Why Clark for VP rather than Secretary of State?

[Tom Rinaldo]

As oft stated, Clark can not now legally become Secretary of Defense, so that is out. He would in my opinion make an excellent Secretary of State however. He could also be an excellent National Security Adviser. So why back Clark for VP? Several reasons.

One very important set of reasons has to do with coming up with the ticket most likely to defeat Bush. Some, including myself, believe that Kerry/Clark is that ticket. Winning in 2004 is more important than whether Clark gets used in the absolutely best slot. Of course many don't agree that Kerry/Clark is our best ticket, but that is a debate that has and still is well underway, so I won't pursue it in this header post.

Another reason is, some of us feel Kerry already has an excellent candidate for SOS who is highly qualified and well known and trusted by Kerry. That is Richard Holbrook. Clark and Holbrook are friends. That would help smooth out any potential friction between an active and strong Clark Vice Presidency and the Department of State, unlike the current situation with the Bush Administration. Also quite relevant, as a career diplomat, Holbrook is less likely to have his appointment derailed by the Republicans should they retain the Senate. Clark would be a natural target for them, so there is no certainty Clark would be confirmed by the Senate.

Clark would make an excellent National Security Adviser, but while potentially as influential a position as Secretary of State, it has an inherently lower International profile. That would be a huge waste of how Clark can best enhance a Kerry Administration; through his proven ability to help rehabilitate our standing in the world. Clark is a well known international figure who is beloved by some Muslim nationalities for his efforts on their behalf while in the military. He, through acts as well as words, is firmly in the camp of multi-nationalism and respect for International laws and institutions. He represented the absolutely finest qualities of the United States Armed Forces, and is the individual most able to counter growing contempt for the U.S. Military, as a byproduct of the prison scandals in Iraq. Clark should be given a position not only of influence, but also of ceremonial importance. That would be either Secretary of State, or Vice President of the United States.

Kerry should not pick Wesley Clark for Vice President if he is only looking for electoral window dressing. Clark is too dynamic an individual, too forceful a personality, and too much of an achiever to be parked on a shelf for photo ops. Clark would only make sense as a Vice Presidential nominee if Kerry is truly looking for a partner, Junior certainly, but partner nonetheless, in running his Administration. I suspect that John Kerry and Wesley Clark have the personal chemistry necessary for making an arrangement like that work. Only those two men know for sure, and if I am wrong about that than probably it would not be a good idea for Kerry to pick Clark.

While Clark may have been somewhat of a maverick inside the military, someone who insisted that his opinions be considered, the essential point is that Clark served a lifetime in the military, an institution that by law and tradition is subordinate to the commands of the civilian serving as Commander in Chief, the President. One does not rise to the upper echelons of any major enterprise without personal ambition, but one can not rise to the upper echelons of the military without fully internalizing that reality. I see Wesley Clark as Vice President being as active in that role as Dick Cheney is under Bush, except that with Clark, Kerry would benefit from loyalty, honor, and wisdom being brought to the position. I think the world has become so fast moving, so complex, and so dangerous, that Kerry would do well having a partner like Clark who could hands on manage tough situations under Kerry's control but without needing excessive supervision. In some ways I can see Wesley Clark serving John Kerry in a manner reminiscent of how Robert Kennedy served John.

Finally, and this of course reflects my personal admiration of Wesley Clark, I think America needs a man like him in as prominent a position as possible. I do not want to see Wesley Clark pigeon holed only as a National Security expert. The truth is no one initially comes to politics with a fully rounded resume. That is part of the beauty of the American elective political system. The public is free to see some quality in a man or woman, some facet that shined brightly in some relatively narrow area of prior personal endeavor, and based on that, elevate that man or woman to a position with broad and far reaching responsibilities, be it a Governorship, a seat in the U.S. Senate, or a critical role in a National Administration.

Ironically I would love to see Wesley Clark selected for Vice President for the mirror matching reason that some advocates of John Edwards, another dynamic contender, have also embraced. It would add greater breadth to Clark's already impressive personal set of skills and experiences, further potentially preparing him for our highest elective office, that of President of the United States. After studying Clark closely through out his run for the Presidency this time, I am convinced he has as much to offer America here at home as he does in the larger world. I would still like to see him get that chance.

[chimpymustgo]

1. Take a day off.

nt

[eaprez]

2. ROFL!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Honestly I think that was a very poor reply

Stupid even. And though I have posted many messages at DU, including many to people who have been critical of what I wrote, this I think is the first time that I have ever said that to anyone. Congratulations for what that's worth, which is nothing. Your reply defies all logic as well as all civility. What is different about my expressing myself "daily" than anyone else around here, eh? Do you think I am the only one at DU who has an overt "bias" toward a position or candidate?

I defy you to find a prior post of mine that has as its theme comparing the advantages of Wesley Clark for VP rather than for another post. Really, try to find one. Are you such a poor reader that you haven't noticed that this is an active topic of discussion on DU? Are you just as bothered by everyone else who has an opinion on it?

Why don't yo just go ahead and suggest that DU take a day off? Do you honestly find ell the other posts and discussions to be completely fresh and rewarding from your perspective. Then again, it might work just as well for YOU to take a day off.

[Rowdyboy]

6. Well said...

Too many today mistake rudeness as a substitute for debate. Please don't give in to that type of childish bullshit.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Your post wouldn't have received that TASTELESS

post had it been about Edwards. That was rude. Great post, Tom. I agree with every word of it. You made the perfect argument for why Wes Clark should be our VP.

[Paradise]

10. wish i could write like you

if i could i would but i can't so i enjoy what you do. thanks. :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Mistaken post. Just ignore n/t

[Adelante]

20. Go find your manners

You dropped them someplace.

[Auntie Bush]

23. I think I found them over here under this yellow slimy rock.

[lanparty]

3. Arkansas

The prime reason to put Clark on the ticket is to get more southern votes. However, Clark really wasn't PULLING that many southern votes. We can only count on him helping in Arkasas and Oklahoma.

I'd say that if they let Clinton off the 2000 leash, Clinton can effectively deliver these states for Kerry.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rowdyboy]

5. Good show, Tom....

You put my thoughts into words very well. Thanks :thumbsup:

[salonghorn70]

7. Excellent Analysis

I t just seems that we have an unusual number of really good VP possibilities. Can you just imagine how the internal debate must be going inside the Kerry circle. All of the candidates have good points and bad points. We keep forgetting that it may just come down to who Kerry feels the most comfortable with.

[rasputin1952]

9. I think you put together a well researched and written...

OP. While things are still pretty far off as far as choices go, it is good to get viewpoints such as this out and discussed.

Personnally...I find Clark best suited for SoS at this point, but I'm open for other options.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post your position!....:D

Let the intelligent discussions begin!!!!!!!!

O8)

[Sparkly]

11. There's no better choice than Clark

and I agree with you that Kerry has good options for his cabinet when it comes to foreign policy: Holbrook as you said, Jaimie Rubin, Barry McCaffrey, Max Clelend maybe?

[w4rma]

12. As Secretary of State, Clark *still* adds to the ticket just as Powell

added to the Bush-Cheney ticket.

And under Kerry, Clark would, I think, have MUCH more leeway to do what he thinks is right rather than being like the short leash given to Powell.

[Spazito]

13. Excellent post!

*

[Jai4WKC08]

16. You are SO right!

Great post Tom. As usual. Ignore the pinheads.

I would like to add two ideas of my own.

First is that Clark has experience with both foreign policy/diplomacy (far more than any other military guy I can think of, and more than most possible VPs of any background) and of course national defense. Duh.

There is always a natural tension between the Departments of State and Defense. A lot of it is culture: They don't speak the same language, they grow up professionally in different environments and with different experiences, and the individuals who enter each service tend to be different personality types.

But a lot of it is conflicting missions and priorities. Especially during time of war or crisis, the State Dept needs the military to respond to its requirements. Most diplomacy has a military carrot (arms sales, training support, protection from hostile neighbors, etc) and stick (that should be obvious--think Kosovo) component. Likewise, the military needs the diplomats to make their own job doable. They need to operate and train in foreign countries, and they simple can't, effectively, if status of forces agreements aren't worked out, if foreign leaders aren't responsive, and most importantly, if there's no legitimacy to their missions within international institutions and the global community at large--a factor the Bushies never have really caught on to.

As VP, Clark is probably the single most capable individual alive today, and I don't say that lightly or as hyperbole, in helping Kerry make State and Defense work together for the overall intent of the Commander-in-Chief. Not only does Clark understand the capabilities and limiations of both departments, not only has he worked closely with both and is respected within both, but he was the guy left hanging when they didn't, the guy who HAD to do his own coordination with State when the Pentagon was not in his corner.

Of course, I am assuming that Kerry would use Clark in the way that is so well articulated in the original message, as I wholeheartedly believe he would. As Secretary of State, Clark would be fighting the same battle that Powell does today, and that Albright did before him. Granted the circumstances would be different, but the conflict and competition would still be there, even under the best of conditions. It's the nature of the beast.

Second is that the first and foremost "job" of the VP is to step in if something happens to the President. As we are a nation at war, and even if the Iraq problem goes away, or we walk away, or everything ends happily ever after (not likely), we are still threatened by foreign enemies, far more than before Bush screwed things up, and there are other conflicts overseas that MUST be solved or at least held at bay. The VP really does need to be someone capable of handling the security of the nation. A lot of our problems today are the direct result of a President with no knowledge of and no interest in world affairs. It's just not something you can learn thru OJT (on the job training). Especially if the VP is stepping to the job with a cabinet and staff structured to support a president who in fact has (had) his own experience in the foreign policy arena.

Now, I realize that this second argument doesn't really address the Sec of State vs VP issue directly. But when you consider who the MOST likely alternatives for VP are absent Clark (Edwards and Vilsack), there is a rationale here that is valid indirectly. Not so much so if the VP were Graham, Richardson, or even Biden, but I don't see any of those happening.

Oh, btw Tom, I sure did enjoy meeting you at the WesPAC reception. Wish we'd had more time to talk! Maybe Wash DC in Jan? ;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Good point about managing rivalries between Defense and State

Based on his skills and experiences Colin Powell should have been able to defuse and/or effectively manage those rivalries, but by being installed as head honcho of one branch (State) it undercut Powell's ability to rise above that institutional rivalry. He almost inevitably was paired off against the Secretary of Defense, despite his long years prior service in the Pentagon. As Vice President, Clark would not be so hobbled by institutional competition, allowing him to maximize his constructiveness and his almost unmatched perspective regarding the nuanced interplay between inherent threat of force and use of diplomacy.

Another reason why I think Clark would serve best as VP is the very open endedness of the position. It would allow Clark to take on any special portfolio that Kerry deemed important to assign him. There was nothing in the job description per se that dictated Gore be given the task of "reinventing government", but it was a valuable contribution by Gore to Clinton's Administration. Clark of course has excellent Administrative skills that came with the territory he inhabited. They can be turned toward a multitude of tasks, some of which may not be obvious to anyone right now, but which might emerge in the second or third year of a Kerry Presidency as worthy of a high level managed effort outside of the traditional Department divisions reflected by defined Cabinet positions.

[Jai4WKC08]

18. Excellent point

Who knows what the problems and priorities will be further into the Kerry administration, even during his second term. As Secretary of State, Clark is pretty much assigned set duties and responsibilities. As VP, Kerry has much more latitude on how to best utilize his abilities. And by virtue of his education and assignment record (economics professor, OMB fellow, community commander at Ft Irwin and overseas), Clark's background is much broader than just the foreign policy piece.

Ummm... I think I just said the same thing you did. Sorry 'bout that.

[tameszu]

19. If I had to bet,

I'm not sure if Wes entirely wants VP--I believe that he will either get NSA.

Or, if Kerry ends up not swinging too far toward paleocon/populist realism/isolationism in his foreign policy, and adopts Clark's Office of Internation Development idea, then I think Clark would be the first head of that agency--who better for the position than the person who came up with the idea for it.

[cosmokramer]

22. Oh, I disagree.

I think he definitely wants to be VP.

The objective here is to change the face of the democratic party in the minds of voters...instead of our first image being 'tax and spend' (however untrue it may be), we need to inject 'military/foreign policy expertise'.

As long as our world remains in crisis (and it will with the monkey in charge), we need the best 'face' to win...Joe Average is highly likely to vote for the "Two Heroes" instead of the "Two Zeros".

To change the face of our party, giving the BEST, most prominent Democrat Four Star General, a seat on the top of the ticket is definitely the way to go...Gen. Clark knows this as well, and he wants to be that person.

Putting Clark in an 'agency' doesn't help us win in November. Putting him as VP certainly will.

[tameszu]

26. I think Clark could seriously help the ticket foreign policy-wise

as a member of Kerry's shadow cabinet, in the same way Powell (sadly) helped W.

The main reason I believe what I do is that Clark seems much more engaged when he's talking about ideas, like his Office of International Development, rather than about politics. And the Veep at this point is all about politics, not about ideas (except for Cheney, who's effectively become the country's Prime Minister).

[cosmokramer]

27. Powell wasnt' announced...

...as a cabinet member until AFTER the election. Cabinets are not announced before an election. So if Clark is going to help, he helps before the election by being a VP. I also have to disagree that the General seems more 'engaged' when talking about ideas rather than politics...I find him engaging in all areas. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. IF he doesn't "want" to be VP,

he would do it for his country. That's Wes Clark. His country comes first. He knows how important it is to get the warmongers out of office. He would be VP, if asked. No doubt in my mind. However, I think he DOES want to be VP.

[cosmokramer]

21. Ditto. Ditto...

...and ditto again.

[Dr Fate]

25. I'm fine w/ either one- so long as Clark gets high exposure...

...

[robbedvoter]

28. Uh, because we have to win, before we think of a cabinet?

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I agree, that is the best argument for Wes as VP lol n/t