General on both the foreign policy AND military advisory boards. He doesn't let Edwards do anything substantive, just preach to the faithful and pass the bucket. The Kerrys and the Clarks have much in common - both couples are well-traveled, culturally aware, speak multiple languages. It just seems a better fit.

Kerry's Senior Military Advisory Group consists of prominent retired admirals and general officers who are advising his campaign on defense and national security issues. "I am honored to have such a distinguished group of experienced military leaders and professionals working with me on the vital security challenges facing our nation," said Kerry. (The full list is below.)

Kerry has said his national security policy will be guided by four imperatives: building and leading new alliances; modernizing the military; deploying all that is in America's arsenal - the power of our economy, our diplomacy, our intelligence capabilities and our values and ideas; and freeing America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil.

Kerry's Military Advisor Committee, formed two weeks ago:

Admiral William Crowe (USN, Ret.)
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General John Shalikashvili (USA, Ret.)
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General Tony McPeak (USAF, Ret.)
Former US Air Force Chief of Staff

Admiral Stansfield Turner, (USN, Ret.)
Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency

General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret)
Former Commander-in-Chief, US Central Command

General Wesley Clark (USA, Ret.)
Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe

General Johnnie Wilson, (USA, Ret.)
Former Commander, US Army Material Command
(CAMPAIGNED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE GENERAL AND GERT)

LTG Daniel Christman (USA, Ret.)
Former Superintendent US Military Academy

LTG General Kennedy (USA, Ret.)
Former Deputy Army Chief of Staff for Intelligence

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn (USN, Ret.)
Former Inspector General, US Navy

Major General Harry Jenkins (USMC, Ret.)
Former Chief Legislative Liaison US Marine Corps

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0603.html

NOTICE - NO SHELTON, NO COHEN, NO "INTELLIGENCE EXPERT" EDWARDS on the military panel - 'NUFF SAID

**Kerry's Foreign Policy Team, or as he calls them, The Pooh-bahs:**
Foreign Policy Team Takes Center Stage
World Events Help Change Focus of Kerry Campaign
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer - Sunday, May 30, 2004
....
Since Kerry wrapped up the presidential nomination in March, however, many of the Democratic Party all-stars have signed on and are injecting new energy. Now in the midst of an 11-day blitz on foreign policy, Kerry is also being advised by former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright, former U.N. ambassadors Richard C. Holbrooke and Bill Richardson, former defense secretary William J. Perry, former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark, and Sen. Joseph R. Biden (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.
....
Kerry's staff jokingly calls the inner circle the Pooh-bahs, from the 1885 Gilbert and Sullivan opera "The Mikado." The word originally meant "Lord-High-Everything-Else" and has come to signify a person of great influence or high position...

NOTICE AGAIN - NO SHELTON, NO COHEN, NO "INTELLIGENCE EXPERT" EDWARDS ON THE FOREIGN POLICY PANEL- 'NUFF SAID

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1438-2004May29.html

[Radical Activist]

62. No experience. Unqualified

The man has never held elective office and yes, that does matter. Politics is not like being a General or running a business or anything else. This is not a time for an amatuer to get into office who has to learn before he is prepared to take over. If something should happen to Kerry, Clark does not have the political experience and did not show the kind of political skill during the campaign required for a good President.

Obviously the Clark Cult at DU will disagree with me, but we need someone who has political experience who is qualified to take over should something happen to Kerry. Being President is nothing like being a General, so don't bother telling me what a great military leader he is.

And I would strongly disagree with the original posters assertion that we can't win in the South. Bush and Kerry have been tied in the last several Arkansas polls and are close in a few other Southern States. We won with Clinton by getting just two Southern states, and that can happen again. My choice for a Southerner would be John Lewis, who could also help in Northern swing state like Michigan and Ohio.

[venus]

67. Right. Who was that general elected some time ago? Eisenhower?

I do agree Clark showed almost no political savvy during the campaign. But I think that was due more to the group of fools he had as campaign staff. I know it counts who you surround yourself with and that is telling. Even Kerry had to shake up his staff on atleat a couple of occasions. I think being a V.P. would hone those political skills he developed as a diplomat and warrior. He'll have a machine behind him, which makes all the difference.

[Radical Activist]

68. Right. Grant, Ike. Not known as great Presidents

Grant was one of the worst and Ike was basically a place holder who refused to enforce the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings.

I thought Clark had a top-notch team of former Clinton staffers working for him. In the end Clark decided who he had working for him, so that reflects on his leadership abilities as well.

[nursbetty]

73. SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER of NATO

Qualifies Clark to be a world leader... That's what the Presidency is supposed to be.