Looks to me Clark has a really good chance at being John Kerry's

[deminflorida]

running mate. But that's NOT what the media wants AT ALL....
Clark was not even mentioned in several of the major media's Vice-President choice ads that ran today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4433232/

As a matter of fact, Wes Clark's name was not even mentioned in the MSRNC article above....

Time to hit the Kerry Blog, Du'ers.....and former Clark supporters. The GOP and Right Wing FEAR Wes Clark....

Let's serve him up to them....

[cbua34]

1. Clark doesn't help him win anywhere

He would make a great defense secretary

[StopTheMorans]

4. I agree completely

doesn't balance Kerry that well IMHO

[dennis4868]

12. Maybe....

but can you imagine Bush trying to make an argument that Kerry and Clark are weak on Defense....hahaha!

[Leilani]

42. I saw Dick Morris last night on Fox

I know, I know, I shouldn't be watching Fox, but I couldn't sleep, so I watched reruns. Anyway, Morris, who I DETEST, but was Clinton's guy, said Clark should be VP.

He said the main attack on Kerry will be weak on terror & nat'l security because of his Senate votes. This has already started. But Morris said Clark insulates him from any of his Senate votes because he's a "General" & a "Uniform". He said the Repubs couldn't be believed if Clark is on the ticket.

I think Clark represents a lot more than a uniform, but this was a strategic discussion. He also said Clark puts Arkansas in play.

[KC21304]

14. Clark can't take Defense. Have to be out of military 10 yrs.

I think Clark would be great VP and have said so even before he announced. Even before he announced his numbers shot up, he was beating Bush. We can make that happen again. He may have not been the best campaigner because of inexperience but that won't be a problem. He will bring Arkansas and maybe more of the South.

[BootinUp]

2. I am sticking my neck out too

and agreeing with you. I think there is a very good chance.

[democratreformed]

3. This is my thought:

I am just deathly afraid to stick my neck and embrace the idea. It might jinx our chances. Am I silly or what?

[BootinUp]

7. yep

been there thought that ;)

[pocoloco]

49. Me either...

I've already jinxed him once!!

[onehandle]

5. My gut says Wes...

But political wisdom will likely land elsewhere.

I know one thing. No way will they pull a holy Joe out this time (a conservative Dem). The Dem base would go apesh*t.

[BootinUp]

8. Agree with last sentence

And that IS a reason he would take Clark. Clark pushed a very progressive campaign, and raised a lot of money from the pissed off base.

[Nashyra]

19. Clark can help big time

I will stick my neck out. First of all he CAN NOT be Sec of Defense he has not been out of the military long enough. Clark's strengths

1. Strong on National Security
2. Strong on Foreign Policy
3. Will bring more veteran votes
4. Can help with AR, NM, AZ, NV and the south in general (no pun intended)and the Repukes will not even go after CA because the Wes jr. factor in Los Angeles can stimulate alot of fund raising.
5. Clark has a legitmate voice on the draft issue
6. Clark does well with young voters
7. Clark does well with voters eligible to vote who live overseas.
8. Clark knows economics
9. Clark's family Values stump speech resonates with moderates and swing voters along with his resume, compared to *'s and Cheney's
10. He comes from a humble beginig just like Edwards

And most importantly the Repukes are scared to death of him, that is the one reason you do not hear a word about him in the media. I'll be saying my prayers to see this great American on the ticket.

OK I'm a bit prejudiced but at least I admit it.

[West Coast Democrat]

79. I too think Wes Jr. will bring a lot to the campaign

He will attract younger voters, and he brings much vitality to the campaign.

[lancdem]

6. That mention of McCain is interesting

As I read that list, my favorite has to be Edwards.

[drthais]

10. no, not good

...I think Kerry and Edwards' personalities are a bad mix
and I also think Kerry needs a VERy experienced 2nd

I also like Clark (of course)
but also want to save him for Defense

[sadiesworld]

9. I hope so. Seals it on the foreign policy/terror front.

And maybe Clark can teach Kerry to say $200,000 every time repeal of the tax cuts is brought up. I suppose some of the more seasoned politicians are afraid of being pinned down, but the problem is RW media tell their audience that being rich means a household income of 45,000.

[drthais]

11. about the 'tax cuts' etc

...doesn't it just burn you
to hear the right talk about 'massive tax increases'
when what that REALLY means is rescinding the tax cut
for the very very rich???

[Bombtrack]

18. I wouldn't call alot of people making over 200 grand "really, really rich"

I'm ok with there taxes being raised and that being the cutoff point, but there are alot of bussiness owners and couples making that much who live in the NY and LA and Chicago and Boston area where it costs alot to live and have to pay for college tuition etc, and I wouldn't call them "really, really, rich". It would not be prudent for a dem to say that either. BTW, I don't come from money at all. My family was on welfare when I was a little kid

[sadiesworld]

23. Yes, which is why 200K must be repeated constantly.

[Bombtrack]

13. First of all the author of that is a lib dem, second Clark is not prudent

Clark is just a really bad choice for Kerry, at least compared to someone like Graham, or even Edwards, because it would be a complete overcompensation for the GOP framing of a false issue, that democrats are weak on security. It would be a big affirmative to their propaganda. Also, Kerry will not be competative in Arkansas. It's not one of the 8 red swingstates. That could change, and polling will tell us, but it's not in the same category as FL, OH, MO, AZ, CO, WV, NV, and NH when we have an elite MA lib running

[democratreformed]

16. Tell me what makes you think Kerry will not be competitive in Arkansas

Seriously, what determines that? I am struggling to understand how a state that a majority of its federal representatives (only 1 Repub) being Democrats AND has a Democratic majority in both its state house and senate can be so solidly Republican for the Presidential race.

[BootinUp]

21. good question

I am not a pol sci major, just average joe, but I thought Arkansas could be very competitive with Clark on the ticket.

[democratreformed]

27. I am pretty inexperienced and naive sometimes but I see no reason

for it not to be competitive even WITHOUT Clark on the ticket. Just my feeling, anyways. Of course, the Democrats themselves will have an effect on that, depending on certain things. Our illustrious current CIC has already been to this state twice in the past few months. Most of the die-hard Repub support is in the Northwest (Wal Mart country).

[Bombtrack]

46. It'd still be a big longshot with WKC on the ticket, and it only has 5 EV

compared with Florida being a clear tossup in all liklihood with Graham on the ticket for Kerry, and it having 27 EV's. And Graham would help in states other than his homestate just as much if not more than Clark would in states other than his homestate

[BootinUp]

51. Is it only homestates that vp help in?

I think Clark was highly regarded in Florida. He is certainly going to excite people in general, more than Graham who is past his prime. Although I respect him a great deal.

[atre]

56. Personally, Clark does not excite me as a VP choice

I was at one point excited about him as the top of a ticket. At the bottom, though, I don't think he provides a whole lot. The VP's primary responsibilities are legislative; on that front, Clark offers nothing at all.

[Bombtrack]

60. No, that's not all they do, but Clark's biggest help as a vp

his foriegn policy/military quality and quantity of experience is not any where near the top of the list of what Kerry needs. So the next place you look is WHERE his biggest appeal might be, and the only clear place is his homestate, although they have never even elected him to anything. There is no documentation that Clark has that much broad appeal in Florida. Having some decent support in a presidential primary from anti-Bush people has little parallel to what a vp would do for someone in a general election. It's just insane to say that he would be a bigger help than the most popular polititician in the state

[BootinUp]

61. I never said

Clark would be stronger in Florida than Graham, I guess my point was how would you like Florida and Arkansas.

[Bombtrack]

63. "how would you like Florida and Arkansas"?

Sorry you've yet to make a cogent point. Clark is just a bad choice for Kerry compared to others. He wouldn't have been a bad choice for someone like Edwards, but for Kerry the choice would completely backfire

[BootinUp]

69. As I think you stated yourself

some polling may make things clearer, IOW, your point is not really backed by much evidence either. ;)

[Bombtrack]

74. My point that Graham is the most popular politician in the biggest swing

state? My point that there hasn't been any clear evidence that Clark has proven broad appeal in any of the swingstates?

[democratreformed]

75. Your point has been well taken by me.

I only have one request. Please do not AGAIN tell me that if I choose to work by behind off for our Dem nominee here in Arkansas that I am wasting my time. Is that too much to ask?

[Bombtrack]

88. I never told you you'd be wasting your time

In fact, the more Kerry voters we get the better, because that will bleed off into Blanche Lincolns reelection campaign. I'm just saying that until polling shows otherwise, it's not in the same category as the 8 obvious Kerry/Bush red swingstates, for which a higher priority should be put in regard to vp choice than a longshot state which I consider Arkansas for candidate Kerry

[democratreformed]

89. Tell me what this means then.

"Also, Kerry will not be competative in Arkansas."

If you didn't really mean that, okay. Otherwise, it means I'd be wasting my time.

[BootinUp]

80. Sure Graham would be a help in Florida

Where else would he help?

Are we that sure that we can't win it with Clark?

You must have missed the Gallup polling and ARG polling that always showed Clark with good numbers from moderates and conservatives.

[OKNancy]

68. Of course it would be, and anyone who says so doesn't know

squat. I told folks on DU a long time ago( and even went against Will Pitt once who said it would be Gephardt) when I said I was sure Clark would take Oklahoma. I am positive Clark would swing Arkansas back to the Dem side if he was on the ticket, hell he would even have a shot in Oklahoma. He is very popular here. THe Clark meetup group here is Tulsa still meets and still outnumbers the Kerry group ( although the Clarkies are infusing the Kerry group with some energy)
Also Clark would help Brad Carson who is running for the Senate to take Don Nickles seat. He is going to have a hard time with Kerry on the ticket. I doubt that Carson will want to be seen with the "New England liberal". He would be thrilled to have Clark stump for him.

[Bombtrack]

81. People need to get off this absurd notion that primary appeal is parallel

to general election appeal. You're Oklahoma comment is the most rediculous. OK is as red as any but maybe 4 or 5 states.

Kucinich got more of the vote in the Hawaii primary than Edwards. Does that mean he'd be stronger there in a general election?

This is especially true for VP candidates

[OKNancy]

87. That's right it is

but we have since elected a Dem governor, and Clark would help Carson.. oh and to show how little you know, Carson is polling ahead of the Republican and has lots of money already. Carson has an excellent chance to take the Senate seat...do some reading.

[Bombtrack]

28. Bush beat a Tennesseean relatively comfortably, not by a ton

but We are talking about running against Kerry this time, and his out-of-touch, even compared to Bush, lifestyle and place of origin will carry a stigma to the south and rural America. But mostly, southern rural america. Being able to say that "who knew Ted Kennedy was the conservative senator from Massachusetts" will go a long way. As well as the fact that he married 2 women worth a combined billion dollars.

I'm just saying it's not a swingstate until polling confirms otherwise. Rightnow, the red swingstates are the 8 I mentioned

[democratreformed]

38. Okay, then. Hopefully, polling will show otherwise.

Because I seriously thin we have a shot here.

On edit: Even my long-time Repub dad will vote Democrat this time around unless something drastic happens to make him hate Kerry.

[KC21304]

39. Huh ?

I guess I give the people down there a little more credit than you do.

[sadiesworld]

17. Clark was strong in the southwest even considering the Kerry

juggernaut and Clark's lousy/nonexistent media coverage.

[Mattforclark]

24. CO is a swing state but not AR?

Really?

[Bombtrack]

34. Colorado is 1: Had more population shifts/increases than Arkansas

2: A much bigger liberal activist base(5.25 percent voted for Nader, compared to 1.46 in Arkansas), and 3: John Kerry relates to Coloradans better than Arkansans in a broad way. Coloradan independants are more libertine and less socially conservative than those of Arkansas

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Clark

has alot of support in Colorado. Also Colorado is a pretty red state, we've been hemmorrhaging Dems for years and I don't know when the last time was that we went Dem in a presidential election.

I think that Clark on the Ticket would have a great deal of appeal here. He has some roots in this state also, having been at Fort Carson. He has a large group of avid activist supporters here, I think he could really bring our state into play this time.

That's just my opinion as a Colorado native.

[Bombtrack]

62. You say "clark has alot of support" in all these places

But there is really little substantiative evidence to back that up. Some decent support in a party primary is NOT parallel to what a vice-presidential candidate is going to produce in a general election. Virtually all of the activists involved in the democratic primary for the major canidates are people who are going to vote for any democratic nominee and who the vp choice is isn't going to make or break it for them. And the one's who are represent a real fraction of a fraction of a fraction.

[OKNancy]

71. You have nothing to back up your statements either

especially your knowledge of Arkansas politics....which is nil.
And you don't know squat about Oklahoma. You pontificated all through the primary, and I see you are still at it.

[Bombtrack]

91. My 2 main points are that Kerry already has most of what Clark would

bring as a vp, military/foriegn policy cred. And the overabundance of it has a big potential for backfiring.

And that the state Clark has the biggest potential appeal to, his homestate, would not be classified as a swingstate for Kerry. A lonshot to be sure, but it's myopic to say that Kerry's Massachusetts elitist stigma would not emerge in a southern state so much so that it would still be classified as a tossup.

Oklahoma was won by Bush by TWENTY points. It hasn't had some drastic population shift. It's SAFE

[BootinUp]

94. Forgive me, but I'm still curious how it could backfire

Who do you think might not vote for the hypothetical Kerry/Clark ticket because it has too much military/foreign policy credentials?

Are you saying it might not turn out the base, or that moderate/independent voters would go Bush/Cheney?

[Sinistrous]

25. Keep an eye on the BLUE swing states, too.

PA is up for grabs at this point, especially if the Gay Marriage thing energizes the "T".

[Bombtrack]

36. OK, but I think it's not prudent to nominate someone from a Blue state

when your nominee is from a state that's the poster child for the solid blue states

[Sinistrous]

50. No problem.

I want Rendel right where he is.

However, my badly stated point was that the VP pick also has to help the Democrats hold on to the blue swing states.

[Bombtrack]

65. And I think that Graham does that

First of all, Pennsylvania is one blue swingstate where Kerry does have some natural positive connection, that of the Heinz family, so that's a plus. I'd be more worried about Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Mexico, which is still good, because Pennsylvania is worth the most EV's of any blue swingstate

[KC21304]

26. Clinton brought Arkansas, why not Clark ?

Last night Tucker Carlson mentioned Clark , Novak said Clark was a terrible candidate, Tucker said " I know. That is why I want him " and then they both laughed. It was too phony, like it was rehearsed. I think they both fear him the most.

[Bombtrack]

41. Clinton was the PRESIDENTIAL nominee. Not vp for Dukakis or any other

Northerner/New Englander/percieved lefty.

Vps can only "win" states for nominees who already have a relative natural competativeness in them. IE, Gore was a good choice for Clinton because Clinton could percievably win Tennessee and the south. Benston was a bad choice for Dukakis because Dukakis was never going to win Texas or most southern states or even come close

[LandOLincoln]

54. Clark as VP wouldn't affirm Repub propaganda, it would

blow it right out of the water.

And Graham is a good guy, but he's also old and boring. Edwards is neither, but he's way too inexperienced.

Clark IMO is the perfect combination of relevant experience and the "Elvis" factor Dan Rather mentioned Sunday.

[Bombtrack]

73. Clark is much better qualified to be NSA, sec of state or defense

He's not a politician, and although I supported him as presidential candidate, he is far from a sure bet at improving our chances in any swingstate better than other candidates

[democratreformed]

93. Once again, could you tell me how a "swing state" is defined?

Please.

[Sinistrous]

15. In his speech last night, Kerry mentioned Edwards and Dean

but not Gephart or Clark. Was that the "kiss of death" to Edwards and Dean, or was it a signal that they are on the short list? Gephart and Clark gave wholehearted endorsements to Kerry. Dean is hanging back from a formal endorsement and Edwards has not spoken yet.

Comments / insights please.

[Nashyra]

33. Clark has the mayor of Columbus Ohio

who endorsed him. Nothing personal about Edwards but he can not diffuse the National Security or Foreign policy issue. There is no one that can address the issue of Foreign Policy so completely as Clark can by just being the VP choice also as far as being lax on National Security, they can not pin this on a Clark VP and by extension to a Kerry campaign. There are alot of Repukes that are afraid of Clark because as someone on DU posted in some other thread they don't know what to make of him, any General should just naturally be a Repuke, so he is a real threat to them because he can argue Repuke points and turn them into Dem gold. He is a a magnet to swing and moderate voters who have not really suffered much during the resccession but who think that * has not done a good job with the war in Iraq. For voters who think that * lied about going to war in Iraq, Clark will appeal to them.

[Demboy04]

44. dean and edward's endorsement dont really matter

I doubt the deaniacs are going to vote for bush, duh. Wesley Clark would make a secretary of defense or a secretary of state but he got his ass kicked in the primaries. He's not going to help john kerry win anywhere. like Ive said before, unless clinton and other party insiders pressure kerry to make clark the vp candidate, it just wont happen

[BootinUp]

48. Definition of ass kicked

Beat Edwards in NH, OK, AZ, NM, NV.

The only thing that kicked Clark's ass was maybe himself for not getting in earlier.

:think:

[democratreformed]

53. *(*#&%^& %#(*#$(#$@

That's my answer to those who keep repeating this crap. So, I have thus far left it unsaid. Trying to point out the obvious never works. They just repeat the same of *(#$&#* again and again.

[atre]

58. I agree... Clark is a rising star...

...but he is not yet polished enough to be on a national ticket.

[LandOLincoln]

52. He mentioned Edwards and Dean because he'd just

beaten them in this round of primaries. (Even though Dean wasn't officially in the race, he did win Vermont after all).

I was a little surprised that Kerry thanked Max Cleland for his help on the campaign, but didn't say anything about Clark.

Still, call me naive but I think Kerry dropped a big, big hint when he said in Madison on February 13th:

"General Clark is not going to stand behind me, he's going to stand beside me in this great battle to take America back..."

Add to that the hints Kerry's people have been dropping (that the VP nominee is going to be a Southerner with major foreign policy and national security experience) and it's looking pretty good for the General, IMO.

[Sinistrous]

92. Please see my #90, below.

I meant it as a reply to this post.

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. I noticed that. But there is a plausible explanation.

Dean won a state Tuesday night, Vermont of course. Kerry only lost three states during the whole race. It was appropriate for Kerry to acknowledge Dean's victory in some way given that Dean beat Kerry in VT on the same day that Kerry was making his winner speech about taking the other states. Plus of course Kerry wants to make nice with Dean supporters which is also the right thing to attempt.

Kerry already got his chance to say nice things public ally about the contributions to the overall campaign made by Gephardt and by Clark, after they each pulled out. That night Kerry knew Edwards was bowing out, they had already talked on the phone, so it was time for Edwards to get his big public pat on the back. And of course the right time for Kerry to make nice with all of Edward's sad supporters. Kerry needs to unify the party behind him.

[democratreformed]

70. This is what I read into it as well.

Nothing so fantastical as some, I suppose. To me, it was just the logical thing for him to do.

[Sinistrous]

90. I desperately hope you are correct.

As I said elsewhere, Clark is a national treasure.

On edit: This post intended as a reply to #52, above.

[bowens43]

20. The GOP doesn't fear Clark.

Clark has nothing to offer the ticket. Clark can't deliver the south. He can't deliver the military vote. At best he could give us a couple of disgruntled right wingers. Why put a poor performer on the ticket?

[Auntie Bush]

66. That ridiculous reply doesn't even deserve an answer.

Some people talk without knowing what they say.

[javadu]

22. I Have a Question

I backed Clark in the primaries and I would like for Kerry to choose Clark. I really have no idea whether or not he will.

However, this is my question. How old is Clark? Will Clark be young enough to be president 16 years from now? This sounds like a loaded question, but it is sincere. I could have looked it up myself, but it is easier to ask all of you the question, and, I think it is an important consideration in Kerry's choice as a running mate.

[Sinistrous]

29. Clark is 59 y/o. nt

.

[democratreformed]

30. 59 n/t

[onehandle]

31. He's 59. But in much better shape...

...than any of us will be at his age.

Wait, don't you mean 8 years? 67 is plenty young.

On edit, or at 75. Think of Saint Ronnie.

[javadu]

35. Well, he would beginning his presidency at 67

and ending it when he was 75 --- which would fine by me!!! (I think I did the math correctly.)

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. 16 years???

why 16 years? How about 8 years? 2...4 year terms. :) 59+8=67...yes, he would be young enough. The man is in incredible shape and swims a gazillion laps a day. He's in better condition than a lot of 30 year olds are. :loveya:

on edit...I see where your 16 years comes from....his last year in office. Gottcha! 75 years old is not too old to be prez. As I said above, the man is in incredible condition. :loveya:

[LandOLincoln]

32. Of course I agree, and I just posted this on another

thread, in which someone was pushing for Clark as SecState instead of VP:

"Cabinet posts have to be approved by the Senate--which, may I remind everyone, is currently under Repub control.

I don't think there's any way in hell they'd approve Wes Clark as SecState--certainly not without one of the bloodiest, most prolonged confirmation battles in the history of this country.

VPs, OTOH, are simply chosen by the nominee, and are not subject to confirmation by any other body. Plus, there's also no way in hell Clark would follow the now-outdated "wallflower" model as VP.

My prediction is that Kerry will put him in charge of cleaning up the Iraq mess, especially now that NATO has expressed an interest in getting more involved in the region. Clark has been pushing for NATO involvement in Iraq all along, and who better to facilitate that involvement than a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander?"

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullS...

[BootinUp]

40. Time-Out!

Lets all us Clarkies pause for a moment of posting silence, and recognize John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3,2,1

Ok continue :)

[democratreformed]

43. Moment of awed silence...

...................................

[abburdlen]

45. Sad to say

I don't see Clark as the VP. While I find him to be one of the most inspiring personalites in the political areana, I can't honestly see that he'd be picked for the VP slot.
Clark has become a known entity and it would seem to me that Kerry would pick someone outside the public spotlight to renew interest in the campaign (now that the primary campaign is essentially a non-story). I trust that Kerry will choose a fresh face but someone qualified, someone whose name isn't on the radar screen.

I believe Clark would make an ideal Sec of State with his intelligence, and respect from the international community. On the campaign trail however I think he'll do more good speaking about the tough issues that are too politically charge for Kerry to hit dead on. Now that the AWOL issue has gone around my bet is that Clark will start attacking B* on his 9/11 failings. Clark is tough enough that he can lay the blame on B* for the attacks without getting shouted down.
Leave it to Kerry and the VP to campaign on the positive issues- what the will do in the Whitehouse. Clark's a fighter he's well suited to attacking B for his failings.

[democratreformed]

47. The best analysis I've seen for a no answer

Seriously, you have made many valid points and unlike some, have made a great case for why Clark should NOT be VP WITHOUT calling him a failure like some others. Thank You.

[Demboy04]

55. well he was a failure campaign wise

I mean unless you have something against name calling, wes clark wasnt a great campaigner. He was a decent candidate sure but there is a reason he didnt do all that great in primaries. Someone who replied to me said that wes would have done better if he had gotten in earlier. Maybe an extra month or two would have made him a better campaigner but would it have given him the political experience he needed? No. I dont see what we're all blabbering about, clark will definitely be present in some way in a kerry administration. The guy has tons of military connections and has the know how to get us out of iraq in the best way possible. Whether it's as a secretary or vp is yet to be determined but clark will def. have a role in a kerry administration, PERIOD.

[BootinUp]

59. There was an excellent debate

at The New Republic about the primary schedule this year, unfortunately you have to be a subscriber now to read it. One of Clarks top campaign managers Matt Bennett, layed out the sequence of events and decisions that were made, and a likely analysis of the results. There really should be no doubt that not campaigning in Iowa was a horrible blow to Clark's chances. It should also be clear that where Clark spent significant time on the ground he was competitive. So I don't at all buy your he was a horrible campaigner bullshit. Sure he made a few gaffes, but they were not enough to keep him from winning a state, and finishing strongly is others as I mentioned.

[jackie867]

67. i keep hearing/seeing..

these references to Clark being a "poor campaigner", but I never see anything specific about what he was doing wrong or what mistakes he made that more experienced candidates didn't also make...whenever I saw Clark, which was usually on CSPAN in some kind of townhall format or rally, he seemed to be knowledgeable on a broad range of issues and seemed to connect with the people who came to see him...I guess my question is, are the negative perceptions of his campaigning skills the perceptions of the voters OR the spin of the media and talking heads who are familiar only w/ the insider gossip of campaign staff and reporters that ultimately provide the filter for their news reports and commentary but offers no context that the viewer/listener can understand why this criticism is being made? Is there some fair objective analysis or just spin that's been repeated and accepted as fact w/out basis?

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. It is unfair spin with a little basis

Clark was definitely an above average campaigner in live events in my opinion. Not as polished and probably not as effective a speaker as someone like Edwards, but in a league with people like Dean and Kerry. He lost a few points on polish but more than made them up through sincerity, intelligence, and conviction. The overall effect of seeing Clark on the trail was both very moving and highly energizing.

Clark was more erratic in formats not under his control, those primarily being the debates, and varied TV interviews. Regarding the latter, sometimes Clark did great but it took him awhile to learn how to best modulate hot and cold image projections to best effect for that medium. Clark's learning curve there was impressive though. Toward the end of his campaign he was routinely nailing it. But of course reporters tend to make quick and early judgments and cling to those like a drowning man to a rope.

The debates were trickiest for Clark to manage, and I think that is where most of the misconception about him not being adept at campaigning comes from. First off, Clark was NOT on a level playing field during them. No other candidate had to spend so much of his limited time in an 8 to 10 candidate format essentially wasted by having to defend his basic allegiance to the Democratic Party. Further Clark was pigeon holed from day one as a foreign policy specialist and almost never given an opportunity to speak to his broader vision of America domestically. Third, there were definitely Debate ambushes launched against Clark, the most memorable being the Fox debate before New Hampshire where they cut away from the debate early to a panel of Republican talking heads sitting around specifically trashing Clark. The artificialness of the debate formats was compounded by the number of debaters, which squeezed everyone's comments into tiny time windows. It forced experienced debaters to totally ignore most actual questions if they wanted to make any points at all. That didn't come naturally to Clark. He actually answered the questions for the most part.

Another thing is, Clark was an original positive campaigner, something the media chose to forget once they focused on sunny John Edwards. Clark did not use the debates to attack other Democrats. That meant he did not get repeat air time for the type of zingers the media loves to focus on. Edwards stayed positive also of course, but he was shameless about hijacking questions and turning them toward his basic stump speech. Clark however has no problem with attacking George Bush. By now Clark understands the debate game better, he would not have to play nice debating against fellow Democrats, and any future debate, like a Vice Presidential one for example, would only be a two man show allowing Clark ample time to make his points. Given a little time, Clark is devastating while making a point, because anyone who is listening gets both the punch line and the supporting rational in a way that leaves virtually no room for doubt.

[Auntie Bush]

72. Isn't that just what a VP is suppose to do? Be an attack dog?

He sounds like good VP material to me!

If you want a Dr... hire a Dr.
If you want a lawyer... hire a lawyer.
If you want to kick the ass out of Bush...hire a GENERAL.
If you want to crush the enemy...hire a GENERAL.
If you want to win...hire a GENERAL.

[West Coast Democrat]

76. Clark would be excellent pulling in Moderate Southern Voters

not only for the presidential voting, but for the open Senate seats, which are nearly as important.

[Cuban_Liberal]

77. Top 10 factors in selecting a VP:

#1--- The VP nominee helps the nominee win somewhere he might otherwise not.

#2-10--- See #1.

The fact of the matter is that Gen. Clark does not help Sen. Kerry win anywhere that several others would not help as much, if not more.

Clark will not get the VP nod.

[West Coast Democrat]

78. Clark would help him in nearly every state

but not one or two in particular, aside from Arkansas.

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. We differ on that.

The key part is 'helps him as much or more'. Sen. Kerry doesn't need to make blue states more blue; he needs to make pink states baby blue or blue ones, and Gen. Clark helps him do that no more than several others, IMO.

[abburdlen]

95. Is Kentucky a Red or Blue state?

I ask because U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, who just won in the special election there recently- did endorse Clark.
I'm not saying Clark won him the seat, but Chandler would appear to understand the values of the majority of his constituents and he came to the conclusion that Clark was the most qualified for the Whitehouse.

[OKNancy]

84. He might not get the VP nod, but anyone

who says he wouldn't help in Arkansas doesn't know what they are talking about.

[OneBlueSky]

82. I think deminflorida's inital point is quite telling . . .

I've seen a half dozen analyses of Kerry's potential running mates and not a single one of them mentioned Clark, even as someone with an outside shot . . . given what we know about the media, there's something to be said about this kind of omission as a signal that the media (and therefore BushCo) REALLY don't wan't Clark as Kerry's running mate . . . which means he should be given serious consideration, imo . . .

I've thought all along that Wesley Clark would be the perfect compliment to Kerry . . . a Kerry/Clark ticket would be bulletproof on national security and defense issues, and Clark put forth a lot of good progressive ideas during his candidacy . . . that the press ignored him during the primaries is yet another indication that the powers that be want nothing to do with him . . .

I believe that Kerry/Clark would be the strongest ticket we could put forth and would put a lot of red states in play . . . if you take defense and national security off the table, the campaign MUST revolve around domestic issues, which is where Bush is weakest and where they LEAST want to play . . . Clark would nullify what BushCo perceives as their advantage and put the whole ballgame back on our home field, right where we want it . . . and right where they DON'T want it . . .

Kerry/Clark = victory in November! . . .

[West Coast Democrat]

85. I Agree....Many red states would be put in play with Clark

He has been incredibly popular in the sunbelt, and will command much respect in the Southeast.