Who should be Obama's VP?

[Renew Deal]

Poll question: Who should be Obama's VP?

I got these names from the latest VP odds poll. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5928235

I put on the people most likely to get it. Have at it.

Edit: I removed Bayh and Rendell because they got no votes. I don't think Rendell stands a chance anyway. I added Biden and McCaskill in their place.

[Wetzelbill]

1. Kurovski, or I'm taking this to the convention

I might even stage a third-party candidacy.

[MrSlayer]

2. General Clark.

Helps in many areas.

[MADem]

8. He is a strong Clinton supporter. Never happen. NT

[Renew Deal]

9. Are you kidding?

Wes Clark is also a strong Democrat, and he always listens when the president calls. Clark doesn't get caught up in partisan BS.

[MADem]

Like OBAMA would ASK him, first of all. Forget it. Aren't all those Clinton people "scum" to Team

O???

And like having two people with MINIMAL DC experience on the ticket, and absolutely NO relevant executive experience (running a command where people do not talk back to you is NOT the same, sorry) is a good idea?

Wes Clark is not a terribly "strong" Democrat, either--if you knew anything about him, you would know he's voted for Republicans in the past.

:eyes:

[kevsand]

27. And if you knew anything about Clark, you'd know that he's a very strong democrat,

and if anything more liberal than Obama. Plus, Clark has had commands that were larger than many small nations, let alone states. That is very relevant executive experience, and far outweighs anything Hillary has ever done.

Clark has also been very careful not to participate in the worst excesses of the Clinton attack machine. So no, Obama's people don't think all of Clinton's supporters are scum.

Your generalizations (no pun intended) are exaggerations without merit.

[MADem]

30. You apparently think that people who voted for Republicans are "strong" Democrats.

Either that, or you don't read what people write in your eagerness to respond.

You also think that people who run commands (I was IN one of Clark's commands, FWIW) where their subordinates (more like "subjects") can't talk back to them is the same as running a country. It ain't even close. You don't seem to get that those people who run those commands answer to a huge chain of command that includes the CNO, the SECNAV, the SECDEF and the JCS. And STATE gets involved, too. To say nothing of a guy called "The President."

See, that's why Clark got FIRED from his last command, but let's overlook that--of course, the GOP won't.

I mentioned that "command non-equivalence" upthread too--but you didn't read that, or understand it, I guess.

My remarks are not generalizations. They are precise, concise reasons why a Clark candidacy will not happen. His best hope is a cabinet position. In a Clinton administration.

[kevsand]

37. I read everything you said.

I read the exact same stuff over four years ago. It was crap then, and it's crap now.

I can't believe that you are still beating dead horses that have been put to sleep years ago.

Clark was never "registered as an Independent." That's not how it worked in his home state of Arkansas. And I know lots of strong Democrats, many of whom are elected party officials, who have voted for individual Republicans at one time or another.

He's apparently a good enough Democrat for Hillary to use him as a surrogate this cycle, and Kerry last time around. He's also been a good enough Democrat to stump for dozens and dozens of local Democratic candidates and state and local Democratic parties over the last four years, helping them with fundraisers and direct financial support.

If you don't think that having primary responsibility for the housing, feeding, education, health care, and safety of hundreds of thousands of service people and their entire families is executive experience, then you are living in a complete state of denial.

And he wasn't fired from his last command. The Republican Secretary of Defense brought the scheduled replacement in early, for reasons he has never fully articulated, but which appear to have been personal rather than professional.

What is your problem? I.e., why do you have such blind, irrational antipathy for one of the brightest stars the Democrats have had for a long, long time? I can't tell from your comments whether you just hate both Obama and Clinton or all Democrats, period.

[Renew Deal]

40. Stumping for local candidates...

That's one of the things that make Clark truly special. He didn't have to do that if he joined the party for fame and power. He's really worked hard for the party by advocating for former military that became Democrats. Sestak and the guy that ran in NY-29 come to mind.

[Blue State Bandit]

47. Comander Eric Massa USN Ret.

He worked under Clark at NATO.

[MADem]

53. Well, you apparently didn't read if for comprehension.

Clark was UNAFFILIATED. You can parse and nitpick all you want, but he never ID'd himself as a D or an R.

My point was that he isn't a STRONG Democrat. He's a Democrat. Like Webb is. Like Lieberman USED TO BE.

You're barking up the wrong tree when you try to tell me what Clark's job entailed. I know full well what it entailed. I spent three decades in uniform and was fairly high up that food chain.

And he WAS fired from his last command. Trust me. This article, though it truncates events, is pretty accurate: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030929/29clark.b.htm

I like Wes Clark, but only someone who doesn't let facts get in their way would make the absurd claims you are making. He did not want to leave, he tried to stop his removal, and he was unsuccessful. I happen to know that direction of that command was coming straight out of DC to his deputy for a brief period of time before he even got on the Freedom Bird, and the whole situation was tense and ugly. If you think he was a happy camper, you're dreaming.

I presume "What is your problem?" is your way of saying "Why don't you just go along, get along, and have some BELIEVE Kool Aid? And don't mention any INCONVENIENT TRUTHS, either!"

Just because I speak the truth doesn't mean I don't like Wes. And only someone who has a woefully er, uninformed view of the world would suggest that because I present FACTS that you don't want to accept, that I am somehow a "Democrat hater." That shit's on YOU.

[kevsand]

57. I comprehended it just fine. I also refuted it.

Clark was officially unaffiliated the same way all officers are unaffiliated. It's how the military works. Someone with as much experience as you claim should know that, instead of deliberately distorting the truth.

When you look at Clark point by point on the issues, he comes down to the left of both Obama and Clinton. And he's certainly done more individually for Democratic candidates and local parties all over the country than anyone on DU. That's a pretty strong Dem in my book. I'm tired of people questioning Clark's politics or the depth or strength of his party loyalty.

And you have yet to demonstrate how running NATO isn't executive experience. Diplomatically, it's on the same level as a head of state. In terms of responsibility, it far surpasses most U.S. governors. You still haven't demonstrated any way in which that isn't true.

As to his being fired or not, I never said he was happy. He got replaced early without the knowledge of and against the wishes of the commander in chief, by a Secretary of Defense who was pissed because Clark had stepped on some toes and gone over the Secretary's head in his efforts to minimize both civilian and military casualties. I'd be unhappy, too. But the Secretary's actions have never been either publicly or (as far as we know) privately portrayed by that same Secretary as reflecting in any way on Clark's fitness for duty or competence of command. Even the US News article you cite makes all this clear.

I don't ask anyone to "just go along." I do ask people to back up extraordinary claims with at least even ordinary evidence. You haven't presented a single independently verifiable fact. If you are speaking the truth, show us the evidence. So far you haven't been able to prove a single one of your assertions, all of which have been hashed and rehashed and thoroughly debunked countless times here at DU over the past five years.

That's why I ask why you insist on continuing to repeat arguments that have been long discredited. The fact that you have made comments in this thread that could be considered disparaging, not only of Clark, but of both Obama and the Clintons, is what led me to ask whether you hate all Dems. It's not intended as an insult, just a question. I honestly can't tell where you stand.

You, on the other hand, have consistently made snide and insulting comments about reading skills and comprehension and intelligence and motive because we dare to refuse to accept your falsehoods at face value without corroboration. Ordinarily I wouldn't spend so much time on someone so resistant to the realities of responsibility, but I am really, really tired of the crap that Clark has had to endure, even after he has spent most of his time since the 2004 primaries helping to rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up.

[MADem]

60. No, you did not "refute" it. You provided no cites to back up a wildass and false claim.

And where did you pull that "all officers are unaffiliated" shit ....out of your ass? I was a registered Democrat for my entire military career. So were a number of my associates. Some were GOP, too. Others, like Clark, were Indys. The thing most people in uniform don't do is TALK about their affiliations overmuch.

Clark was an INDEPENDENT.

Here, I cite, because you REALLY need to be corrected--and you need to stop making shit up: http://www.factcheck.org/was_wesley_clark_a_republican.html

And Clinton and Ralston knew what was going on. Clinton wasn't going to get in there too deep, and Clark got over that. But at the time, he was PISSED.

Sheesh. It never ceases to amaze me how people make shit up and just because write it down along with a gratuitous personal insult, actually think they can get away with pure bullshittery.

I was in a position to see what happened. He got FIRED. No mistake. You're the one who's "resistant to the realities" here. Why, I have no idea.

I wouldn't make "snide" remarks about reading skills if you'd bother to read. You bring that shit on yourself. Don't blame me for your actions.

[kevsand]

63. Now who is it that has problems reading for comprehension?

From the fact check source you yourself cited:

Here are the facts:

Registered as an Independent

There’s no dispute about Clark ’s voter registration: he was an independent. This by itself means little, however, as nearly 96% of all Arkansas voters express no party preference when registering. Party preference is “optional” on Arkansas ’ voter registration form, and only 2.6% of the state’s residents were registered as Democrats at the end of 2001, according to the most recent statistics published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. Only 1.4% registered as Republicans.

In other words, there is no such thing as an official "Independent" registration in Arkansas. In fact, there is for all practical purposes no such thing as even party registration there. It is factually inaccurate and deliberately misleading to say that Clark was "registered" as an Independent, since according to your own source, he wasn't "registered" as anything.

I have been a Democrat all my life. I have been an elected Democratic official for most of that time. I have never been "registered" as a Democrat, and neither has Clark. By your definition, we are both Independents. Anyone in Illinois or Arkansas will tell you that your definition is meaningless.

Finally, curb the personal insults, please. They do nothing to advance your argument, and only serve to make you look more foolish. Your tone throughout has been abusive in the extreme, and I'm getting really tired of it. I've not once made a personal attack on you in the way that you have on both myself and others in this thread. My remark about "resistant to realities" was, when quoted in full, a comment on the "responsibilities" of discussion, and your lack of independently verifiable sources. That problem still remains, since the only cites you've provided have actually said exactly the opposite of what you've claimed.

[MADem]

68. I'd call a guy who votes for Republicans a REPUBLICAN, unless he goes out of his way to

call himself an INDEPENDENT.

Which is what HE did. I didn't do it--HE did. And as one of those, he didn't hesitate to praise George Bush, either.

If he's a "good Democrat" now, what's his party affiliation? Is he still one of those registered independents that "everyone" is? Was Bill Clinton one when HE ran for governor? You can't be both a GOOD DEMOCRAT and an independent. If you're unaffiliated and you prefer Democrats, you're an independent who votes for Democrats. You aren't a Democrat.

PLEASE. I'm looking at an Arkansas voting registration form, and while party affiliation is optional, there IS a space for it, and one of the top reasons for filing said form is for people who want to CHANGE their party registration. So, whatever...

http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf


And you might want to look up the meaning of the phrase "personal insult" while you're at it. DISAGREEING with your halfassed conclusions, like that absurd notion that military personnel are never affiliated with a political party (the halfassed refers to the CONCLUSIONS, not to YOU) is not a "personal" isult. If I called you an asshole--which, for the record, I am not doing--THAT would be a personal insult.

:eyeas:

[kevsand]

77. To my knowledge, Clark never "called himself an independent."

Please provide a source for that quote if you can, because I don't remember ever seeing it.

And thank you so much for providing the pdf of the registration form, because once again it proves exactly the opposite of what you claim it does. There's no check box on there for "Independent." And as far as I know, Clark didn't write "Independent" into the party affiliation space. What Clark did was leave that optional space on the registration form completely blank, just like 96% of the rest of the registered voters in Arkansas. So by your logic, and according to your own sources, 96% of the registered voters in Arkansas are "Independent." Do you really not see the absurdity of that claim?

[MADem]

78. Look at the form--you WRITE IN your designation. No check mark for ANY party--you write it in.

So YOU take a look at the form, whydoncha? Closely. Look over to the right. There's no check mark for D or R or Libertarian or Communist, either. You put pen to paper at the RIGHT SIDE of the form, and you write your party affiliation in the BLOCK.

Wes still hadn't changed his party affiliation in 2003 after he declared his intention to run, which apparently would have probably been a good idea for him to have done, when you think about it. It helps to be a member of the party when one runs for PRESIDENT as a DEMOCRAT. It would have avoided stories like this in national magazines:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

NEWS ANALYSIS

Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat
Turns out the Presidential candidate hasn't yet changed his party affiliation as a registered independent in Arkansas

It may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, but Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley K. Clark still hasn't joined the Democratic Party. According to the Pulaski County (Ark.) Voter Registrar's office, the former four-star general remains a registered independent. Even though he has been a declared candidate for the Dem nomination for two weeks now, he has yet to officially change his party affiliation.

A Clark campaign spokesman at first told BusinessWeek that the former general had in fact updated his voter registration to reflect his newfound status as a Democrat. But a call to the Pulaski County Voter Registrar indicated otherwise. When asked to explain the discrepancy, campaign consultant Mark Fabiani says Clark hadn't yet had time to register as a Democrat.

He adds that the fledgling White House seeker plans to make his Democratic status official as soon as he gets a breather. "This has been a whirlwind two weeks," says Fabiani. "There are a lot of things we have to do, and that's one of them."



Ooops. Maybe his spokespeople were making shit up, too. The issue is not what Arkansas allows him to do--it's what party he is affiliated with. And apparently, unless the registrar is a big fibber, he was a "registered independent."

:hi:

[kevsand]

79. Now you've gone completely off the deep end.

I already looked at the form. In fact, I already described it back to you in detail. The field is a simple blank rectangle for entering text, and it is optional, and as far as you or I know Clark left it blank, just like 96% of the voters in the state.

His campaign never said in your quote that he was a "registered independent," they said that he was updating his registration to make his Democratic status clear. Unless you can demonstrate that Clark actually wrote the word "Independent" on his form, you can not claim that he is a "registered independent." Otherwise you are claiming that 96% of registered voters in Arkansas are "registered independents." That is so insane by any measure as to be totally meaningless, but you refuse to deal with simple facts. Factcheck.org got it right; have you abandoned your own source now, since it contradicted you?

Here's something that will blow your mind: neither Barack Obama nor I are registered Democrats. Do you know why? Because Illinois doesn't have party registration. But by your logic, you would now claim that Obama and I are "registered independents." Prima facie absurd.

96% of voters in Arkansas didn't fill in the blank for any party, because almost no one does in Arkansas. That doesn't make them "registered independents" any more than I am, no matter what an unnamed source in a county office is alleged to have said in paraphrased comments.

I can't believe I'm spending my time arguing with someone who goes to such lengths to dredge up lies and half-truths and mis-characterizations that are five years old. Is this how you spend all your time here? What a waste. I'm done.

[MADem]

83. How typical. Lose the argument, stomp your foot and call others crazy.

Is there a rectangle on that form over on the right side, there?

YES, there is.

What's it for?

To WRITE IN, in PEN, your PARTY designation.

Stop trying to shift the goalposts. We aren't talking about "how many" people are registered independents in AR, we're talking about one PARTICULAR political candidate. As I said, and as you IGNORED, I rather doubt Bill Clinton ran as a Democrat with an "independent" registration.

Do YOU have access to Clark's registration papers? I don't think you DO. Apparently, the registrar--who DID have access to them-- had him down as a REGISTERED INDEPENDENT. Not "unaffiliated." Not "no party." Not "unaligned." Not "undesignated."

A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT, that was the quote. For all you know, he wrote INDEPENDENT in that block, to make a very precise and specific point.

And your logic, again, SUCKS. If IL doesn't have party registration, that's fine. But AR DOES. It's OPTIONAL, but they have it.

You wanted proof, I gave it to you. Now, you whine that you don't like the proof, because it doesn't marry with your preconceived notions, and then you childishly indulge in name calling by referring to me as "off the deep end." Look in the mirror.

Grow up. You're wrong. The guy was a REGISTERED INDEPENDENT even AFTER he submitted his paperwork to run as a DEMOCRAT. Unless, of course, everyone save you is a liar who is "off the deep end," including the voting registrar AND members of Clark's OWN CAMPAIGN STAFF. If it wasn't important, or didn't make any difference, it sure bothered his staff enough that they did a SPIN JOB with the press about it.

These aren't lies or half-truths. They're called FACTS. So get over yourself, rejoin reality, and cut the crap. You've been CORRECTED, and you don't like it. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. MADem, you are a HUGE Clinton supporter. Why the hatred for one of Clinton's closest surrogates?

Perhaps you should be calling your friends in the Clinton camp and asking why they do not reject and denounce Clark.

[Blue State Bandit]

41. I concur. And I am a staunch Obama supporter.

SACEUR NATO is not much different from a governorship in terms of the executive job description. Wes did not participate in the gutter-ball politics displayed by Larry Johnson and Bill Clinton. He joined Clinton early in the game, but if current reporting is confirmed, he was one of the early callers to Clinton after the NC/IN primaries for her to step out.

Wes Clark was the tip of the spear in rallying the Former Generals Against the War, and took it upon himself to challenge FOX on their own turf. The work he did layed the foundation for the break-up of moderate Republicans from their base; the same Republicans that are now voting Obama in open primary and caucus states.

He is a southerner, a highly decorated military officer (silver and bronze stars), and played a major role in the '06 mid-term democratic victories. He studied economics, was a Rhodes Scholar, won a war without using a single American life from enemy fire, and has earned respect at home and abroad.

Hell, his actions in Kosovo saved Muslims from ethnic cleansing. This single fact would be a diplomatic golden chit in the war for the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim world; defusing the image created by the Bush administration's actions of the past 8 years that America wants to instigate a holy war.

It is Senator Obama's decision to make. And there are many great candidates. Jim Webb, Tim Kaine, ect. But it is my belief that Wes Clark brings more to the table.

And let's not forget, as a Clinton supporter, choosing him would go a long way in uniting the party.

[earthlover]

29. Clark was endorsed by Michael Moore and George McGovern, who called him...

"a Democrat's Democrat". Are you saying George McGovern does not know what a Democrat is?

[MADem]

32. Well, you guys would call George a "doddering old fool" if that worked for you.

Is George McGovern, who had a great war record but refused to use it to win a critical election, the Be-All and End-All with regard to "what it takes" to gain the Presidency? I think not.

Taking recommendations from well-intended losers might make YOU feel special, but not me.

And Michael Moore isn't a Democrat, so why bring him into it at all? Who cares what he thinks? I don't take "Good Democrat" advice from Ralph Nader, either.

Clark, to my mind, is what he once was registered as--an INDEPENDENT. He voted for Nixon and Reagan, after all. And he voted for his fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton. So if you want to call him a Democrat, he is probably more of a "Clinton Democrat" than anything else. Of course, that causes cognitive dissonance, so it must be denied.

[earthlover]

62. He worked tirelessly, and nobody worked harder than him in 06 to support Congress candidates

I guess that is not good enough of a Democrat for you, the judge of who is and is not a good Democrat?

McGovern may not have won his election, but you have gall calling him and Michael Moore "losers"! Would a true Democrat call McGovern a loser? A question worth pondering. McGovern has been a progressive voice for decades and I really didn't think I would see the day when I would see him maligned by someone who thought they were the judge of what a good Democrat is.

Clark is loyal to the Clintons. His views are, however, more progressive by far than either Clinton.

McGovern called Clark a "Democrat's Democrat". That has nothing to do with whether McGovern won or lost in 72. He was viewing his positions and character and stating what should be obvious to anyone not blinded by partisanship.

We have to attract independents and cross over Republicans to our side if we are going to win in 08. Having purity litmus tests is not exactly a good way to attract them!

[MADem]

69. You don't read before you respond, do you?

I called George a loser because he LOST. Which, if you check the record, is simply a FACT.

I didn't call Michael Moore one. I said he wasn't a DEMOCRAT. Because he isn't.

You're not going to attract Republicans with that attitude. Or independents, either. Scolding doesn't generate enthusiasm, generally speaking.

And there is little, if any, daylight between HRC and Wes Clark, so I don't know where you get that "more progressive" nonsense.

[earthlover]

70. Fine, then read your own posts before you respond! Like this....

"Taking recommendations from well-intended losers". Hmmm do you think George McGovern is plural, or a multiple personality? If you were talking just about McGovern, and not McGovern AND Moore with the term losers, you would not have used the plural unless your grammar is pathetic.

I don't think your grammar and use of words is pathetic. I think you said what you meant. Then you lied about it.

George McGovern lost the election. He is not, however a "loser". By any use of the term. Especially the connotation you used before you tried to back off from what you said.

However, if you want to use the term loser for McGovern....at least be consistent....are you willing to call Hillary a "loser" if Obama gets the nomination like he no doubt will? I will not hold my breath.

Clark opposed the Iraq War....doncha think that was a little "daylight" between him and Hillary? Oh, I guess thousands of lives isn't much daylight..... Clark also proposed a reform of the income tax code that would have eliminated...totally....all federal income tax for families of 4 $50,000 and below, and siplified the tax structure so much that they would not even have to file. It would have been financed by ending Bush's tax breaks on those making over $100000 per year I believe. Has Hillary even talked about anything remotely similar to this? Hell, Hillary gets bent out of shape if we would mention raising the cap on Social Security taxes so those making over $100000 would pay more taxes!!!!!!!! These are just two radically different views between Clark and Hillary that you seem to be ignoring.

As to scolding....now just what is it you are scolding me for?

[MADem]

75. Are you suggesting, then, that there is only one loser in the entire world?

And his name is George? We've had several in the past eight years, unfortunately.

You can over-parse, you know. You go back and read what I wrote.

Moore, the guy who is not a Democrat, got a SEPARATE paragraph. Separate from the paragraph that discussed the well intentioned (Democratic) losers like George.

And, FWIW, getting rid of taxes--and more properly, the IRS--is actually a REPUBLICAN view. You know, shrinking the federal government to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub, and all? But hey, whatever.

Scolding is what you're doing, trying to convince me of something that isn't accurate with hectoring language. It doesn't work.

[earthlover]

85. You are putting words in my mouth....again!

When did I say that Clark wanted to end taxes? Nope, I did not. I pointed out that Clark proposed a progressive restructuring of the taxes. Over the years, the "progressive income tax" has become more regressive. Clark's proposal would lower the tax burden on the lower incomes (under $50,000 no tax at all!) with more taxes going to the very rich. This is NOT a Republican idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You called Moore and McGovern "losers". You were not talking about losers of a political election, because Moore never ran for office, so he never was a loser of an election. You just called them "losers".

Then you tried to deny what you said. Which was pretty clear, but not everybody lives in your bubble.

You are absolutely Orwellian in your statement that I must think George is the only loser in the world. I have several times told you that I do not consider George McGovern to be a loser. Even though YOU called him that. That is what we are arguing about, and you bring in the up-is-down statement that I think he is the only loser?

Delete list you go.

[MADem]

88. No, I am not. But you're getting shirty because I refuse to let you do that to me.

I can't help it if you don't want to read. My reference to taxes was related to the GOP platform, you see. Don't you read the platforms of both parties, ever? That tax thing's a mainstay of theirs.

I talked about losers, like George, and THEN I talked about Moore. I didn't talk about Moore in the first paragraph AT ALL. You do have comprehension challenges, apparently. You subtly acknowledge that when you admit that you're aware that MM never ran for office.

You can spin and spit all day. You're wrong.

And, FWIW, it's IGNORE list, not DELETE list.

That 'take ball/go home' tactic is par for the course with your crew when you can't win an argument because you don't have your facts in order. It's almost pedestrian at this stage. I suppose I should thank you for ceasing to be a minor irritant, but, if you've followed those DU rules and actually done what you said you were doing vis a vis the IGNORE business, you can't read this. Awww.

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. Clark is more progressive by far than Clinton, who MADem supports.

Perhaps MADem believes Clark is not credible as a military man because he is not the right "kind" of Democrat?

[julialnyc]

74. Sheesh. How did Clark get such a bee in your bonnet?

Who the fuck cares what he was registered as? Aren't we looking for someone that appeals to Independents and some Republicans? Clark not only has the foreign policy experience, but he also is a perfect match for Obama precisely because he's not a Washington insider. That is part of the reason Obama has gotten so far (for not being the same people making the same mistakes looking for different results). Clark is the most experienced outsiders there is. Clark was one of Kerry's best surrogates out there in 2004 and continues to work hard to fill seats democratic.

I could really car less if back in the day the day his thoughts may have been a little different (not unlike some of us here), but he is a wonderful democratic asset and a fabulous spokesperson for the party............. not to mention it would be a selling image the two of them side by side

[MADem]

76. If you bother to read fully, you'll see that I liked old Wes. I still like him.

But facts are facts, and I tire of foolish "inventions" like "Wes Clark would be a swell VP for Obama"--when he plainly would NOT do at all. He has held not a single elective office, and he couldn't find his way from the House to the Senate without a military aide trotting in front of him.

It's a hideous, horrible, and naive pick. One that Obama wouldn't make, either, because he knows what team Clark is on. And it wouldn't be a "selling image"--it would be a "target rich environment" for the GOP.

Anyone with an iota of political acumen can see that.

[julialnyc]

84. I highly disagree

The fact that Clark is VERY experienced without holding elective office is why I think he fits so perfectly with Obama. People are choosing Obama because he isn't an insider.......... it follows his whole message while filling in his biggest weakness against McCain. Obama/Clark is a very innovative ticket.

I also think it wouldn't be a bad thing to pick a Hillary supporter when we are trying to come together.

[MADem]

86. Yeah, inexperienced and MORE inexperienced. Great ticket!

Even Carter got someone who could find his way to the Hill.

[Renew Deal]

39. I could teach you a few things about Clark.

But you don't need to be convinced. Many in the Hillary campaign have behaved badly. Clark was never one of those people. Also, the VP doesn't need a lot of DC experience. They're not a legislator in any real way. Clark would be an amazing adviser to Obama or anyone else. He should be Secretary of State or Defense. He has a lot of good qualities for a VP as well. He brings hefty foreign policy and military experience that Obama needs. He's got leadership experience that rivals any governor. He already had "Commander in Chief" in his title. Clark is also very good on the issues, and he's "clean." He hasn't been tainted by too much of the DC bullshit. Clark doesn't bring a state, and that might be an issue. I think Strickland could be a good VP candidate as well, and he acted like a tool during that shame on you bit.

Why do you think being a Hillary supporter disqualifies anyone? That list has 3 Hillary supporters, 3 Obama supporters, and 3 neutrals. The top vote getter is a Hillary supporter. Maybe picking a Hillary supporter will help Obama consolidate the party. We all know that Hillary is going to ask her supporters to support Obama.

[MrSlayer]

15. I know he is.

And I know it's unlikely. But it would still be a good choice.

[Renew Deal]

42. And even if he wasn't...

I'd bet anything he'd be in Obama's cabinet, so this is all BS.

[joeprogressive]

82. I love Clark but I think he is too old (64 I believe) because we want

someone that would be a viable candidate in 2016. He will be McCain's age in 2016 and if we are going to make the argument McCain is too old, then we wil be hurting Clark's chances.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Webb Is The Perfect Complement

Military cred, hard-nosed and hard-hitting, has a kid who went to Iraq (might still be there). He'll be able to play Cujo when the Rethugs start their bullshit.

[MADem]

10. Too many wives, too many salacious book passages.

All you'd have to do is put a paragraph of one of his potboilers up on the screen (after the family hour, of course) and that would be that.

Also, he is on videotape saying some incredibly disparaging things about women when he was SECNAV and ASD.

You think no one would bring that shit up?

Also, he's just one nudge over from GOP. He's a VERY conservative Democrat, it's sorta like he and Zell Miller switched places.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. A Former Republican, Yes - But Not A Zell Or A Clinton

My understanding is that he's against NAFTA, for example.

[MADem]

22. So is HRC, but then, if you knew anything about her campaign you would know that.

Webb and Clinton both favor FAIR trade.

Webb has a MAJOR, documented gender problem going back to the early years of the Reagan administration, and it is on videotape. You think they'll use the Queensbury Rules and just ignore that, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings?

He has written what the heartland would call "dirty books" that include racist and sexist invective in them.

He has had too many wives, and his latest one is FOREIGN and looks too young for him.

He also has a temper and shoots off his mouth.

A VP who packs heat regularly (well, nothing new there, I guess) and whose aide was hung out to dry hauling HIS gun into the Senate is not a slick pick for the Democratic ticket.

A SENATOR of any kind is not a slick pick, even though John Forbes Kerry would love the job.

Those may not be "valid" reasons, but they will carry the day.

[goddess40]

12. Not Webb - he's not someone the run of the mill Dem could support in '16

He's too far right. He's a nice enough guy but we should never have someone as VP we don't want as President. Besides his election was too close and we don't want that seat regained by a republican.

I think we should avoid any senator that we are positive that they'd be replaced by another Dem.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. He Beat A Popular Incumbent

Which of his positions are too right-wing for you?

[MADem]

24. He beat a guy who was more like him than different--who said MACACA and who was STUPID.

People were getting tired of Macacawitz because he was too much of a good ole LAZY boy. That Confederate flag, noose in the office shit was just too "icky" for most. And that very believable woman who gave the "Knicker" interview where he used the naughty word was the final coffin nail.

Macacawitz (of Jewish maternal heritage but nonetheless an anti-semite in his spare time) wasn't bringing home the bacon, and he had his eye on the White House. He started to believe his own publicity, and spent all of his time fundraising and not attending to the good people of his Commonwealth.

It came back to bite him--a fortunate, perfect storm.


"I" am not the one making the decision here about his 'right-wingedness.' If Webb were on the ticket, the American people would decide that he makes McCain look mellow. And that would be helpful to none other than McCain.

[Hutzpa]

4. HOWARD DEAN

you left him out...

[Renew Deal]

7. He has very little chance

Like 0%.

[Hutzpa]

23. You mind elaborating on that.... n/t

[Renew Deal]

45. He's the party chair.

He's seen as too partisan. That's great for a party chair, not a president. Also, Dean has a job to finish as chairman. :D

[Hutzpa]

56. Didn't Cheney made Veep

I would have sworn he was partisan too I don't see anything wrong with
Dean being partisan to balance the equation, do you.....:shrug:

[Unsane]

72. he literally adds nothing to the ticket

[graywarrior]

5. Eddie Izzard

He could be male or female, depending on what is required.

[mcctatas]

34. Too bad he isn't a US citizen...

but John Travolta is and he was pretty convincing in Hairspray;)

[graywarrior]

36. There ya go!

[Renew Deal]

6. I bet Jim Webb would be flattered by all the votes.

That's pretty cool for him.

[Indiana_Dem]

17. well look at his credentials, they're everything we need to make the team complete:

http://webb.senate.gov/jim/

...except for the female voters who want a female...but I would LOVE to see Webb in a debate with Condi, Mittens, Lieberman, Huckabee, or anyone else that might be in the GOP VP slot. I liked someone's reference to him as "Cujo"--that's perfectly how I see him.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

18. Yep...I think he's the best pick as well...n/t

[mod mom]

20. As a female, I want the best candidate for second in line and accomplishments and experience

mean much more to me than a candidate's sex or race for that matter.

I do agree that Sen Webb's credentials are very attractive. He is very smart and gives impassioned speeches. His military experience could bring comfort to those who worry about Sen Obama's lack of experience in this area. He could make Virginia a swing state and the fact he is a former Republican could resonate with independents.

[ray of light]

11. Elizabeth Edwards.

[JI7]

13. Richardson , Clark, Webb, and maybe Biden

all great choices.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

19. Clark, Strickland, or Webb

[WA98296]

21. Why don't you folks get educated on the doings of the DLC?

[Indiana_Dem]

25. I call for a re-vote! I would've voted for Claire had she been on the list! Here are her creds:

http://mccaskill.senate.gov/claire/

[Bullet1987]

28. Sebelius...

Screw the "too much change" meme.

[greenbriar]

44. I love that choice

but would hate losing our gov

[mystieus]

48. She's been a great ally for Barack.

Definitely a great person to have on his VP short list.

[Muttocracy]

26. how about a process-of-elimination vote? who would we NOT want to be VP

A few rounds of that could be interesting. I think many of us would feel equally OK with several of those choices, but feel strongly against a couple of them.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Other. Virginia's Tim Kaine. White, Catholic and governor of a southern state trending blue.

Governor Kaine also endorsed Obama early, the first Obama endorsement outside of Illinois.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine

[Adelante]

33. Clark nt

[Condem]

35. Richardson stuck his neck out

Alot more than some dems have done. Like Biden.

[Tribetime]

38. and Kerry 1st and one week later Kennedy

[Swamp Rat]

43. Bob Graham

:)

[saltpoint]

50. I can see the case for Bob Graham, Swamp Rat. Good proposal.

He puts Florida in play. He's one of those white-haired elders.

And he's aligned with Obama on Bush / Iraq.

Obama needs a boost with voters over 55 or 60 or so, and Graham could help assuage their misgivings.

Good on ya.

[Swamp Rat]

51. He's more than that, to boot.

He's sat on a lot of oversight committees... he covers a LOT of bases. We cannot loose with a Obama/Graham ticket. ;)

:hi: OC! Hope you enjoyed this fine Mother's Day (in some way). :)

[saltpoint]

52. I like those red red tomatoes and say howdy again.

I'm kicking around an Obama / Graham ticket in my head Swamp Rat, and I'm having no problems with it.

It works in a lot of ways, and it just might give us Florida, which we'll happily take.

[Swamp Rat]

54. And Graham knows foreign policy... LOT of experience there.

Bob Graham has been a governor, a senator, a presidential candidate, and while Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he opposed the iraq war.

He's got so much to offer the ticket. Oh my! I would LOVE to see him as President of the Senate. :bounce:

Graham on the ticket would also nullify Lieberman (I believe that is the repuke's October/whenever surprise: a McCain/Lieberman ticket).

[saltpoint]

55. Solid points all around, and a perfect graphic with John and Joe as

Fred and Barney.

The right era, too!

Graham as president of the Senate? Jesus -- that woud be sweet, actually, in and of itself plus as a wildly refreshing contrast to 8 years of that miserable sack of bile Dick Cheney.

I'm on board with Graham for the shortlist, Swamp Rat, and thank you for setting the table.

[Jack Bone]

67. I concur...Fmr. Sen. Graham is the perfect choice!

I'm astonished at the fact that he's not listed on these "short list" polls.

[Stop Cornyn]

46. I like Napolitano, Graham, and Warner better than any of those you list.

[mystieus]

49. Clarke has shown himself pretty willing to take marching orders from the Clintons.

That makes him too big of a risk as Obama's VP.

[windbreeze]

59. I can only say to that...then you don't know the man...

he does have integrity...if the VP were offered..I don't know that he would have taken the offer...even from Clinton...but IF it was offered from Obama and he accepted...Obama would NOT have to worry about him....I think he's that kind of a guy...I don't believe he takes marching orders from anyone really...he's his own man....wb
ps: no e on the end of Clark...

[mystieus]

61. I don't buy into the idea that we need 'military musculature'

it was that kind of thinking which told us John Kerry would be a shoo-in in 2004, and to some extent I bought that reasoning. I think it's fallacious. I think the American people are far less driven by that kind of thinking than the conventional wisdom gives them credit.

We need bright candidates who can articulate vision.

[windbreeze]

64. WHY is it...

that when I mention Clark, right away someone goes off the deep end and accuses me of saying we need a military man in office...WHERE in my post did I say ANY SUCH THING??? but since you brought it up....let's consider something shall we????......NO ONE IN OFFICE RIGHT NOW served honorably, or at all in the god damned military...and everyone can see where we are as a result, right????? how many deaths has their personal inexperience caused so far???????How many American men/women have died, how many are injured for life? how many maimed, how many are left with life threatening mental problems? (suicides/murder, etc?) How many Iraqi men/women/children have died..??? How many Afghans?? Seems to me, that there ARE TWO sides to every coin..especially that coin about a military background....

Now let's go back to what I DID say...1.That Clark had integrity.
2.That it was unlikely that he would have accepted the VP slot even from Clinton 3.BUT IF HE DID accept it from Obama, that Obama would NOT have to worry about him....That was all I said...thanks...wb

[usregimechange]

58. feingold

[Alexander]

71. Seconded. Why is Feingold never mentioned in these polls?

He'd be a better VP candidate than most. :shrug:

[redqueen]

65. Brian Schweitzer.

:)

[demokatgurrl]

66. Clark is a strong Clinton backer.

An argument might be made, then, that he could bring the Clinton voters along. But, Richardson is probably a better choice (Southwest, Latino). And who knows, Obama may have already promised it to him.

[cornermouse]

73. I hope Clark and Edwards are smarter than that.

Sebelius needs to stay in Kansas and keep it democratic.

[AlinPA]

87. Brian Schweitzer, Gov of MT