George McGovern proposes Clark/Kerry - Kerry/Clark ticket

[wyldwolf]

I have decided to support whichever presidential candidate the Democrats nominate. It is essential to the nation and to our standing in the world that we change our leadership. I have thus given careful thought as to which aspirant could best prevail in the general election. All of our candidates are talented, and the more they have listened to the people, the better they become.

I have endorsed Gen. Wesley Clark, partly because he has the necessary intelligence, character, temperament and experience. One flaw: as a young military officer, he voted for Nixon and Reagan. I'm more interested in where he stands today than during the indiscretion of youth.

After all, I grew up as a Republican, and my parents carried that label throughout their lives. Today, Gen. Clark stands in the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton - and McGovern.

Jack Kennedy observed: "There's no substitute for brains...."

As I write, public opinion polls show Sen. John Kerry in the lead for the Democratic nomination. Kerry is also a decorated combat officer whom Bush would find it difficult to assail on national security grounds. Gen. Clark is my man, but how about two war heroes against Bush and Cheney - Clark-Kerry or Kerry-Clark?

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/7838310.htm

[bushclipper]

1. Though I would prefer Clark/Kerry, the reverse would make more sense

Kerry is leading now so he'd be the one picking the VP

[maddezmom]

2. great op-ed

you must've have beat me to it by a couple seconds. :)

[Dark Star]

6. However, yours has the correct headline title!

The op-ed is entitled, "Wesley Clark has got brains and experience" and that's the way I believe it should appear on the forum.

[maddezmom]

8. Loved that headline!

made me :)

[wyldwolf]

12. I disagree. Here is why

1. Using the headline as it appears would make the post appear to be another puff piece on Clark (which it is, but not important to my point.) By highlighting the piece's author and featuring something very relevant to both Clark and Kerry supporter (who they should pick as VP), the thread's title has better potential to attract a wider array of people to discuss it.

2. If I'm not mistaken, only LBN has a rule stating that an article's title must be used as the post's subject.

[NNN0LHI]

28. I would not have even read this great piece with the original title

You did good. Thanks for the post.

Don

[wyldwolf]

29. Why, thank you! That was my objective!

[jsw_81]

3. I tend to agree with Senator McGovern

Kerry/Clark would be terrific.

[bicentennial_baby]

4. I wholly disagree

That is a ticket I cannot get behind.

[Dark Star]

9. Right.

If it happens, I'll vote for it to remove BushCo.

However, the thread title is confusing as the title of the op-ed is not what it says.

I do not want anyone dictating who Clark should choose as VP and I believe we need someone other than Kerry.

[wyldwolf]

13. Again...

1. Using the headline as it appears would make the post appear to be another puff piece on Clark (which it is, but not important to my point.) By highlighting the piece's author and featuring something very relevant to both Clark and Kerry supporter (who they should pick as VP), the thread's title has better potential to attract a wider array of people to discuss it.

2. If I'm not mistaken, only LBN has a rule stating that an article's title must be used as the post's subject.

Also...

No one is "dictating" anything to you. One man and his opinion. That is all.

[Dark Star]

18. Please see GP Primary 2004 Rule #2 and

my post #16.

[wyldwolf]

20. Please see my post #19

[bushwakker]

5. Either one is OK by me

[WiseMen]

66. The right attitude. We need to rescue our country from **

[ibegurpard]

7. Wow

The way everyone hurls "McGovern-scale-loss" as a perjorative around here, I find it kind of ironic that they would want to spotlight this.

[Dark Star]

10. Here we go:

Please define "everyone". :eyes: :bounce:

[phylla]

11. Vice president?

Just wondering......
Do you think that McGovern would have floated that op-ed suggestion if Wes had disagreed?

[wyldwolf]

15. hmmmm... interesting point...

...but it hinges on whether McGovern is a close Clark advisor or just a fan...

[Raya]

24. I think the way it works is the these types of editorial are circulated

to the campaign. But would anyone in the staff veto an Endorsers
freedom to say what he wants?

[Dark Star]

42. I don't think so.

McGovern is backing the 2 gentlemen who have military records...just as he did. It seems odd to me that he would back Clark and then toss in a little tag on the end of an article mentioning Kerry, but maybe he's just being expedient because Kerry is ahead now.

McGovern is free to write what he wants to write. I don't think Clark will be taking his advice on choice of VP.

[TacticalPeek]

40. Took the hmmmm right out of my mouth.

One does wonder.

I believe its been over 40 years since any fruitful labor in the vineyard of pre-nomination VP horse-trading.

Does anyone even remember how to do this stuff anymore? Is this cycle such a 'big deal' election that the dynamics change that much?

Or maybe its more that the potential reconfiguration of the D's is the 'big deal'.

[WiseMen]

43. Yes. But Senior Clark supporters do agree. Some Clinton Folk

backing Clark have viewed this as realistic from the start. The Clark candidacy was for some a firewall against Dean. My info is that they could almost all support a Kerry/Clark ticket. But that does not
mean that Clark would.

[Dark Star]

45. I certainly hope he doesn't.

n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. Exactly

The only two tickets that can beat Bush (out of current candidates):

1) (Best chance) Dean/Clark

2) (Next best chance) Clark/Dean

No pink tutus, no PNAC, no Skull & Bones, no votes for the Iraq War or the Patriot Act.

[D G]

62. So when you say "pink tutus"

are you saying you hate women, or just femininity?

Dean has no place on the ticket in 2004 IMO. Maybe he can be a guest host for Dennis Miller.

[Dark Star]

16. GP: 2004 Primary Rules:

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.


This article was re-titled by the thread starter from the correct title given by the article itself, as Maddzemom posted and had deleted.

This article has 15 paragraphs, 14 of which are devoted to Wes Clark's brains and experience; 1 of which mentions Kerry.

I personally object to the subsequent slanting of the responses...not to the responders, but this was a set-up. The title of the op-ed is not reflected in the initial post!

[wyldwolf]

19. GP: 2004 Primary Rules

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

Does McGovern NOT propose a Clark/Kerry Kerry/Clark ticket in the article?

This article was re-titled by the thread starter from the correct title given by the article itself, as Maddzemom posted and had deleted.

No it wasn't. My POST was titled to reflect a talking point from the article. I could not have possibly "re-titled" the article because I don't have server access to the source's webserver.

Now, contrast with rules from the LBN forum:

6. When posting articles, please use the published title of the article as the title of the discussion thread.


The ONLY DU forum that requires what you want for this thread is LBN. GD:2004 Primary forum has no such stipulation.

1. Using the headline as it appears would make the post appear to be another puff piece on Clark (which it is, but not important to my point.) By highlighting the piece's author and featuring something very relevant to both Clark and Kerry supporter (who they should pick as VP), the thread's title has better potential to attract a wider array of people to discuss it.

2. If I'm not mistaken, only LBN has a rule stating that an article's title must be used as the post's subject.

[Catch22Dem]

17. Hey wyldwolf

I don't know why so many people seem to be giving you shit for posting this article. :eyes: Anyway, let me just thank you for posting it. No, you didn't break any rules by drafting your own thread title. You did a good job. Great find! Thank you!

[wyldwolf]

21. I have several theories

1. Perhaps they don't want the info posted?
2. A misinterpretation of GD: 2004 Primary rules vs. Latest Breaking News rules.

[Dark Star]

25. Since I'm the only one

who objected, no need to hide behind "so many people"...

I want the info posted, but I wanted it posted as it reads in the article and that was the way Maddezmom posted it.

Again, there are 15 paragraphs; 14 of which discuss McGovern and Clark, 1 mentions Kerry.

I question why you wouldn't want to present the article as titled by the publication and I'm sorry people have to start veiled attacks on me by using terms such as "so many people" when I am the only one who took up for accuracy as the way it was posted by Maddezmom.

[WiseMen]

48. What kind of BS is this. Is DU a news service or a Blog?

[maddezmom]

26. hmmm

who is the they you are referring to? I have no problem with your title, I asked the mods to delete my post as a dupe. :)

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

32. OK, so if it is Clark/Kerry, you'll vote... no one!

We get your point.

[robbedvoter]

And I get yours too - 4 days before the elections.

Loud and clear. OK, people. Go home. No more calling, writing, telling the truth. McGovern promissed us a nice spot on the Kerry ticket. All righty then. As long as he promised.

Thanks for the memories!

[wyldwolf]

39. If you understand that...

..I'm for Clark first, Kerry second, Edwards third, but will vote for ABB and will not withhold my vote to empower Bush, then, yeah, you get my point.

Loud and clear!

[hlthe2b]

22. Agree..... Rules are there to insure civility not to use as a club ....

(thereby insuring incivility)

[BootinUp]

23. Nice article, of course my opinion

is that Kerry is not the best for the top of the ticket. I do not find him to be an inspiring speaker. I do not know how to characterize his speaking other than to say it is boring. It is true that we might win with that kind of candidate, but why risk it, when we can select Clark who will attract more independent votes.

[Dark Star]

30. Absolutely correct, Jim.

Please note the real title of the article and that 14 out of 15 paragraphs in the article reflect that rather than the made-up one used to start this thread.

[wyldwolf]

34. Also please note...

1. Using the headline as it appears would make the post appear to be another puff piece on Clark (which it is, but not important to my point.) By highlighting the piece's author and featuring something very relevant to both Clark and Kerry supporter (who they should pick as VP), the thread's title has better potential to attract a wider array of people to discuss it.

2. ONLY LBN has a rule stating that an article's title must be used as the post's subject.

[Dark Star]

37. However, the issue is #2 of the GD2004Primary Rules:

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.


14 out of 15 paragraphs go for the actual title; 1 out of 15 paragraphs go for the way this thread was titled

Maddezmomm had posted the article with the correct title and then requested it be deleted because this thread was put up first.

It still violates rule # 2 for this forum

[wyldwolf]

41. No, Dark Star, that is YOUR issue

The post is in complete compliance.

Sorry.

[Dark Star]

44. It is not MY issue.

I read the rules. One of them states the thread topic must accurately reflect the subject. Yours does not.


Kerry is mentioned in the last paragraph, ie 1/15 of the article. Period.

[wyldwolf]

47. Yes it it, and here is why

The thread topic accurately reflects the subject.

I didn't post 15 paragraphs. I posted relevant ones to my post subject.

I think your issue is you just don't want this type of info posted. You'd rather highlight the Clark puffiness of the piece rather than the portion that would interest the most DUers and spur them to discuss it.

But thanks for helping it stayed kicked to the top.

You seem to be the only one commenting who holds your opinion.

[OKNancy]

31. Everyone wants Clark

Why is that? Because he is the best one out there.
As far as balance is concerned Clark-Dean seems a lot better to me.

[Dark Star]

33. And I would prefer to see either

Edwards or someone who is not currently a candidate on the Clark ticket.

[bicentennial_baby]

35. Me too

Clark/Dean, Dean/Clark.... NO Kerry for me, thank you!

[WiseMen]

49. But Clark absolutely refuses to play Dean's Cheney? How many times does

he have to say: " I will not play Dick Cheney for Howard Dean. We have tried that model of having the real experience at the bottom of the ticket. It does not work."

[robbedvoter]

50. Perfect argument against Kerry. Thanks for reminding me.

[Dark Star]

52. You are wonderful.

I was deciding whether or not to get a crush on you and so I checked your profile.

So, I will be your admiring friend! :toast:

[robbedvoter]

61. He he! Thanks!

Not folding any tents here for duped by a dope. Going to war with Syria is not my idea of change.

[Kahuna]

36. Kerry has way more baggage than Clark. They have thrown..

their wad at Clark and come up with blanks. Wait until they begin to pick Kerry and his past votes and positions apart. It's a disastor in the making. The republicans still fear Clark way more than they fear Kerry.

[Dark Star]

38. I agree completely that

Clark would prove to be the one to beat Bush if given the chance.

[Jerseycoa]

46. Since we're speaking hypothetically

Kerry has the congressional and political expertise necessary in a VP. Clark has executive, foreign affairs, and commander in chief experience. A Kerry-Clark ticket is backwards.

[loudsue]

53. Great article! Thanks for posting it!

I totally agree w/ McGovern...I think a Clark/Kerry ticket would be a barn-stormer, and Kerry/Clark would be excellent, as well.

O8) May it come to pass for the saving of our Democracy! O8)

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Strelnikov_]

54. Kerry/Edwards Makes More Sense In The GE

If Clark cannot attain the top of the ticket, I think his abilities could better serve the nation as SecState.

[WiseMen]

55. Kerry believes in being "Prepared" for office, and Edwards Isn't

Would be after another term or a Governorship.

[asthmaticeog]

56. Clark/Kerry or Kerry/Clark?

Either would be OK with me. Since it's starting to look like Kerry has a much better chance of securing the nom than I'd ever dreamed (which terrifies me), having Clark in either spot on the ticket would make me feel a whole lot better about Kerry. Though I'd prefer that Clark got the nomination himself.

[Sensitivity]

57. Where's your "Dude" guy Mr. Moore on this topic.

[WiseMen]

58. Michael Moore is probably in shock. Like others wrote Kerry off

[mikehiggins]

59. I'll be interested to see how Dean responds to this one on MTP

cause I'm certain it'll come up.

After all, he's apparently decided both men are Republicans.

You know what my problem with this ticket really is?

Starship Troopers.

Think about it.

[WiseMen]

60. You mean not Dean/Clark?

[TexasSissy]

63. Kerry is apparently going to win the nomination, and a General

won't be second in command to a Lt. Col. So that's that.

[TexasSissy]

64. I should add, though, that I think it'd be a dream ticket.

[Vis Numar]

65. yea, that loser knows one when he sees it

thats for sure.

[arewethereyet]

67. what does Clark add to the ticket ?

Military ? Kerry already a decorated war hero. Experience ? Kerry has decades. Regional voting ? Where ?

Those things which make Clark a weak candidate for prez further limit him as veep.

And he's not interested, if you believe what he says.

[Qutzupalotl]

68. Executive leadership.

He's been a teacher (taught economics and political philosophy at West Point)
He understands and can clearly articulate the basic flaw in NCLB
He has the best tax plan in the race
He's won a war without losing an American life
He negotiated a peace agreement
He knows how to get things done in a big organization
He testified against a war criminal at the Hague
He helped make the military more integrated
He was awarded the medal of freedom (and many others)
He has international admiration as a hero
Best of all, he can credibly criticize Bush on Iraq without having voted for it

[arewethereyet]

69. ok, lets see

Teacher, thats nice but has nothing to do with executive leadership.

He finally figured something out ! Leadership ?

Tax plan ? arguable at best, leadership ?

Won a war ? Why are there still troops there ? High level criminals on the lam ? Leadership, but flawed.

Negotiated peace ? Why are there still troops there ? LEadership but flawed.

Getting things done in a big organization ? The Army I suppose ? Why are there still troops there ? Why did he "sex up" the success rate of the bombing campaign ? http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/kutija/nw000515.htm

Testified in court ? Leadership ?

Made the military more integrated ? And it was not before ? I'd have to suggest that Colin Powell did far more for this than Clark ever did. A wash at the very best.

Won medals. OK there's one.

Admiration ? Not from the families of the Kosovars whose homes he blew up and called tanks. Leadership ?

He also credibly praised Bush for the same thing. We'll be nice and call it a wash.

What Kerry needs is votes. Regional votes. Votes that he can't secure himself. Clark cannot do that.

[Qutzupalotl]

71. You misunderstand.

Executive leadership is a list item. Not all the things that follow are examples of executive leadership. So your points are all off-base.

Teacher, thats nice but has nothing to do with executive leadership.
It means he personally understands the flaws in NCLB and can articulate them credibly. Kerry can make senatorial speeches, but has no experience to draw upon.

Tax plan ?
Best in the field.

Won a war ? Why are there still troops there ?
To keep the peace.

High level criminals on the lam ?
You'll notice that Milosevic is not one of them.

Negotiated peace ? Why are there still troops there ?
To keep the peace.

Getting things done in a big organization ? The Army I suppose ? Why are there still troops there ?
In the army? You can't be serious?

Made the military more integrated ? And it was not before ? I'd have to suggest that Colin Powell did far more for this than Clark ever did.
You'd be wrong. When Clark saw his units didn't have enough minorities, he called up Washington and asked why. Then things started to change. Clark sat on promotion board and made sure that blacks were given equal promotion opportunities. Colin Powell was simply a beneficiary of affirmative action.

Won medals. OK there's one.
Try several dozen. They are nothing to be dismissive about.

Admiration ? Not from the families of the Kosovars whose homes he blew up and called tanks.
He was heaped with praise by the people he liberated.

He also credibly praised Bush for the same thing.
Not at all. He praised Bush and Blair's resolve in the sandstorm but not their judgement for going in, and pointed out that "many questions still remain" (like where are the WMDs). And this in a foreign publication while he was supposed to be a nonpartisan CNN military analyst.

What Kerry needs is votes. Regional votes. Votes that he can't secure himself. Clark cannot do that.
If Kerry cannot secure votes for himself, Clark will be happy to get them.

[Auntie Bush]

70. I hope Kerry and Clark are listening! Great list NRK. n/t