Fourth of July VP Announcement of General Clark?

[cosmokramer]

Juan Williams of NPR said on the Chris Wallace show tonight that the feel in Washington is that the v.p. choice is down to just Clark and Edwards; with Clark being the more likely choice.

The feeling is this would be announced on the 4th of July.

Watch Chris Wallace Show website for transcript of NPR's Juan Williams' remarks.

[Catch22Dem]

1. I've actually talked myself out of wanting this...

Hear me out...

After reading more and more of Clark's writings, my greatest fear is that his superior talents would go to waste in the VP slot. He has a more firm grasp of foreign policy and international relations and world history than ANYONE in Washington today or in recent memory. I don't think VP is good enough for him or for us. I say Sec State.

[LittleApple81]

5. I really like the guy. I hope he is connected to Kerry's (hopefully)

government where his skills are best used.

[cosmokramer]

8. I feel differently for a number of reasons...

...most of which is that the VP can be anything the president wants it to be. He has superior talents that CAN be used in the VP spot...he can change the expectation of a VP and set the bar very high for future administrations...isn't this what he has done all of his life (set the bar very high)?

[progdonkey]

11. SECDEF

I agree with you about Clark being too good to being relegated to the VP slot. I think he'd actually be better as the Secretary of Defense, for obvious reasons. I'm an Edwards for VP person, because he would help Kerry in the South (as would Clark), but he wouldn't overshadow Kerry, nor would he be a wasted four-star general.

I don't know if it's realistic, but I think a good play for Kerry is to promise the VP slot to Edwards and publicly promise the SECDEF slot to Clark. That way, Kerry would get Clark supporters on board since they'd know he'd be part of the Cabinet, if not VP.

He would definitely be excellent as Secretary of State, but I think he'd be even better as Secretary of Defense.

[cosmokramer]

14. Fercrippesake, how many times do we have to tell folks that ...

...CLARK CANNOT BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE!!!!

There is a ten years out-of-military requirement for that position. General Clark retired in 2000. He can't have that job.

I think someone has posted this almost every day...

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I'm about ready

to make it a part of my sig line.:D

[cosmokramer]

19. Me too! It is very, very frustrating...

:dunce:

[Kahuna]

17. LOL! I think they just say it to tweek you.

Needless to say, you will have to keep repeating this until Kerry actually selects a SecDef when he's president.

[cosmokramer]

29. Let's pray he DOES become President...

...I can't live through another Bush Regime...I just can't. If Kerry doesn't win, call me a Tuscan migrant worker who survives by picking grapes in the orchards of Greve in Chianti...

[progdonkey]

21. didn't know

I guess I must have missed all those posts. Thanks for pointing this out. Obviously, this would leave me with whole-heartedly agreeing with Clark being Secretary of State.

:dunce:

[cosmokramer]

26. It's okay...but I think I have carpel tunnel syndrome...

...heheheheh...from typing that so much! :)

Not that General Clark wouldn't be excellent in the SOS roll, but there are many other things to consider.

Typically, there are three major foreign policy positions: SOS, SecDef, and FP Advisor. Richard Holebrooke will be SOS. SecDef will be a retired General 10 years out. FP Advisor will be someone else. With Clark as VP, you essentially get FOUR major foreign policy experts, plus an amazingly adept intellect as VP.

Added: I hope to hell Kerry is smart enough to NOT choose Edwards. Why choose someone who doesn't help you with the areas where you most need hlep? This election will be about the war, foreign policy, and national security--make no mistake about it. Edwards brings ZILCH to the table on this issue. He couldn't even effectively debate the issues on Hardball with Chris Matthews. He couldn't effectively debate the issue on the Sunday morning news programs. How in the world would he effectively debate Dick Cheney?

If Americans wanted a 'feel good' ticket, maybe Edwards would be the way to go. But that isn't what Americans want. They want to feel safe, secure, and unthreatened in the world. They don't like changing presidents in the middle of a war without a very convincing reason. A double barrelled Kerry/Clark will definitely do that--Two Bars & Four Stars vs. What Are The Three R's???

[Jai4WKC08]

33. Not only a fourth with FP expertise

But the experience and knowledge to make the other three work together, toward the same ends--Kerry's goals and policies. Clark is probably uniquely qualified in his understanding of the roles both State and Defense should play, how their needs and priorities sometimes conflict, and what's needed to resolve the conflicts. And I emphasize unique--no one else has anything close to his experience with both departments, by virtue of his having worked with Holbrooke and others in negotiating the Bosnia accord, by his work with Albright and her staff as SACEUR during the Kosovo War (and before in SOUTHCOM for that matter), and by having had to deal with SecDef Cohen who didn't support the policies of President Clinton.

This could prove especially important if, god forbid, Kerry picks a Repub as Sec of Defense. I'm still hoping he doesn't make that mistake, but after hearing him float McCain's name for the role (even if McCain turns it down), well, I dunno... he could go looking for another Repub. He obviously wants to appear to be building a bi-partisan team, and I suspect he sincerely intends to. We'll just have to see to what extent he's willing to go.

The traditional model, pre-Bush43, for FP/SC issues has been for the President to provide direct and usually general guidance to his cabinet members and then let them do their own thing, with the National Security Advisor to run the inside-the-beltway coordination piece. The VP played no significant part, and in fact was at one time not even a formal memeber of the NSC.

But the Nat'l Sec Advisor does not have the authority to direct any of the Secretaries, and only runs the working group of participating departmental deputies. I suppose he/she, as the President's advisor, could "tattle" to the President if there were a problem, but in practice it just doesn't work that way, not until there's a crisis. In fact, that was precisely one of the major failures between Aug 6 to Sept 11, 2001. The principles were doing their own things, and there was no one person with the wisdom and authority (or likely either) to focus their efforts on the imminent threat.

In peacetime, such a system may suffice. But not in time of war--that much became clear in Kosovo, and I believe Kerry was close enough, and smart enough, to see how it failed.

It seems pretty clear to me that Kerry wants his VP to take an expanded role in directing the routine function of the Nat'l Security Council. He has said as much. Of the names we've heard have been vetted, only Wes Clark is remotely qualified to take on the task, with the possible exception of Bob Graham. In the entire realm of possible selectees, I can't think of anyone as qualified as Clark, and very few who come close.

[dwilson]

35. Jamie Rubin needs to be Sec of State. He is so ready for

that job. Clark should be V.P; the SOS job is wasted on him IMO. I don't think Holbrook should be anywhere near the Kerry administration. I don't like the way he comports himself or something. That being said I don't think Kerry will pick Clark because the public seems to like Edwards better. Plus Clark misspoke a few times during the primaries (on late term abortion, not distancing himself from Michael Moore for example); and I think this hurt him in the eyes of some conservative Dem voters I've talked to.

[cosmokramer]

41. My goodness...

The public seems to like Edwards better? I totally disagree with you on that. Edwards is merely running on name recognition because he stayed in the primaries too late. Let the 'public' know about a four star General Rhodes Scholar who graduated first in his class at West Point is on the ticket, and see which potential candidate becomes more popular with the 'public' against the Bush Regime...

Who the hell in this country pays attention to the early Dem primaries other than the 20% of die-hard dems who actually vote in them? No one. Clark exited in early February--no one knows who he is. So to contend he hurt himself, or that the public 'likes' Edwards better for VP is ridiculous and totally unsubstantiated.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. Agree about Rubin, but it won't happen

Jamie Rubin is a real star, and I hope he gets an important position in the Kerry administration, but I think Holbrooke has the lock of SecState. 'Course, could be wrong. But I can't see Holbrooke taking anything less, esp not with Rubin at the head. They get along fine, but Rubin is WAY more junior, and among career foreign service folks, that's bound to be a factor MAYBE Holbrooke could be Nat'l Sec Adv, but I think Beers is more likely.

But I have to agree with Cosmo that Edwards' so-called popularity is all just a matter of name recognition. Most people still don't know who Clark is. Fewer still when the pollsters don't put General in front of his name, as frequently happens in polls.

And I do NOT agree that Clark "mispoke" by accepting Moore's endorsement. Did it hurt him with moderates? Sure. But remember the following:

1) Clark was being forced, unfairly imo, to "prove" himself to be a real Democrat (thanks to some of the other candidates);

2) Moore was right and Jennings, Russert etal were WAY out of line;

3) To think that Clark could ever dissassociate himself from Moore's statement is to misunderstand one of the basic premises of his campaign. As he told Norville on MSNBC the night he withdrew:

CLARK: ...(Some) people said, “Why didn‘t you disavow what Michael Moore said about President Bush‘s military record?” Well, because Michael Moore had every right to say it. And look at what‘s happened now. People are taking it a serious look at it. Michael Moore did that; he spoke out about it. I‘m not saying that‘s an important issue to me, but he had the right to raise that issue.

NORVILLE: I think some people thought that maybe you should have, if not put your arms around it, but ameliorated the comment, because it looked as though you endorsed it by not saying anything.

CLARK: Well, you know, people may think that. But those are people who are used to--those are political insiders. People who really understand what I stand for would know, I had nothing to do with what Michael Moore said. And more than that, he‘s a shock comedian of the left. And what‘s happened in this country, that I find so devastating for American democracy is that over the last 10 years, there‘s dozens of shock comedians on the right. They say everything in the world. And one of them was even, you know, was even taken with using drugs and so forth and got commendations from the presidents of the United States. And if you look at everything he‘s said, the things he‘s said have been actually outrageous and far more outrageous than what Michael Moore was suggesting. So I think there has to be balance. And one of the reasons I ran is to try to restore that balance, to try to show that the armed forces doesn‘t belong to just a single American party. To show that one party doesn‘t have a monopoly on people who believe in God. And to show that people have the right to express their opinions, not only on the right wing, but on the left.

I might agree with you on the abortion comments, altho I think they were made more in frustration with a badgering reporter rather than a case of mispeaking. And, considering when they occurred, I don't see that they mattered much.

I don't think either will hurt him now, and Moore's comments may actually help. Without them, the issue might never have been raised at all, and there's no doubt that what came out about Bush's NG non-record has helped with swing voters.

As someone here said (Scoopie? Cosmo?), Clark took a bullet for the party, and I think most Democrats who followed what was going on, Kerry for sure, know it. Kerry WANTS Clark to say the things he's not in a position to say himself, and he knows Clark has the guts to do it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. hehe....you sound like a broken record!

LOL! CLARK CANNOT BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE!!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Unfortunately,

Clark cannot serve as Secretary of Defense, since you need to have been a civilian for at least ten years to qualify for that position.

I think he would make an excellent Secretary of State, but my greatest preference would still be VP.

As has been pointed out, VP can be anything that the Pres and VP decide to make it, and Clark could probably use all of his skills to greatest advantage in that position.

I also admit to wanting him in position to run for president in 2012. I do not think he will be to old at that point, and VP is usually a springboard to presidential candidate.

I'm sure the Edwards supporters are thinking the same thing.

[cyn2]

34. Clark can't be Sec of Def

Must be out of the service to 10 years. Perhaps Sec of State? or NSA? Though my preference for Clark is VP.

[RafterMan]

23. Let me talk you back into it

It's going to take a ton of hands-on diplomacy to repair America's position in the world. Choosing Clark for VP and Holbrooke for State gives Kerry two prestige pieces (who work well together and seem to be in broad agreement with his own views) to move around the world as needed. I'd love to see at least one of them travelling at all times.

Kerry can't go himself without opening himself to the humiliation of protests and flag burning wherever he goes, and the other travelling positions -- CIA, Defense, NSA -- are Imperial offices and send the wrong message these days. A deployable VP opens up a lot of possibilities.

Kerry/Clark/Holbrooke. Think about it.

[Dinger]

25. The problem with that is . . .

He'll have to wait till 2020 to run for President. (I'm presuming Kerry will win, and Kerry's VP will run in 2012.) I am sick at the thought of this country rejecting a national treasure like Wesley Clark. I really hope that doesn't happen.

[cosmokramer]

27. Don't think you have anything to worry about.

If NPR's Williams is correct that the announcement will be on the Fourth of July, there is no doubt in my mind that the choice is General Clark. Otherwise, a July 4th announcement makes no sense whatsoever.

[dogman]

2. That would be a bang-up Fourth of July!

It would sure be a step away from this McCain crap.

[cosmokramer]

13. It would be incredible!

To literally STEAL THE SHOW away from the Preznit on the Fourth of July with the announcement that a FOUR STAR General is going to be your VP?

It's fuc_ing BRILLIANT!

[Scoopie]

36. And talk about some fireworks!!!

I'd be so happy, I wouldn't have to look up at any sky to see them - they'd bee going off in my heart! :)

[cosmokramer]

53. Me too!

[troublemaker]

3. July 4th doesn't make much sense

Probably the lowest news viewing day of the year

[cosmokramer]

7. Perhaps...

...but the story would run with the fireworks images of NY and LA...

...and it would underscore, ESPECIALLY if it is indeed Clark, the 'patriotic' ticket of Kerry/Clark.

[louis c]

4. I Like Clark

I will support any ticket. Clark gives us the added advantage of having two war heroes at the top of our ticket in a time of war. The other side has the two draft dodgers. Makes for an interesting debate, doesn't it?

[cosmokramer]

28. Makes for a killer debate...

...it would be like the freshman history students (Bush/Cheney) trying to tell the tenured professors (Kerry/Clark) that they, in all their combined 70 years of experience in History, are wrong. Then the professors get to flunk them out of college!

There is something beautiful in Dick Cheney having to address his VP opponent as "General"....tee hee

:bounce:

[JI7]

6. 4th of July is a horrible date. nobody will be home to watch or care

most will be with family or friends partying or something else. they aren't going to be home watching tv for political news.

[cosmokramer]

9. But the story will run with the images of NY & LA night skies...

...and will run for days thereafter. The date of announcement being the fourth would definitely be huge if the theme is Kerry/Clark and American Freedom and Security. Two heroes vs. two zeros on the Fourth of July.

Let the image run with the nightime firework views...

[cosmokramer]

10. by the way...really nice picture of Kerry!

[dogman]

12. It's as good a day as any.

It would be a great day if the choice were Clark because of the patriotic angle. People will find out as they come back to the news from the weekend. No matter what you plan there is no guarantee Bush wont pull a rabbit out of the hat or some major event will break anyway.

[cosmokramer]

31. I think it would be a good thing...

...to have the lead story be the VP announcement...it would play just before the show of fireworks on all the major networks.

[cosmokramer]

32. Do you have a link to that photo of Kerry...

...it is a really great photo...

[elcondor]

42. To get a direct link

of any image, you simply have to right click on the picture, drag your mouse down to "properties" and click on it. In the box that pops up, an address should appear that will directly take you to the photo.

On-topic: I would love it if Clark would be Kerry's VP nominee! It would (almost) be as good as voting for Gore for the top spot. (Yes, I'm still carrying that torch. ;-) ) I know it's selfish of me, but I want at least one person on the ticket that I can enthusiastically support. I will work and vote for Kerry, but it's not the whole-hearted support I gave to Gore and Clark.

As to the July 4th date--it's a bit obvious, but why not? I don't see many more people staying home to watch political news July 5th vs July 4th. And like other's have said, it will run in the news cycle beyond July 4th, but still be reported as announced on the fourth.

[cosmokramer]

49. Great! Thanks for the tip on the photo...

...I think it is a very good thing to reinforce the 'service' aspect of a Kerry/Clark ticket by announcing on the fourth. It will be a news item for DAYS, and steals lots of thunder from the Preznit.

[salonghorn70]

18. I Can See It Now

Kerry announces Clark on the 4th of July and they immediately go and march in a 4th of July parade. Flags are flying. Patriotism. Love of Country. Kerry is talking about "can-do" Americans. Clark is talking about Kerry's courage under fire.

[cosmokramer]

20. B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L

[DemocraticEnigma]

22. Is the transcript out yet?

By Chris wallace show do you mean fox news sunday?

[cosmokramer]

30. Can't find it yet...

...yes, the Chris Wallace Show is a Fox Sunday program (puke), however the remarks were made by NPR' Williams--he was the only person to comment on the matter.

[fujiyama]

24. Can't say I'd have a problem

with that :D

Clark as VP would be very cool!

I'd be very happy with him or Edwards...I'd be ok with Graham as well...I'd be dissapointed if Gep were picked (though he's a decent guy)...don't know enough about Vilsack, but don't see what he gets Kerry over Edwards or Clark.

[dwilson]

37. Sen Graham would make an awesome V.P. I would be

very happy with that choice as much as Clark. Graham makes me feel safe, while I greatly admire the general.

[West Coast Democrat]

38. I can't wait any longer!!

Announce him now!

[cosmokramer]

54. All good things come to those who wait :-)

[Jai4WKC08]

39. Not sure where I read it

But somewhere it was reported that Kerry has notified those on his short list to keep their schedules open in the next week or two, in case he wants to meet with them. The same article mentioned that Kerry is already scheduled to meet with Clark after a Kerry fundraiser in the coming week.

Well, folks, we know Clark is involved in a high-dollar Kerry fundraiser in DC on the 17th. Kerry lives in DC. This could be it.

Doesn't the presidential nominee usually meet with his first choice first? Wouldn't he almost have to? On the off chance he might be turned down? Even if it has been a done deal for a while, he'd have to keep up appearances, so the others wouldn't think he had been jerking 'em around. Of course, if he'd totally eliminated someone from consideration, regardless of whether his first choice accepts, he could meet with that individual first and no harm done. Not saying either is the case--just speculating.

[cosmokramer]

40. he definitely would meet with his first choice first...

...because you wouldn't want those who are turned down to leak that they were not selected or who is being selected.

[MontecitoDem]

44. I too hope Clark is chosen but

any of these guys know better than to leak the information - they are all interested in the same goal and I trust will support Kerry regardless! You can bet Clark would never leak anything unless asked to do so by Kerry.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. Clark is the more likely choice.

Oh that sounds GOOD!!!! I will be on vacation on the 4th of July. WHERE do you suppose they will announce this? I'll be on the East coast so, a Boston announcement would be SWEEEEEEET!

Go Wes! :bounce:

[cosmokramer]

56. I hope to hell you are there...

...my God, you deserve it!

[grannyfran]

47. OH, YEAH!

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS -- ELECT TWO OF THEM!
KERRY/CLARK 2004

[ewagner]

48. I like that slogan

If it comes to pass, I'll have it out in my front yard!

[cosmokramer]

57. One of my favs is...

...


Two Bars and Four Stars


vs.


What Are the Three R's?


:bounce:

[Gloria]

50. I have been channeling a 4th of July announcement in Boston at

the U.S.S. Constitution, aka "Old Ironsides" for the last 3 months.....Kerry, Navy, protecting the Constitution (Clark's passion).....

Be still my heart..............

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. Gloria....I hope your channeling works.

I'll be in Boston on July 4.....I would DIE if I actually got to see Kerry announce Wes Clark as his VP. Puhleeeeeeeze let this happen!:bounce:

[cosmokramer]

55. And you would be the envy of all of us!

:toast:

[cosmokramer]

51. UPDATE...ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=548087&mesg_id=548087

[funky_bug]

60. More coincidence?

Charles Rangel is holding a fundraiser in NYC on June 28th...

"Please join Charles B. Rangel for a Four Star Salute to General Wesley K. Clark."

Hmmm... big fundraiser in Clark's honor, RIGHT before the July 4 weekend...

[brooklynite]

58. Clark, Maybe...July 4th, never

As dramatic as that might be, it would be lept on by the GOP as "sullying" the nation's grand holiday for cheap political gain.

If Kerry wouldn't campaign during the Reagan funeral dirge (even if Bush Jr. could squeeze a golf game in, and Bush Sr. could plan a birthday party)he won't use the holiday for his announcment.

[WI_DEM]

59. I think it will be Gep

or Vilsack.

[Eurobabe]

61. omiFREAKINGgod!!!

[cosmokramer]

62. So what do you really think, Crozet?

:toast: