Why it would be stupid for Clark to be Dean's running mate in the primary

[wndycty]

1) Clark has a legit shot to win the Primary, why would he just accept the #2 spot before there has even been one primary?

2) Dean might not win. Dean is my #2 behind Clark, but there is no guarantee Dean wins. What if Kerry wins? If Clark truly wants to be VP, methinks he wants to be president, why would he only align himself to one candidate who is not guaranteed to win?

3) Need I remind everyone there has not been one damn primary? I think all of this talk of Clark being Dean's VP is kind of silly

Lastly, who has more to gain from Clark being rumored to be Dean's VP, not Clark. So one must really wonder who the source of this story is.

ON EDIT: I am sure Clark will consider the VP job if it is offered to him by WHOMEVER wins the nomination, but that would be the only time for him to consider it, don't you think?

[ewagner]

1. Agree

Politically, it is imprudent.

Posted that in another thread.

[Patriot_Spear]

2. Clark is smarter than you think...

He knows the sooner he and Dean get out in front- the more unified and better the turn-out will be.

[chimpymustgo]

46. No Patriot, Clark is smarter than YOU think.

Why align himself as second banana to a guy who might not win?

Clark could win the damn thing himself. This is more hype from Trippi.

[bryant69]

3. Dream Ticket

This might be the Dean camp, as you suggest; but it's also a fun exercise in Dream Ticket. I mean Dean has a lot of gumption and can hit it out of the park on Domestic issues; but even some of his supporters have to admit that as a governer he's got little strength in Foreign Policy and Defense. That's what Clark (or Graham) brings to the ticket. I have to say that Dean and Clark would be a tough ticket for Karl Ro. . . I mean President Bush to face off against.

My personal favorite ticket is John Kerry and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, former center for the LA Lakers. But I'm just a crazy dreamer.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[wndycty]

8. You want dream tickets??

Clark and:

Rep. Rangel
Rep. Jackson Jr.
Sen. Clinton
Sen. Landreu
Gov. Granholm
Sen. Feinstein
Gov. Richardson
Sen. Durbin

[bryant69]

16. Hey, one more vice president

and you could have a baseball team. I suppose Clark could pitch, and round it out.

[Eloriel]

25. Strength in Foreign Policy and Defense

I have not seen one single thing from ANY of those "candidates" who supposedly have so much foreign policy and defense policy "experience" (by virtue of serving on some committees? please) that makes any kind of argument on this subject against Dean meaningful at all. Not one. Graham comes closest to having something, but all it amounts to is a little inside knowledge that confirms what the rest of us know anyway.

At this point *I* could do a better job of running things than Bush. Any one of us could. It doesn't take "experience" (which no one has before they get elected to the office), it takes a little human decency and common sense.

Besides, you get good advisors (preferrably people who aren't sociopaths) and listen to them.

I'm tired of this red herring.

Eloriel

[Starpass]

4. wndy--my thoughts this a.m.

I've posted this on a couple posts:
Which camp let the reporters know of this meeting??---Clark?? I doubt it. It would have been the Dean camp. Howard said live at end of an interview a few weeks ago when asked about a Clark run that he "hated to have to run against the guy". Could it be the Dean knows he's coming into the race; wants to get associated with Clark and thus try to have people believe that they are exactly the same on all issues; wants people to believe that they can still go ahead and vote for him because he will make Clark his VP, etc. The others have met with Clark and don't have it on page one of a newspaper. I think Dean may be trying to hang on to Clark's coattails and make it look like Clark has to hang onto his. I want to know how the story got out and why a reporter would know what they talked about in a meeting?? Someone had to blab.

[Avalux]

7. I agree

Dean wants people to think he and Clark are aligned in some way because he knows Clark will do well. He knows Clark will pull voters from the center and repugs. Will help Dean look less left and soften the national security issue too.

Clark commented on their meeting, but stated he has "only one decision to make".

[blm]

23. BINGO. Dean is at the point in his campaign

where his weaknesses will become more noticeable. He's just trying to cover them up and excuse them by hiding behind Clark's heft.

[StopTheMorans]

27. BLM, you're reaching

Dean's trying to stay ahead of the pack by making the next logical tactical maneuver; being the first to have a solidified ticket with two strong Dems on it. IMHO, you're trying way too hard to project Dean's downfall just b/c he is now the front-runner and your man isn't:)

[wndycty]

28. I think most people would be offended that Dean. . .

. . .is choosing a running mate before he wins a damn primary. Kind of arrogant isn't it? It won't endear him to too many people who aren't already his supporters.

[StopTheMorans]

29. he didn't really "choose" a running mate, did he?

he and Clark are friends, they discussed a possibility. I don't think that constitutes him "choosing" Clark as a running mate, yet it leaves open the possibility that if Clark doesn't run for Prez, it could happen...

[wndycty]

30. Well good then, then I assume . . .

. . .we will stop the Clark as Dean's VP talk until we have a clear winner for the Democratic nomination.

[StopTheMorans]

39. I wouldn't "assume" anything.

anyone can talk of any candidate they want as VP for any other candidate. Speculation isn't harmful. And while we're at it, why don't we just "assume" that Clark isn't running, since he hasn't announced yet:) btw: that was a joke

[Mz Pip]

33. My feelings exactly

It makes Dean seem eaither really arrogant or so nervous that he's trying to get Clark out of the way as soon as possible and if picking him for his running mate this early does it, he'll do it.

It's that kind of cockiness this early in the game that will wreck his chances. He's ahead in the polls now, but most people aren't paying attention yet and to act like you're the nominee months before the first primary is really pushing it.

MzPip
:dem:

[MercutioATC]

43. Why would it be bad to vote in the primary based on the entire ticket?

I'm not saying that we chould change the process, but wouldn't you feel more comfortable seeing the entire ticket before you cast your vote? I sure would. I can vote for Dean or Kerry (or any of the others), but if they make a truly poor choice in their running mate, they could hurt their electibility.

I don't consider it arrogant, I consider it good politics.

[StopTheMorans]

45. I agree with you completely

the VP nomination is very important, and before we elect our candidate, I think it would be nice to at least have a good idea of who their VP will be. VP choice does play a role in determining whether the candidate will be elected, so I think it should play a role in the nomination. Smart politics in my book.

[blm]

34. I doubt it...Bush used Cheney's "gravitas" to mask his own

shortcomings. That's what they do.

Look at all the posts here at DU from Dean supporters who say Clark would be a great VP for Dean BECAUSE he would fill_______ in the blank.

[StopTheMorans]

38. isn't that what supports of ANY candidate

do with ANY possible VP candidate that is floated? that is completely ridiculous! That's how candidates pick a VP, they choose them as having traits that would make the ticket stronger, they don't pick clones.

[wndycty]

41. Well lets get a ticket first. . .

. . .as of now there is no ticket.

[StopTheMorans]

42. you don't need a ticket

to have possible VP nominations in your back pocket. I think it makes any candidate look better if they have a strong potential running mate already lined up. just my opinion.

[blm]

50. THIS early in the primary?

This shows weakness in your own campaign not strength.

[StopTheMorans]

51. weakness?

I think it shows leadership and foresight, just like not supporting the war when it was the popular thing to do. Look how that has turned out now so many months later;)

[Larkspur]

24. "Dean may be trying to hang on to Clark's coattails"?

Ah, Clark is not in the race and Dean by far has many more supporters than Clark. Dean's campaign is a juggernaut. To borrow an idiom from NASCAR, Clark may be trying to draft off of Dean's campaign success.

[wndycty]

26. Again . . .how does this benefit Clark?

:kick: There is no PRIMARY for VP!

[pansypoo53219]

32. can you say a cakewalk to mr. President in 2012?

and VP ain't just about funerals anymore.

[wndycty]

36. Well what will it hurt for Clark to run in the primary.

He can run in the primary and if he does not make it then let him take the VP slot, but let him run.

[MercutioATC]

44. He gets the #2 job without having to run his own campaign...

By allying with one of the front-runners, he has a better chance of getting to Washington...

He gets at least 4 years of high-profile international work (a great way to launch damn near any further career in business or politics)...

While it's not the #1 spot, he WOULD still be in the position to have a great influence on American policy.

Just a few positives.

BTW, this is all theory. I think the media is creating this story based on a few noncommittal quotes. I don't think Dean and Clark are seriously discussing this issue.

[Brian Sweat]

5. Some people might consider it presumptuous of Dean

to announce a running mate prior to securing the nomination.

[Patriot_Spear]

6. All I can say to that is to quote Kerry...

"Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean..." LOL

[John_H]

9. I don't see how it's that different from Chimpy

announcing Powellas his Sec. of State. I thought it was a smart move by KKKarl at the time, and I think it would be smart for Dean to name Clark now if Clark will bite--which he won't, IMHO.

[wndycty]

11. So Chimpy is the Dem standard bearer?

:kick:

[DemBones DemBones]

17. WHEN did Dubya announce Powell would be his Sec. of State???

I don't remember him doing it before the primaries.

[wndycty]

10. Hell prior to even winning one primary. . .

. . .think about it. I am a Dean fan!

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Dean IS presumptuous. Just like Bush*.

[chimpymustgo]

47. Howard Brush Dean. George Walker Bush. Separated at birth?

The likenesses are uncanny.

[StopTheMorans]

48. yeah, you're so right...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:


on edit: convincing post :eyes:

[indigo32]

22. Well they might

but he hasn't yet has he? Besides IF Clark should agree to it (which he won't IMHO) I would consider it an interesting move, presumptious or not.

[newsguyatl]

12. clark is easily attackable though

being on the top of the ticket


i mean, here we would have someone running with NO =zero= political and fundraising experience, absolutely none... the republicans would shred him on this...


don't get me wrong, i like clark... but putting him up as our savior and end all for the democratic party is naive. he'll make a very strong running mate (especially because of his military experience and his being southern) but this alone in NO way will guarantee him a win at the presidency.

[wndycty]

15. And Dean is a shoo in?

Just let the man run and see what happens. If he wins fine? If someone else does, then lets back that person. I am puzzled why there is so much resistance to his running. . .of he does not win he does not win.

[Starpass]

18. yep--and being governor of Vermont will impress the masses

I live in Maine. Being governor here or in VT or NH is not like being govenor in MO, NY, CA, GA, CO, etc..........it's called "we think 15 people standing together is a huuuuuge crowd". There are no big city issues (the real meat of dealing with states and their budgets and their problems) in VT. They don't have St. Louis, NYC, LA/SF, Atlanta, Denver. And the American people are going to laugh right out loud about being the gov of Vermont. It's like saying I'm the mayor of Platteville, Wis. (where I once lived) and, thus, I could run NYC or LA with a blindfold on!!! hahaha. Howard is going to be open on all fronts to blasts. Gov. of Texas is going to look huge against his experience. And Howard is going to dance all over the political landscape if he gets the nomination to please as much of a crowd as he can.

[newsguyatl]

40. it's obviously impressed them so far hasn't it!

[Avalux]

19. Nothing is guaranteed

I like the approach that someone who's not a career politician, someone with a vision who is driven by a conviction to serve the country (as I believe Clark is) is exactly what we need.
Not someone who already thinks he's won the nomination and is arrogant enough to already name a VP.

[RobertSeattle]

20. Clark has no political experience?

Generals are all very political animals. Not in the Demo/Repub sense, but it is politics none the less.

[Clark Can WIN]

53. And you don't think the Clintons

Can help him with fund raising? And have you read his book? He's had PLENTY of experience dealing with politics. Much more than Chimpy's paper governorship in Texas.

Wesley Clark will be a formidable contender for the nomination.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. Zero Fundraising Experience Would Be a HUGE Plus

When it comes to RW attacks against him. He's not a Beltway politician pandering and selling votes for money, so how can they attack him on FUNDRAISING? Dean has the same advantage.

As for how Clark will actually DO at the fundraising game, I think he will do well, since he will have the support of the Clinton network, I believe. Regardless, why not wait and see how he does, before writing him off as an impossibility?

DTH

[salin]

13. Agreed - very premature eom.

[NWHarkness]

21. Thinking outside the box

Every time Dean (or any of the other candidates, for that matter) goes outside the box of conventional procedure, as with the internet fund raising, the meet-ups, etc., people who have been disengaged from the political process have been getting interest in what's going on.

It's possible that if Dean and Clark were to announce that they are running as a team, it would spark the interest of a great many non-voters. It would certainly allow for Dean to make the case that his campaign is not "politics as usual". It would certainly mean that he would dominate the media coverage for weeks to come.

I'm not sure how it would play out. It's risky, but the upside to such a bold move could potentially be huge.

[Starpass]

31. NW---I think the Dean

camp would stay about the same numbers and I think a lot of people who are getting hyped up for a Wes run would spit, and turn away. I don't think it does any great good.

[tjdee]

35. It IS silly to talk about Dean/Clark.

It's silly silly silly.

This is all coming off the top of TWO instances:

ONE sentence in a story about the two meeting (presumably to talk about foreign policy).

Howard Dean saying how much he likes Clark.

There is NOTHING to indicate that Clark has ANY intention of a)running for VP and b)running with Dean. If people would like to see it, fine, but that's different than this whole "Dean is such a mastermind thinking outside the box and choosing his VP already"...

Geez, LOL!

[maha]

37. I'd vote for Dean-Clark.

I'd also vote for Clark-Dean. Or Kerry-Clark. Or Kerry-Kucinich. Or Clark-Kucinich. Or Braun-Clark. Or Edwards-Braun. Or Rocky-Bullwinkle.

[mojowork_n]

49. If Clark is nominated, I'm voting for Ralph

Clark is a brown-nosing sycophant. Look it up on counterpunch.org.
Also, a hopelessly ineffective "warrior" whose sole claim to distinction has proven to be a catastrophe. Find the article by Zoltan Grossman, on yesterday's commondreams.org.

[wndycty]

52. Well it looks like you want 8 years of Bush//Cheney

:kick:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

54. Try Reading Some More Objective Sources

Because you are obviously ignorant of the other side of the arguments, which are much less tinfoil-hat/axe-grinding and accordingly much more compelling.

DTH

[Clark Can WIN]

55. Dont let the door hit you on the way out

Go pout in the corner if you must, this is big people talk.

[Renew Deal]

57. Check your facts.

That article was full of inuendo and assumptions. Check this out. It should help.

With so called "progressives" like these, who needs Rush Limbaugh?

Zoltan Grossman's article, loaded with factual errors and innuendo needs a clear response.

Here it is.

"Hours after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began on March 24, 1999, the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign began, expelling hundreds of thousands of Albanians, and creating an enormous refugee crisis."

The ethnic cleansing began before the bombing, and Milosevic was already under investigation for War Crimes by the UN, he would be indicted during the course of the Kosovo campaign. He had attempted to purge and conquer the Krajina region of Croatia, had backed the ethnic cleansing by "The Serb Republic" in Bosnia, and the siege of Sarajevo.

http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000324.html#000324