Kerry Can't Afford to give the GOP and Media Any Ammunition

[deminflorida]

to use against him in November.

If he chooses Edwards,

1. He will not have chosen someone the general public can be certain has the foreign policy experience to take over as President.

2. He will have chosen another Senator that was possibly tricked just like himself into voting for the current disaster in Iraq.

3. He will put a trial lawyer on the ticket, not matter how honest a trial lawyer...the guy is still a trial lawyer and the GOP will paint the guy as part of the problem with the high cost of medical care due to malpractice laws in this country.

4. Money will be an issue, the media is already going to town over Kerry's (Vacation-Place-of-the-Rich-and-Famous) visit this weekend. Edwards has quite a bit of money too and the media will start to ask the questions about how these Super-Rich Senators are supposed to really relate to common middle-class Americans.

5. Better hope the media doesn't take a good look at Edward's big Drug Company and Defense Contract investments...they're there folks for all the world to see.

6. Edwards can be easily tripped up on foreign policy issues....the media will come after him on this knowledge issue every chance they get. The Cheney-Edwards debate...better hope Cheney doesn't get Edwards into a discussion about military planning or foreign policy - a blast from the past: In 1988 V.P. Candidate Lloyd Bentsen during a televised debate with Dan Quayle, countered Quayle's seemingly innocent self-comparison to John F. Kennedy with the famous rebuttal, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Although the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket lost the election in a landslide, Bentsen's remark against Quayle arguably cast a political stigma on Quayle throughout his term as Vice President.

7. Edwards is popular with unions and common blue-collar workers, which are already in the Democratic Camp. Picking a running mate just because the perception is that he/or she would be popular with a particular type of voter is the same strategy that "Fritz" Mondale used in 1984 when he choose Geraldine Ferraro and we all know how that one turned out...

The fate of the party is at stake here....Kerry had better not blow this by giving the GOP additional ammo to use against him.

REMEMBER THE GOLDEN RULE: "Running mate may help Kerry, but at worst must not hobble him".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4625702/

[David Dunham]

1. Disagree completely. Edwards will add the most.

[deminflorida]

3. I agree with you...and the "MOST" is what I'm worried about...

:eyes:

[notbush]

2. I've posted about the VP candidates

in the last month or so, and it seems there's a pep rally for all candidates without regard to experience.
Can anyone here name a VP elected with less than 6 years of experience in an elected position? (I'm sure there are some).
To me, that knocks out Edwards and Clarke.
I remember how Quayle and Geraldine were whacked, and they BOTH had more experience than Edwards and Clarke.
I'm not saying they wouldn't be good candidates, I'm saying their lack of experience will be targeted.

[deminflorida]

4. There are other types of Experience rather than Elected....

there's coming up through the ranks experience as well, which is often times more valuable.

And it's spelled Clark, not Clarke...

That's the other guy the GOP and Media hate.

[notbush]

7. Sorry about the "e",

but you knew who I was refering to.

[wjsander]

10. Clark Media Correction!!!

Oh yeah, the Media hates Clark. Let's not forget:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=554616&mesg_id=554616

[Qutzupalotl]

55. Past tense or present tense?

;)

[AP]

16. Lincoln was elected president with only 2 years in the HOUSE, and it was

a decade before he ran for president. Two years before he was elected president he LOST a senate run.

Eisenhower had no poltical experience. Kennedy had been a Senator for one term when he decided to run (and a congressmen for a couple terms before that).

And what more experience do you think JRE needs to acquire?

Do you think he needs more conviction? Do you think he's not quite sure how a bill becomes a law?

Have you ever been told that you weren't qualified for something simply because you haven't put in enough time even though you know you can get the job done better than anyone else?

[venus]

35. Edwards or Gep, or Graham

would give Kerry the support from the Senators and Congressman, imo. Ted Kennedy will have a lot to say about his choice I bet. He wants an insider. If my theory is corretc, than I will wish wholeheartedly for Graham!

[napi21]

5. I don't know where this came from originally, but it's all wrong!

Edwards=no foreign policy experience. What did Cheney's experience get us?

Tricked like Kerry? So was the rest of the world! So we have a lot of good liars in this admin!

Trial lawyer...just may be someone who knows the system and its flaws enough to know how to fix it.

Money? Show me the senior Pub politician in this admin who doesn't have a LOY of money!

Drug Co. investments? Might give him and edge to change the status quo. Besides, which is better, the Drug Co. or oil Co. connections????

Tripped up on foreign policy questions? I think it would be difficult to trip Edwards on very much. All he has to ask Cheney is why do you keep contradicting yourself sir?

Popular woth unions? Edwards is not only popular with unions, but with the average voter. He does come across as a regular guy.

Golden Rule: Certainly, DO NO HARM! But the other part they are missing is that you always try to get a running mate who will compliment your shortcommings. Edwards is very charismatic, exubertan, friendly, and likeable. Most of the traits that same media say Kerry doesn't have.

If Kerry choses Edwards, all will be fine!

[notbush]

6. Just want you to think about it.....

I don't think Edwards is "ready for prime time".
Remember how Russert disemboweled him on a Sunday morning a few months ago?
Less than 6 years in the Senate as political experience WILL become an issue. I would bet you money on that.

[deminflorida]

9. "If Kerry choses Edwards, all will be fine!" And Other Famous

Last Words Like....

"Give me 80 men and I'll ride through the whole Sioux nation." -Fetterman, William J. (1833-1866), Captain U.S. Army.

After Capt. Fetterman stated this he set off to lead to an 80 man relief column which was to rescue a supply train pinned down by the Sioux not far from Fort Phil Kearney on Dec. 21, 1866. A second patrol sent out later in the day found the bodies of Fetterman and all 80 of his men stripped of their clothing and horribly mutilated.

[zulchzulu]

8. No matter who Kerry chooses, the Repugs will character assassinate...

There is no possible VP that doesn't have something that can be spun by the Bush shills as negative. They will attack whoever is chosen with whatever they can (lies not excluded).

Believe me, Karl Rove and the Repugs has a dossier on each possible VP candidate and are armed with talking points to pass off to their shills at a moment's notice.

You're spinning that Edwards would have a lot of baggage if he was VP. Name your candidate. I could give you bullet points on how that candidate would be bad too.

Although Edwards isn't my "total fave" as a possible VP, he polls very well. People would see past the negative Repug attacks. Add that most people don't really vote for VP anyway when it really gets down to it.

If the Repugs want to make the VP choice an issue, bring it on. Once the Bush/Cheney ticket is official, I'd bet there will be some ads on how Cheney is one corrupt SOB. On that issue, let's not attack Cheney too much yet. Wait until he's re-nominated and then throw down the gauntlet.

[deminflorida]

12. Rather than saying...that all VP candidates have something

that can be spun by the Bush shills as negative or anything else general like that..why don't you lay it out for discussion....

For example: Bob Graham, what negatives are they going to lay out on him?

Or Sam Nunn, what negative spin can they throw out there towards him?

lets count them...the pros and the cons....

This is not a damn beauty contest. The future of our country and the Democratic party is at stake.

Generalities won't get it.

[AP]

15. Bob Graham voted against IWR because it didnt' go far enough. He's old.

Sam Nunn? I look at him and I think of an old calendar. Graham and Nunn smell like yesterday.

That's what people will think of them.

[deminflorida]

26. Wonderful argument against two of the finest and most respected

statesmen in our party....

You just convinced me totally with that type of retrospect.

:eyes:

[AP]

39. You really don't think that's how voters will percieve them?

Really?

[deminflorida]

75. No, most voters are informed......

both of these statesmen are extemely respected on both sides of the isle in congress. Your post is an insult to their service to this party...which might I add combined is light years more than Edwards has served.

But keep going....your making great points for your guy....

[zulchzulu]

46. OK...

Bob Graham. Good man. But he's old. There were times during the debates where I thought he was having pre-Alzheimers flameouts.

Sam Nunn. Good man. A bit of a conservative though:

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

He's got good FP experience, but has the personality of a...ah...yawn. He never went far in his bids to run for President.

Actually it IS a beauty contest.


Bzzzt.



That has cabinet member written all over it. But not VP.

[MontecitoDem]

36. I was just going to say the same thing

it doesn't matter who gets picked in the sense that everyone has weak spots and those will be exploited. And everyone has strong points as well, and those will either be played up or ignored by the media. So let's not kid ourselves by pretending that either Clark or Edwards are bulletproof. They're not. No one is.

[Massacure]

11. Cheney didn't have foreign policy experience did he?

So why does it matter with Edwards?

[sadiesworld]

17. Does Secretary of Defense count?

[deminflorida]

18. Not to toot old Dick's horn...but you can get this info off the White

House Web-site....

"Cheney was Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Mr. Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history - Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. military in an age of profound and rapid change as the Cold War ended. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Secretary Cheney was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush on July 3, 1991."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/

So the answer to your question is YES he has vast foreign policy experience.

If it's a question and answer debate between Cheney and Edwards, conducted by the media...they will put Edwards to the test on issues concerning National Security and Forgein Policy - count on it, and they will do on National Television for all to see.

[Doosh]

13. So that's why we need a VP who praises Bush and votes Reagan?

and is nothing but a walking contradiction.

[deminflorida]

22. What's the difference between praising Bush at the beginning of

his presidency and officially voting in support of the him for an illegal war against a sovereign nation?

That's the question you need to answer for me, please.

[Doosh]

23. Wes Clark supported the war, and went to GOP fundraisers

then he contradicts himself, says he probably would've voted, says he would've never voted, says "I'm not sure"

[deminflorida]

27. Clark was not an elected official...Edwards was and his vote is

official congressional record. Argue that one.

[Doosh]

29. well that's the easy way out

no, clark is not an elected official, so he has no real track record, the guy could waver to whatever party he chooses and did just that. To me that's no excuse for being indecisive.

[deminflorida]

33. Is this indecisive???

"The Kosovo airfield incident

At the conclusion of his command in the Kosovo War, which followed the end of the military campaign, there was an incident involving Russia's use of an airfield in Kosovo. According to a BBC profile of the General, after a token Russian force took control of the Slatina airfield, near Pristina, on June 10, 1998, there was a "battle of wills" between Clark and the British NATO commander, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson. Clark ordered British forces to resist Russian troops that occupied the airfield. Jackson did not comply, reportedly later saying: "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."

Clark, in an NPR interview, said that the incident was a surprising moment for him. Clark indicated that his order to block the runways was refused by an emotional Jackson and that he took the matter up the British chain of command.

Despite Clark's claims, Jackson could not have obeyed the order without reference to the British Government. Otherwise, he would have been committing British troops to action against a non-belligerent power without the consent of the British Government. That would have been firmly against British constitutional law, and would have resulted in the dismissal of Jackson for gross insubordination. The situation would have analogous to the behaviour of US General of the Army Douglas MacArthur with respect to the People's Republic of China, during the Korean War.

Clark stated that General Sir Charles Guthrie, British Chief of the Defence Staff, agreed with Jackson. Guthrie, according to Clark, also told him that Hugh Shelton the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also agreed with him. Clark found this very surprising since the original suggestion to block the Russians came from Washington. Clark called the Pentagon, looking for support, and was told by Shelton: "We don't want a confrontation, but I do support you". Clark said that he told Shelton: "Then you've got a policy problem". Clark maintained in the NPR interview that the matter was a difference in the perception of the policy between the US administration and the British government. Clark believed he was carrying out the suggestions of the administration in Washington.

The Clinton administration later persuaded Hungary and Romania to deny Russia flight over their airspace, preventing the Russians from landing transport planes to reinforce their troops at Pristina. In July 1999, the Russians agreed to integrate their forces into NATO's operations."

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/w/we/wesley_clark.html#Biographical%20sketch

[MontecitoDem]

64. ..

:puke:

[AP]

14. Informed voters like Edwards the most.

If he puts Edwards on the ticket he will put on the ticket the person in the primaries whom voters could be most easily convinced to like. And that's despite all that stuff you listed.

In fact, I can't think of many politicians in America, including ones who didn't run for president, whom voters could be more easily convinced to like.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

[sadiesworld]

19. That study is irrelevant vis a vis Clark....

or any of the other potential VP candidates for that matter.

[AP]

20. All the candidates were included. Clark was included.

[AP]

21. February 2nd they were asking questions about Clark.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/odop/2004-question3.htm

The read ALL the candidates web sites, and were encouraged to discuss ALL the candidates' positions, and they asked experts questions about ALL the candidates.

I said it doesn't apply to non-candidate politicians, but I really can't think of anyone whom voters would like more than Edwards, Clark, Gephard, Dean or Kerry.

Who do you think people might like more?

[sadiesworld]

25. The final polling was completed just prior to Super Tuesday.

At that point Kerry and Edwards were the only two remaining "serious" candidates, and the decision was made to limit the results to just those two.

You may want to visit the Stanford University website and look at the actual study.

[AP]

28. It started on January 19th. It ran from Jan 19th to Feb 26th. Clark was

running during that time.

Have the link for Stanford?

[sadiesworld]

31. No, I don't have the link.

You are the one who continues to argue a point (that the study is relevant to Clark) which is not clear from the data available at the PBS site.

I think it is incumbent upon YOU to either prove your point, or quit making it.

[AP]

40. I proved my point, so I will continue making it.

[AP]

30. Found the link for the study. Reading it now.

http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2004/democraticideal.pdf

Care to summarize your understanding of the study?

[sadiesworld]

34. Read post #25.

[AP]

38. The decision wasn't "made to limit the study".

Clark is included in every table and discussed in detail throughout.

The study focuses on Dean, Clark, Shartpon, Kerry and Edwards.

It's Graham, Kucinich, Carlol MB, Gephardt and Lieberman about whom the study didn't collect enough information.

[AP]

37. They talk about Clark on p 11, 12, 15, 17-18, 28...the study is about him.

...there's a table on p. 15 which clearly shows he was incldued in the study.

Notice that Clark had the lowest opinionation ratings in the T2 Group participants (lower even than Sharpton for new participants -- but Sharpton was doing great in the debates, so that's understandable).

On that page, by the way, the study says that "the rate of learning for Edwards was spectacular and exceeded 100%" -- I don't know what it means, but it sounds great.

On page 17-18, the study says it's interested in evaluating whether "horse race" coverage gives a candidate like Kerry and Edwards a boost they wouldn't get if people were making decisions on other things, like the issues.

Then it calls Kerry & Edwards's rise, "meteoric". Despite Edwareds's substantial rise in the control group, his support increased still further in the treatment condidtion. It says Dean and Clark tended to drop in the control group (reflecting real world decline in their campaigns), but held on to most (but not all) of their support in the treatment group. That suggests that the treatment group -- where Edwards did incredibly well (Kerry only had a "marginally significant" change in his treatment group) -- seems to suggest that it wasn't just the media which influenced the informed voters, but candidate qualities.

The study says that the 'horse race" magnified support in the deliberative group, but deliberation stemmed losses (for dean and Clark).

They conclude that in a campaign which featured dialogue on the issues Kerry and Edwards whould have done even better, and that Clark and Dean might have held out for a little longer.

The study goes on to try to predict who would have won between Kerry and Edwards.

It talks about "trait perceptions" -- there's a table on p. 28 which includes Clark. Kerry and Edwards and the highest traight perceptions in the study group (.55 and .54) Dean and Clark had (.22 and .24). Sharpton hand -.10.

There's a nice conclusion on p.31 which says that deliberation created more informed voters who cared more about policy. It says winning early for Kerry and Edwards gave them a boost because they were percieived as strong November challengers. They say deliberation gave Dean and Clark cushions to stem losses.

The say ending on Feb 26th, when some campaigns were over meant that there final poll didn't give enough information about some candidates -- but they mention Lieberman at the end of that paragraph (who doesn't appear in any of the tables).

So, I'm not sure why you'd say that the study doens't say anything about Clark.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. You must have posted the wrong link

Clark's name isn't included in the entire document, and there are only 26 pages total, to include several pages of references and endnotes.

[sadiesworld]

44. Hm. 26 pages total?

See my post #42.

[sadiesworld]

42. Page 31:

"First, our posttest survey occurred just before Super Tuesday, after most of the candidates had dropped out or were mounting only token campaigns. The "serious" field had already been winnowed down to just Kerry and Edwards. Hence there was no opportunity to get an informed evaluation of the other candidates during the earlier period when many of them were taken more seriously."

I'm sorry that you feel you must engage in intellectual dishonesty in order to prop up your candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. OK, I'm confused

I opened the link AP cited in msg #30 and what I got was as I described.

http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2004/democraticideal.pdf

Have I missed something?

[sadiesworld]

48. Go to the Stanford site.

[AP]

51. And then they give Lieberman as an example.

Also, where are Gephard, Mosley-Braun and Graham, who all dropped out?

Don't you think they're referring to those candidates more than they are to Clark or even Dean, or Sharpton, for whom they have collected data and draw conclusions about.

However, if you want to know what is "intellectually dishonest", I'd take a look at your post claiming that Clark wasn't included in the study and they only looked at Kerry and Edwards.

[sadiesworld]

54. I should have said "results" not "study" in the original post.

But,of course, you knew what I meant. We have had this argument before and you have repeatedly asserted that the data contained on the PBS site proves that the study participants liked Edwards better than Clark. I maintained that the information was unclear on this point.

I have now pointed you in the direction of the actual study, proven that the results only applied to Kerry and Edwards (see #42), yet you continue to maintain an unsupportable position.

And pray tell, why did you leave the last part of the study out of your Stanford link? Could it be that you didn't want DUers to see the portion of the data that included the information contained in #42?

I misspoke. YOU are being misleading.

[AP]

56. You're crossing the line here.

The study does in fact conclulde that people liked Kerry and Edwards more than Dean, Clark and Sharpton.

The study does consider Clark (which you've repeatedly said it doesn't). Look at the tables. Look at the conclusion. They collected data on him. The draw conclusions about him and Dean.

What you're disputing is whether that conclusion is credible. You think that there was another study that might have concluded something different. The study does say that beginning on Jan 19 and ending on Feb 26 meant that people were probably influenced by the "horse race" factor, but it definitely doesn't say that the horse race factor was the only reason Clark didn't do well.

Read the study.

[sadiesworld]

57. "no opportunity to get an informed evaluation of the other candidates"

What part of that is unclear?

[AP]

58. They use Lieberman as the example at the end of that paragraph.

They have no data on Lieberman, Graham, Gephardt, Mosley-Braun and Kucinich. Four of them dropped out early & got no "horse race" coverage.

They have data on Clark and they draw conclusions about him. He's in every table. He's the second candidate mentioned by name in the text, and they make statements on his candidacy in the conclusion. They clearly had an opportunity to evaluate him.

Why would they draw conclusions about him if they had no opportunity to get an informed evaluation?

Don't you think they were talking about the candidates for whom they have no data and who dropped out of the horse race and out of the race altogether before Clark?

At the very least, this is just something that might make you think Dean and Clark would have done a little better if they had started earlier with the study. But it's no reason to think that he would have closed the gap significantly to Edwards, whose performance they described as meteoric.

After all, Clark was in a very clear horse race with Edwards in TN and VA on Feb 10, which was 2/3rds the way through the study.

Are you seriously claiming that Clark wasn't part of the study still?

[AP]

59. "during the earlier period when many of them were taken more seriously"

And what did that mean?

They tell you in the study what they thought that meant.

They don't say that it means that you can draw no conclusions about Clark, because they do in fact draw conclusions about Clark (and Dean).

They say that it left two candidates who were similar and therefore, not really having a policy option meant that policy differences didn't have as great an impact when chosing between those two.

Do you think that statement means something else?

[sadiesworld]

60. "...it left two candidates..."

"...when choosing between those two..."

You're making my point.

Why not just change your link to the correct one and people can judge for themselves?

[AP]

61. I want people to read the study so they can see that you're wrong.

http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/index.html

It's the top link.

That's the one I copied straight into my post. If it's not working, I don't know why. But there's the report. People should read it.

[sadiesworld]

65. It's the second link.

Surely, you realized that when you went back to correct the Stanford link.

[AP]

66. Surely.

It was an honest mistake.

Do you really think I don't want people to read this study?

[AP]

68. By the way, intellecutal dishonesty is when you cite accurate facts, but

you apply a logic that is so faulty you have to assume that the person applying it knows it and must be doing so intentionally to arrive at a conclusion they know is not the truth.

When you say that I'm intentionaly using the wrong link you're just accusing me of dishonesty.

Take that to the next step: intellectual dishonesty is when you pretend that I'm doing it intentionally because I'd don't have an argument. That's not even logical.

[AP]

62. Type out that whole paragraph.

The point it's making is that the horserace quality increased information and inclinations towards the leaders.

It doesn't say that it means that there was no data for Clark at all. It says that there was no data from an earlier period (presumably for comparative purposes) which might shed light on matters. It also says that having Kerry and Edwards as the final two meant that policy differences didn't make a big difference in the final choice, although it might have in the lead up.

[AP]

63. You know, it's a shame that any attempt to put the theories here about

politics to a test end up being treated like this.

You accuse me of being dishonest, of hiding links. You pick one quote out of context and ignore the rest of the paragraph and the whole study.

The hostility to simply trying to be smart and moving in a direction of having more knowledge is sad. If it doesn't fit into the spin that's been set out, people are willing to say the most ridiculouos things.

It's sad.

[Skwmom]

49. Does this study include all of the information about Edwards

that Rove will make sure to provide to voters before the November election (like a record that does not match his manufactured populist image (for starters zero pro bono work and cherry-picking cases, opting for the ones that would deliver the most $$$$$ to Edwards, regardless of whether they were based on solid science), his smarmy channeling of an unborn child, the fact that he has spent his life being a PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY, except for the one term in Congress where he spent the majority of his time promoting his own ambitions, (when he wasn't looking out for his corporate buddies)?

[AP]

52. The experts that participants consulted included Republicans.

It is so obvious that if you want a candidate people will love, Edwards is the person.

Rove will try to attack anyone, and your best defense is the person people find the easiest to like. Edwards.

[AP]

53. The experts that participants consulted included Republicans.

It is so obvious that if you want a candidate people will love, Edwards is the person.

Rove will try to attack anyone, and your best defense is the person people find the easiest to like. Edwards.

[cosmokramer]

71. You should substantiate your remarks, AP...

...but you can't.

There is absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever that "informed voters like Edwards the most". You and I both know that the little preference polls are not calling people who are 'informed'--they are random. So there is absolutely no proof for your statement, and there cannot be, without proving a political litmus test to every single person--which means you must wait until a General Election to be sure of the outcome.

Edwards will hurt Kerry almost as much as Dean in a General Election. We need the indies and mods (who will vote on security issues--period), and Edwards utter lack of nat sec experience does absolutely nothing to help Kerry.

I don't care if it is or is not Clark, but it MUST be someone with significant FP/Nat Sec/Diplomacy experience in order to ensure a Kerry victory. This election is too important to blow it with an incredibly stupid roll of the dice with JE.

[WI_DEM]

24. how does adding Clark enhance foreign policy experience?

A general, generally, doesn't formulate foreign policy--they carry out orders from the civilian commander in chief. He adds military experience, but imo not extensive foreign policy expertise.

[deminflorida]

32. Wrong...NATO General, SAC-EUR Supreme ALLIED Cmdr.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: 2 April, 1951 - 30 May, 1952
Matthew Ridgway: 30 May, 1952 - 11 July, 1953
Alfred Gruenther: 1 July, 1953 - 20 November, 1956
Lauris Norstad: 20 November, 1956 - 1 January, 1963
Lyman Lemnitzer: 1 January, 1963 - 1 July, 1969
Andrew Goodpaster: 1 July, 1969 - 15 December, 1974
Alexander Haig: 15 December, 1974 - 1 July, 1979
Bernard Rogers: 1 July, 1979 - 26 June, 1987
John Galvin: 26 June, 1987 - 23 June, 1992
John Shalikashvili: 23 June, 1992 - 22 October, 1993
George Joulwan: 22 October, 1993 - 11 July, 1997
Wesley Clark: 11 July, 1997 - 3 May, 2000
Joseph Ralston: 3 May, 2000 - 17 January, 2003
James L. Jones: 17 January, 2003 - present

Note: starting with Ridgway all SACEUR have been simultaneously Commander in Chief, US European Command (CINCEUR)

Clark headed the US military team during negotiations that led to the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton, under the overall leadership of Richard Holbrooke.

From 1997, he was head of the U.S. European Command (CINCEUR), responsible for about 109,000 U.S. troops and all U.S. military activities in 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. As Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) he also had overall command of NATO military forces in Europe and led approximately 60,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

As SACEUR, he confronted Yugoslavia over Kosovo. NATO's 78-day bombing campaign ended with the Kumanovo truce, a withdrawal of Yugoslav military and police force from Kosovo, and the entry of NATO and other KFor forces. In December, 2003, he testified during Milosevic's trial. His appearance was not public and transcripts of his testimony were subject to U.S. review before being released, a precaution the U.S. didn't take when Madeleine Albright testified. Clark's testimony was sought because he had spoken with Milosevic for a total of more than 100 hours, in his role as the head of the U.S. military team during the Dayton Agreement negotiations and as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Foreign_Policy.htm

[Jai4WKC08]

45. A regional Commander in Chief does

They work very closely with the State Dept and ambassadors within their regions. And since the State Dept is grossly undermanned, the military picks up a lot of the policy function.

But more than any other region, the CinC of European Command (who is by law the SACEUR) is in a policy making position. He is responsible to the NATO Secretary General, is afforded "head of state" status within NATO, and is authorized to work directly with every other head of state. Doesn't usually do that--usually isn't necessary. But during the Kosovo war, it was not at all unusual for Blair, Schmidt, Chirac, and the heads of each of the 19 member nations to confer directly with General Clark. As did the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the surrounding nations affected by the war, such as Albania and Macedonia.

And as was mentioned, as a 3-star, Clark was assigned to Holbrooke's negotiation team, in charge of the military side. He had direct, often private, contact with President Milosevic (as well as his Serb military counterparts). That's one reason Clark was involved in the war crimes trial at the Hague. Only he was privy to some of the conversations that the prosecution is using against Milosevic.

Fwiw, a Senator makes no foreign policy. He/she merely discusses it, votes on treaties, sometimes writes legislation that affects foreign policy, and of course votes on that legislation. But only the President and executive branch actually make foreign policy. As part of the executive, very senior military commanders are more involved in the process than anyone in the legislative branch. Not disparaging Kerry's experience, but let's understand it's scope.

[Darkamber]

43. Disagree...here's a point by point...

1.While foreign policy experience is of primary important to Clark supporters, I have yet seen anything that shows that this is a primary factor in the VP. The President and not the VP will be making the decisions that effect the world. Public will look to Kerry's background and not Edward and Edwards does have some Foreign policy background.

2. While it has not been done before but once, Edwards does not have the long history in the Senate that Kerry does. Edwards has not changed his view on the War and did not claim to be tricked. This might make the anti-war crowd made, but who is Kerry trying to win over? Can Edwards bring in Swing Republicans? Will Edwards make Democrats vote for Bush? He adds to Kerry's chances instead of harming him.

3. Edwards put forth the Patients Bill of Rights and had the backing of McCain. He has a plan that angered Trial Lawyers to deal with the problem of Malpractice insurance. Have the insurance companies promised to lower rates if Caps or Tort reform is put into place? If anyone can fight back against these kind of claims and turn it against them it would be Edwards.

4. The difference is that Edwards wasn't born Rich. He was like everyone else in American and went to a state university and worked his way through college during the summer. He was the first one in his family to even go to college. Yes, he is rich, but since when have the Repubs attacked the American dream? Of coming from nothing and working your way through college and becoming the most successful in your field? The fact that he didn't go to Yale or a private university is a plus for Kerry and not a neg.

5. That one article that was posted I believe referred to a fund that was invested in and it invested in companies that make money. Kerry has requested all of Edwards financial information. I think the drug companies hate Edwards. He certainly has never been on their side. If Kerry finds anything that he thinks might harm then he will consider that.

6. Is Foreign policy the only issue that will be put to Edwards? What is the VP's job, especially in the run for the General and beyond? Would he be fielding the Foreign policy questions or will that continue to go to Kerry and Clark? I believe that Clark will have a position in the Kerry administration but it won't be VP. Clark himself has said he has no interest in the VP position. Edwards on the other hand can do the fund raising and the floor work that Kerry will need to get the votes through and change the makeup of the Congress and Senate. And Edwards is no Quayle. The only thing in common there is that both Quayle and Edwards are considered young. Another point is that Quayle's mistake only cost Bush one point in the bump. It didn't have that much effect.

7.Yes, Edwards is popular with the Unions...Leaders of the largest union in the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, want him on the ticket, and the union's president, Andy Stern, said that in a straw poll of the union's executive board, 90 percent chose Edwards. However, this is more of a hit against Gephardt. Edwards also is popular with the rural voters and the suburban white higher educated voter. In the CBS poll, adding Edwards to the ticket, Kerry gained with conservative and military voters and beat out about against a Bush/Cheney ticket. Picking Edwards keeps the base union happy...but also adds in other areas.

In short, Edwards does not harm Kerry. Infact, all evidence shows that he will give Kerry more votes from areas that he would not have. The only area that Edwards might hurt would be the anti-war vote. However, Kerry has not said that he would pull out either.

I have no doubt that Kerry will use Clark in his Administration, but I don't' think it will be VP.



7.

[Jai4WKC08]

50. On your first point only

1.While foreign policy experience is of primary important to Clark supporters, I have yet seen anything that shows that this is a primary factor in the VP.

Kerry has said FP is a primary factor in his choice. Jim Johnson has said FP is a primary factor. Chris Heinz has said it's a primary factor. Even Kennedy (who may not know, as the others likely do) has said it's a primary factor.

How on earth can you say you haven't "yet seen anything that shows that this is a primary factor"???

You're fooling yourself on that one.

My opinion is that, if Kerry picks a VP who has little or no FP experience, that he will use his VP in more or less a traditional VP role, at least as far as FP goes. But Kerry has indicated that he does not intend to do that, that he fully expects his VP to be a central part of his FP team. This aside from the consideration of being prepared to step in if necessary, which he also claims to think is important.

Picking a VP who's strong on FP in no way, shape or form indicates that anyone but President Kerry will be making all the major FP decisions. Where the VP can come in, as working head of the NSC, is in the implementation of those deicisions. The VP is senior to the other NSC members, such as the Sec's of State and Defense, and can ensure they are working together, instead of at cross purposes (as has so often happened in past administrations). The National Security Advisor canNOT perform that function.

[DemocraticEnigma]

67. Let's be honest here...

Ok, I'm a HUUUUUGE Clark supporter--I admire the guy, I voted for him in the primaries, I donated, I drove up to NH to volunteer during the primaries...My life literally revolved around Wesley Clark from the day that there was increased speculation of a presidential run on his part. In any case, I say all of this to say that I'd love to see Clark on the ticket. However...

Despite all of those points you listed, you need only keep one thing in mind--the treatment of Edwards vs. Clark during the primaries. Despite all of Clark's apparent strenghts, he was ripped into shreds by the media, while Edwards was ADORED. So, yes, Clark may look great on paper, but let's keep in mind they're going to bring up how "he's a Republican," how he was despised by his peers, how he "flip-flopped" on the Iraq war issue, etc, etc.

Bottom line: as much as you want to rationalize and break things down, the media hates Clark and loves Edwards...while I can see thru the spin and shallowness that is John Edwards, if the average America relies for his/her info on the media, JE may be the better choice.

[AP]

69. I shouted at the TV when edwards would get 5 minutes to everyone else's

10-12 in the debates. When studies showed that Dean got more print coverage than everyone else combined, and Had Ku, CMB and Edwards in the BOTTOM THREE (exactly where they were in the debates) I thought, yes, I know.

Edwards only got attention after Iowa, and after the scream. If Dean hadn't screamed, and the media looked at Edwards during that week, he probably would have done better in NH.

I know the media was awful to Clark. But they also ignored Edwards until it was absolutely too late for attention to make any difference, and when they finally looked at him, it was basically to say, "nice personality" and nothing more.

If the media wanted Edwards to win, he would have won the primaries. So I don't think the love him. In fact, I think the attention he gets now is solely because they media want to hurt Kerry if he doesn't pick Edwards (and I really think there's a 70% chance Kerry will pick someone else, so it's a good risk to take).

To ignore Edwards was to hurt him, and the media did that all last summer. In fact, NPR, the day before Iowa when Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards were leading the polls, Dean was the only name they mentioned. NPR must have seen the polls. They refused to do anything to help anyone other than Dean.

However, Clark didn't have to win to hurt Bush. Just the sight of General who was a Democrat was doing tremendous damage to Bush, whether Clark won or lost. That's why they had to really hurt him.

[DemocraticEnigma]

70. Just one thing though...

If Edwards hadn't gotten the media coverage that he did, he really wouldn't have finished anywhere close to as well as he did finish. Let's keep in mind, a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses was when Edwards started become the "comeback kid" and the media darling. He got a few key endorsements from Iowa newspapers and then with his finish in Iowa, the media kept on painting Edwards as the only legitimate challenger to Kerry. It was at this exact same time that the media brought down Wesley Clark, starting from the fact that he didn't participate in Iowa, to the Michal Moore comments, etc, etc. The media had decided that they wanted it to be a two-man race and they had chosen their competitors.

Furthermore, not to take anything away from Edwards, but all Edwards has is the "image" projected by the media that he is an amiable, charismatic guy. I've seen him speak, and I think he's waaaay over-rated, and he's surely not any more "amiable" than Kerry..in fact, he had a lot more trouble mingling with voters after his town hall meetings than Kerry. The first town hall meeting of his I saw on C-Span, he exploded at 2-3 separate people in the audience, if not more.

On the other hand, you have Clark, who really does have substance on paper, but the media has not given him due credit for his credentials. instead of focusing on his accomplishments in Kosovo, etc, they've brought out every negative point they can, such as Shelton's comments, etc, etc.

In the end, we're all going to believe that the media is biased against our guy, but all I was saying in my first post above was in favor of an Edwards VP candidacy. Namely that the media would love to see him on the ticket.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. Actually, I agree with you too lol. I'm becoming too damn agreeable n/t

[AP]

74. He came in second in Iowa with nothing but retail campaigning.

And the retail campaigning showed much more than just image. It revealed ideas. Edwards clearly has ideas and image, style and substance. I know a lot of people think he's just a hick. But it's simply not the case. He has a non-traditional biography for a politician, but experiencing life in America the way most Americans do (you only get what you earn from your labor) IS substance.

Seriously, NPR didn't say his name ONCE on ATC on January 18th even though the polls had him in the top three, and probably in 2nd.

He earned the newspaper endorsement he got there, and getting it wasn't getting "media" -- it was getting an endorsement.

When the scream got covered for the next week, that was the end for him.

If he got the coverage dean got all summer, he'd be the nominee. If he simply got as much time in the debates as Dean and Kerry and Gep, he would have been much closer to first in Iowa.

Edwards did on the ground in Iowa what the media wasn't doing for him on TV, radio and in print.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. I gotta agree with you

That's a pretty good summary.

[Tactical Progressive]

78. You aren't understanding the media dynamic

The media is a craven lot that now pretty much echoes Republican talking points into "conventional wisdom", over and over and over and over. They barely even have any shame left in doing it.

The right wing hates Wesley Clark. So you're right that they'll try to savage him. What you're missing is that should Edwards be chosen as the VP, they will hate him too. Republicans only care about what they want, and anything that gets in their way they hate.

You are taking the media's negativity towards Clark, therefore, out of context in comparing it to their acceptance of John Edwards. Once the Repubs start in on John, the media will get to work in their fair and balanced way.

Adolph Hitler and Jesus Christ would get the same vengeful treatment by the media once Republican hatred is focused. It doesn't make a difference how they fare on a comparative basis.

Who could hate Al Gore? Who could hate Hillary Clinton? And when you think about it, who could hate Bill Clinton who is the best Republican President of the past forty years? Republicans and their media, that's who.

If Wesley Clark isn't on the ticket, this election is going to be harder to win than with anybody else, John Edwards included.

[filterfish]

76. KERRY NEEDS TO PICK THE ANTI-CANDIDATE

someone who would shake things up in unexpected ways...an unconventional choice, someone who's not afraid to speak out-of-turn or go on the attack w dick cheney...someone like Al Sharpton, Ed Rendell or even Jess Ventura

[mitchum]

77. Kerry could pick Jesus and the republicans would Jew-bait him