I could get excited about either Clark or Edwards as VP, but. . .

[wndycty]

. . .I would prefer Clark as Secretary of State or Secretary of Homeland Security (thanks dogman! who mentioned it to me) and Edwards as Attorney General. One cannot under estimate the excitement either one of them would bring to the ticket (hell if Clark got the nod for VP I would love it). But from a practical governing standpoint I think both would make a much bigger impact as members of the cabinet, not VP. Your thoughts?

[BootinUp]

1. I think many Clark supporters

would agree, only thing that worries us, would the Senate block his confirmation...sorta a revenge thing for ripping Bush apart so handily.

[wndycty]

2. Let them try it. . .

. . .both Clark and Edwards would have so much popular support that any Senator who would block his confirmation would be in major trouble. It would be very, very petty.

[Sparkly]

4. I just want the General to have the respect

he deserves. Period.

I think this topic has been explored quite a lot already. It seems to end up ugly -- more than a few people here seem downright hostile toward Clark.

I know some don't think he's the right choice for VP -- fine. Personally, I think Edwards is the weakest choice of any of the likely picks. In reality, chances are it won't be either one of them.

I'm not calling Edwards names or digging RNC-driven mud from his past; I just wish everybody would give Clark the same level of respect. The man has done a lot for his country and our party.

[Darkamber]

17. I respect Clark

Look, I'm an Edwards supporter and I respect Clark. I truly hope he does get a position on the cabinet. And I hope that Edwards get something as well. Both Edwards and Clark support Kerry and that is we all need to focus on. What is the same and not the differences.

Both Clark and Edwards have supporters who view different things to be important. Clark on Foreign affairs and military matters. He's brilliant there. Edwards on domestic affairs and his ability to win over people in an argument..his lawyer background.

It would be a shame if the Democratic party lost either one of them.
Edwards is not going back to his Senate seat and Gov. is not an option.

Whoever the choice of VP is, I hope that both Edwards and Clark will be included.

[BootinUp]

5. Well

it would be a matter of how dirty they wanted to play. You might be right, on the other hand, is it a fight Kerry would want to take on right away?

[tameszu]

16. Clark wouldn't have a problem getting confirmed

McCain would have his back on the Senate Repub side, and I think he would pull in all of the moderate Repubs too. I also can't see many Dems defecting from his confirmation...plus, his chances are far improved since he put himself through the wringer of running for the presidential nomination, since a lot of the dirt on him has already come out, and there's little that would be a sticking point in a Senate confirmation.

[edzontar]

3. Either way--makes no diff to me.

nt

[KittyWampus]

6. Hey Wyndy! Gloria Mentioned Something That Gave Me Perspective

Clark most likely doesn't really care about being VP. This is in contrast with Edwards

Like the proverbial cat, he'll end up on his feet... with lots of fans and supporters cheering him on! Something he wouldn't have had if he never ran for office.

While Clark is very well qualified and suited for VP, National Security Advisor or the other cabinet positions you mentioned... I wonder whether the Democratic Party under Kerry is really smart enough to utilize the EXCELLENCE that is Wesley Clark.

I am hoping that Kerry will be able to brand the Party with some new energy and change the spin a bit. Democrats need new blood.

We also need to kill off the "soft on defence" crap.

And the COUNTRY needs to hear Clark's stump speech.

Republicans give empty TALK when it comes to Family Values and Spirituality.

Democrats LIVE AND BREATH these things.

[xultar]

7. a BIG FAT HELL NO 2 Edwards as VeeP, AG, or Anything...

I don't like him.

[GreenArrow]

8. well...

I don't like him either, not one little bit, but I'm afraid he'll get something. I doubt it'll be VP. Id rather he go back into private practice, and maybe pick up a few pro bono cases along the way, but we'll be stuck with him.

[wndycty]

9. Its not about personal preference

Its about the best ticket, the best cabinet. We need something for everyone to win the election and we also need to assemble the best cabinet so that should we win, we can literally turn this country around.

[DemDogs]

10. What? A Clark supporter doesn't like Edwards? Imagine that. (n/t)

[wndycty]

11. Hey kids, Clark supporters and Edwards supporters GROW UP!!!

We are all on the same DAMN TEAM! No one on this board can quesiton my loyalty to Wes Clark, but my loyalty to myself, my family and my country is much larger. Its time for all DEMOCRATS to put their petty issue behind themselves and rally round the nominee, his eventual nominee and his eventual cabinet. As Clark supporter I am calling on all my brothers and sisters on DU to stand up for the ticket, Gen. Clark would want it that way. We have nothing to gain by battling at this time, we just need to help the party win!

[BootinUp]

12. I second that -eom-

[citizen snips]

25. Except for me.

Because I am not an adult.

Ok I will be serious I will not make a baseless attack against Clark unless Edwards is being attacked.

[Toucano]

13. I have a tiny bit of hope

that Clark will be the VP nominee.

Ask yourself these questions.

Since dropping out of the race, who has campaigned more vigorously and enthusiastically for Senator Kerry than Clark? Gephardt? Graham? Lieberman? Edwards? Maybe it's a little unfair because they all have JOBS (LOL), but there's no denying that Clark is doing the right thing during his unemployment.

If John Kerry should (Heaven forbid) die in the first 100 days, who would you want to take over? President Evan Bayh? Please! No way is he ready to be president. President Graham? Better, but not exactly an exciting and energetic guy.

Edwards brings a lot of positive energy to the campaign, and I can certainly make a good case for choosing him. But with presidential succession being the chief qualification for VP in voters' minds, it would make a lot of sense for Kerry to choose Clark. And a lot of sense for Clark to accept.

[katieforeman]

15. commander and chief is no the only role of the President

The President also has to get his agenda through Congress. Edwards has 5 years experience in the Senate and good relationships on both sides of the aisle. Clark is used to giving orders. That's not how Congress works.

The President also has to persuade people to buy into his vision for the country if he is going to accomplish anything. Edwards is the most qualified vp under consideration to make effective use of the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

Of course domestic issues are important. Edwards has more experience here.

Political skills and experience are also important. Again Edwards is the best vp under consideration for this job. Clark is still relatively new to politics and is still learning the game.

Although Edwards does not have as much foreign policy experience as Clark, Edwards does have more fp experience than Reagan, Clinton, or Carter when they were elected President. He has travelled to Afghanistan and met with leaders in one of the most dangerous parts of the world. He has been a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His personal style would also go a long way toward patching up some of the damage done to the relationships with our allies doen by GW Buash.

Furthermore, before Edwards dropped out of the primary, he was beating Bush in national polls by about 10 percentage points, about the same margin as Kerry at the time. This would not be the case if the American people didn't think he was qualified.

[Toucano]

18. As I said

I could make a strong case for choosing Edwards. You've brilliantly done that for me!

The only liability Edwards has comes from the primary campaign. Once Edwards had the two-man race he wanted, it was his obligation to distinguish himself from John Kerry. That meant emphasizing subtle differences in their views, particularly on trade. It might be a little less than pretty to hear John Edwards swallow those words now. Not impossible, mind you, just difficult to listen to. Imagine the press saying, "In February you said John Kerry was wrong about ________. Do you now agree with him?" Then they condemn him regardless of his answer.

I'll admit though, that if anyone can do it, Sen. Edwards can. He is a gifted speaker. Besides, the VP doesn't have to be the president's mini-me.

There are still many lingering misconceptions about the role of a General. During the Bosnian conflict, I assure you, General Clark was not issuing orders to his French, British, and other national couterparts. He was pursuading them that the course of action he was advocating was the correct course of action. A much more diplomatic and political role than is commonly asserted.

If you've seen the first round of Bush-Cheney ads, you will observe that they do intend to run on terrorism, national security, and the war. Extra credibility in those areas can only help us because John Kerry will have no chance to implement our domestic agenda if we don't win.

If he chooses John Edwards, you won't hear a complaint out of me though.

[katieforeman]

24. see post #22. I posted my reply in the wrong place. sorry.

[katieforeman]

14. From practical governing standpoint-Edwards would be great vp

Edwards already has more foreign policy experience than Clinton, Reagan, or Carter when they were elected. He also has five years experience in the Senate and is well-respected on both sides of the isle.

The general electorate thinks Edwards is up to the task. Edwards was beating Bush by about 10 points in national polls before he dropped out of the primary- about the same margin as Kerry at the time.

Also, governing is more than technical expertise. It's also about making effective use of the bully-pulpit of the presidency and convincing others to follow where you lead. This means articulating a coherent vision of where we are going as a nation. Edwards has demonstrated extraordinary talent here. He would be of tremendous help to Kerry in framing his agenda, articulating it to the American people and pushing it through Congress.

Furthermore, the vp is where we groom our next presidential nominee. We don't want to have 8 years of Kerry accomplishments undone by a Jeb Bush victory in 2012. Edwards would be the perfect candidate for president with some vp experience under his belt, and our best bet of retaining power once Kerry's time is up.

I really can't think of a better candidate than Edwards.

[LandOLincoln]

19. Perhaps Edwards does have "more foreign policy experience than

Clinton, Reagan, or Carter..." but those men all ran pre-9/11 and pre-Afghanistan and Iraq.

Kerry has way more foreign policy/national security experience than Clinton, Reagan, Carter or Edwards, but he still comes out a poor second to * when the public is polled on those issues, and Edwards as VP would do nothing to change that perception.

[katieforeman]

20. What about the other roles of a President I mentioned?

Do they matter at all? And how is Clark better qualified than Edwards?

[LandOLincoln]

21. No, they don't matter at all if we don't win the %$# election first.

And for a man who managed to hold together the very fractious NATO coalition and fight a successful war at the same time, dealing with the Congress will be a cakewalk.

[katieforeman]

23. This post was about governing, but if you want to talk electability....

The main line of attack against Kerry on security will not be that Kerry lacks experience or that kerry didn't serve. It will be that Kerry flip-flops and can't make the tough decisions.

Clark and Kerry took different positions on the war . This hurts Kerry's credibility. Furthermore, that video of Clark praising Bush and his administration hurts Kerry/Clark's credibility when they attack Bush' policies.

Edwards and Kerry had virtually identical positions on the war. They can present a unified argument for that position.

-Edwards is the best campaigner in the party today, and he is a very disciplined candidate who stays on message.

-Edwards has demonstrated appeal to moderates in independents in states like WI. As I mentioned before, Edwards was beating Bush by about 10 points in national polls, about the same margin as Kerry. Terrorism and the war were issues at that time, but voters still trusted Edwards.

[katieforeman]

22. You make a good point about Clark's role in Nato

involving politics and diplomacy, not just military affairs.

However, I don't think Clark helps us as much on national security as some people think. The main line of attack against Kerry on security will not be that Kerry lacks experience or that Kerry didn't serve in the military. It will be that Kerry flip-flops and can't be trusted to make the tough decisions.

Clark said he would have voted against the IWR in it's final form becuase it gave Bush a "blank check." Kerry, of course, signed that "blank check" when he voted for the resolution. The only way to reconcile these two positions is for one of them to admit they made a mistake. This hurts Kerry's credibility on national security.

I also think that the video of Clark praising Bush and his team will hurt Kerry/Clark's credibility on any attacks they make against Bush on security matters. It also gives the Republicans more ammunition for their attacks against Kerry as someone who doesn't really have strong core beliefs.

Although I think Clark was right about the war, I think the fact that his position differed from Kerry's hurts us. Kerry/ Edwards on the other hand voted the same way on most of the major votes. This allows them to prevent a unified front against Bush on security matters. I also think Edwards relaitive youth and inexperience highlights Kerry's gravitas and experience.

But Clark and Edwards are both fine men who would be a hell of a lot better than Cheney.

[surfermaw]

27. Are there republicans coming to this board to start trouble

Better think about it, after all some say one of the candidates was put in by republicans...get off the VP crap and get to the issues..

[dogman]

26. My 2 cents

This is pasted from another thread on this subject. This isn't gospel, it's just my opinion. wndycty is correct we are in this together to get B*** out. Edwards,Clark,Dean Gephardt,Graham and Braun have all committed to this. VP will be decided by Kerry and that will be it. Anyone who is willing to settle for B*** is beyond help. Edwards has a lot to learn before he will be ready to lead. I don't care for him as VP pick because I feel he will hurt our chances. I could be wrong and that is for Kerry to decide. I think under present circumstances Clark would be a good choice but not the only one. I would prefer to see him as Director of Homeland Security because I think it suits his many talents and has not been developed properly under B***. Since it requires organizational skills, interpreting intelligence, diplomacy with the Governors of 50 states and is a cabinet position in the security discussions Clark would be perfect. It requires relations with our neighbors and allies and is the largest bureaucracy in the Gov't. I think the country would be better in Clark's hands than what we have now. If Edwards can help Kerry get B*** out that is what is most important.