How would Clark be a better VP candidate than Edwards?

[fujiyama]

I was just wondering why Clark would be a better VP choice than Edwards. Don't get me wrong, I like Clark and I was really excited about his campaign at first. However, he seemed sort of new to politics though and while it wasn't a horrible campaign, he still wasn't that great a campaigner.

I was also wondering which states would he be likely to bring in, compared to Edwards (very unlikely to bring in NC, but maybe OH or some other state)...or possibly Graham and Gephardt.

It just seems as though Edwards was a better campaigner, but then again, it's very true he may overshadow Kerry.

Then again, it would be kinda cool to have Clark kick Cheney's ass.

[Dookus]

1. Clark has military and foreign policy experience

in spades. Edwards doesn't.

I think they'd both be fine choices, but I'd prefer Clark. His knowledge of the military, economics, foreign affairs and his capable demeanor make him the better candidate.

[Capt_Nemo]

2. He understands what is wrong about PNAC. and that is a HUGE

difference between him and Edwards.

Not that Clark is not an advocate of US imperialism. But he is aware
of the limits of US power and therefore he knows that if the reckless
PNACers are not neutralized, they are going to unwillingly bring about the colapse of US superpower status.

OTOH for Edwards it's all fine and dandy. He has yet to grasp why the
Iraq invasion turned into this mess.

[Guava Jelly]

3. Edwards never

Negotiated a peace treaty.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Read this thread from yesterday.

Same topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x433092

[robbedvoter]

5. War heroes vs Chickenhawks - better thsn The two Johns

Edwards highlights Kerry's weakness, Clark his strength.
Think of a Clark /Cheney debate: Mr Cheney - what did the terrorism commission you headed in 2001 do? How many times did it meet?
Clark would lead us to victory in November. he would be a reassuring presence - in case VP has to become POTUS. INdependents can rally around him.
I don't think "the 2 Americas" would play well against the Ground Zero anoionted wartime preznit. I don't think a guy who thinks 9.11 justified the war in Iraq (which he would have also STARTED) ads much to the debate.
Clearest reason this would be a disaster: the media wants it badly

[mikehiggins]

6. Credentials

Looking at Clark's resume he is really overqualified to be VP.

As to being a campaigner, I think Edwards is much prettier, but also much softer around the edges.

[jsw_81]

7. Clark is a four-star general with tons of foreign policy experience

And he's from the south and would definitely make Arkansas and Missouri competitive.

Edwards, on the other hand, doesn't really have any foreign policy credentials and is unlikely to deliver his home state.

[Jai4WKC08]

8. Lots of reasons

First reason is because Clark is better qualified to step in if anything happens to a President Kerry. Obviously, someone who supported Edwards for president is free to disagree. But you gotta admit, we are at war and if something bad did happen, esp if it were by assassination or other abrupt or hostile action, one that would put the American people in shock, it would be a good thing to have someone in charge in whom people could feel confident about handling the situation abroad. I was pretty young when JFKennedy was assassinated, but I do remember the whole nation's horror, and the fear of who was behind it, what might come next, etc.

As for the election itself, I think Clark could be just as influential in Ohio as Edwards. Fwiw, he was leading Edwards in the WI polls before he dropped out. Clark is also very popular in Florida. Arkansas is a given. Edwards did much better in Missouri, but Clark equally so in Arizona. And in North Dakota (which I am told by Repub friends there could swing blue, as hard as that is to believe). I like Gephardt, but I'm not sure he could bring in Missouri. Same for Graham in Florida. And neither is exactly Mr Personality. Either Clark or Edwards is far more charismatic.

My opinion on Clark as a campaigner is that his faults lay almost completely in how he put together and managed his campaign staff, not his ability in campaigning as a candidate. He's an extremely articulate guy, and really does connect with people. Much better, imo, at handling the hardball stuff that the GOP is gonna spring on the campaign, esp if we do get the "October surprise" with Osama or Iraq or North Korea or something else who knows where. Remember, when Saddam was caught, it was Clark whom all the media people went to immediately, even tho he was at the Hague at the time.

As for the flaws in Clark's campaign management, much of it couldn't be helped: starting late, getting the left-overs so to speak, and not having much time to interact with and oversee them because of the compressed primary schedule. At least some was his inexperience too, I'm sure: accepting bad advice because of not having the background to distinguish.

But none of that would be a factor now, because Kerry's campaign will be running the show, and the only part of Clark's campaign to be brought in--being brought in now--is the grassroots/internet/fund-raising presence, which was always pretty strong. He raised a helluva lot of money in less than 5 months--more than Kerry, iirc, and more than anybody in January. I suppose how effectively he speaks and raises funds for Kerry now may determine the final judgment on this one.

I would really worry about Edwards in a debate with Chaney. Oh, Edwards is smart, and articulate, but he just doesn't have much background knowledge in foreign affairs, Chaney's strong suit. A gaff like not knowing who Begin was, or flubbing another Islam question could be disasterous, and you can count on Chaney (and Rove) doing everything they can to make foreign policy the centerpiece of a Chaney-Edwards debate.

Clark had his own debate problems too, but mostly by the format and having to spend his small share of the time answering stupid questions like whether he was "really a Republican" and "why did you allow Michael Moore to say..." Whenever he was asked about issues, he did very well indeed and, one-on-one against Chaney, he will as you say, kick ass.

[zulchzulu]

9. Clark might be better VP during the election, but...

I think Clark would go nuts as VP. He'd be better as Sec. of Defense.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Everybody at once,,, 1, 2, 3...

Clark can't be Secretary of Defense.

By law, he is not eligible until he's been retired for 10 years. 2010.

I am personally convinced he would not be confirmed by the Repub Senate in any significant cabinet post, but that's another issue.

[Nashyra]

11. Foreign policy and National Security

They can't touch him, plus his resume is a walking political ad compared to Cheney's without help from "legacy". They can use his experience of negotiating a peace treaty and the fact that he got a "monster" without losing a single American soldier. He can make the case for an exit strategy in Iraq that the voters would believe. He's just more marketable to those who have not been as exposed to the political process yet. Many people don't pay attention until the GE. He can also be very helpful explaining when they bring out the October surprise on why even though "they have caught Osama" were still more vunerable and there is more terrorism by taking so long. But then again I am prejudiced towards this candidate. I have seen him speak, I have talked with him, I've seen how he treated my Korean Veteran father, how he interacted with my college son, I've met and talked with his son and wife and their passion is something I've not seen before. I picked him because I have a draft age son and I could trust this person to keep this country safe and not have to have a draft because of his foreign policy experience. Sorry if this post was too long.

[Jai4WKC08]

12. What do you mean?

Why do you say "they can't touch him"? You mean the Repub Senate? Have you been paying attention for the last 10 years?

Obviously Clark is extremely qualified to be Secretary of State. Unbelievably so. That won't stop the Republicans.

[Nashyra]

13. I'm sorry

your right. What I mean by not being able to "touch him" is that they will only be able to use his foreign policy which is 10 fold better than the current administration. He has no voting record, which is not neccessarily a bad thing. I guess it should be that he would have a very "teflon" shield when it comes to trying to paint him as weak on defense or foreign policy which is what I started my post with. Aslo I really don't think the sarcastic remark about having been paying attention for the last 10 years was necessary. Obviously from the amount of my posts I am a regular here, and the context of my post also shows that I am extremely involved.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Sorry about the snide remark

I really didn't mean to be sarcastic. And I know you're a regular--much more than I was, esp in the Jan-Feb time frame.

My line of thought was on the many challenges to Clinton cabinet nominees, esp Bobby Inman who was a retired military officer (4-star admiral) and long-time intelligence/foreign affairs expert, even in the Reagan administration. When Clinton nominated him for Sec of Defense, the Repubs dredged up some bs about his business dealings. It was a huge embarrassement to Inman, even tho nothing was or could be proven--I seriously doubt there was anything there.

I truly believe the Repubs will target at least one of Kerry's key cabinet appointments--as payback for Ashcroft, or just to show they can--and if Clark's name is submitted, he would be the one.

Anyone can have dirt spread, and it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. We've certainly seen the bs about Clark coming from the Rove machine already.

[Nashyra]

15. Thanks

I had forgotten about Bobby Inman, and I do agree with some here that Clark would make a great SOS but I think the Repukes would make it all but impossible to get him thru, that's why i think he would do better if he was judged by the "voters" as VP