How about after Obama/Biden wins in 2012; Biden is appointed SecState, Dean VP, Wes Clark SecDef

[anAustralianobserver]

Dean runs in 2016. Thank you.

Or Wes Clark could be appointed SecDef sooner - I think the 10 year period where he's not allowed to be is up soon (?). He's too interventionist but at least he is relatively transparent and responsible and a great communicator.

[Xipe Totec]

1. How about no. nt

[anAustralianobserver]

5. To all of it? I thought I was pandering to everyone with this one.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

14. As long as this was intended as mockery, I'll think better of you (nt)

[anAustralianobserver]

30. Not sure what you mean, of what?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. If this was snarky pandering to all sides, you have my approval...

which I know that you crave desperately

[anAustralianobserver]

66. lol. a bit cheeky but I'm curious about what may be a practical way for the Dems to win in 2012,

restore some enthusiasm and get more progressives in in the near future.

It's actually cool to see that some of my speculations are valid. Plus, the desperate craving.

[onpatrol98]

49. LOL!

:rofl:

[northoftheborder]

2. Clark

He would never appoint Clark. He threw Clark under the bus long ago for supporting Hillary.

[elleng]

7. He thru Wes under the bus long ago, but I'm not sure why.

Don't know about Hillary involvement.

[anAustralianobserver]

11. But he supported Hillary for SecState ultimately?

[northoftheborder]

15. Clark supported Hillary in primary, then campaigned for Obama.

That was the end of politics for Clark. He's onto better things - a businessman involved in other ways of serving his country - via renewable energy, etc..

[anAustralianobserver]

44. Ok, I haven't seen anything from him for ages.

[elleng]

16. Certainly.

[anAustralianobserver]

32. I meant; if he supported Hillary Clinton ultimately, why not Clark?

I thought Clark looked half-hearted supporting Hillary later on in the campaign, which is one of the only times I've seen him like that; the others being the Lebanon War, and maybe in defending depleted uranium.

[elleng]

37. I 'feel' that he was tired/disappointed that HIS try couldn't work out;

and I think that was because Hillary's efforts grabbed all of Wes' potential financial resources. That may be what you saw.

[anAustralianobserver]

43. Ok, but maybe also because he thought Obama was the better candidate for the time and knew Hillary's

support of the IWR was bad judgement.

[karynnj]

61. He threw him under the bus because Clark made a comment that

the right succeeded into spinning into a gaffe - something the right is extremely good at doing with their echo chamber. Clark was obviously considered to not be essential - so he was thrown under the bus - to avoid any more harm to the campaign.

Not nice, but politics. It would not have affected putting him in the administration.

[anAustralianobserver]

68. That's right, the comment about McCain being shot down; as if Clark was

being callous about McCain's suffering. Yeah if I remember that was a rare moment of bad judgement for Obama in the campaign; he would have been respected more by both sides for defending Clark. He probably regretted it.

If he were to appoint Clark it would probably come up again and he could neutralise it by saying he's apologised to Clark.

[karynnj]

73. Obama walked a narrow line there

The fact is that defending Clark would have made McCain's military record an issue (favoring McCain) for at least a week. I doubt he regretted it and I bet Clark thought he had fallen into a trap that created that situation.

Obama had many military people and many strong foreign policy people who could do what Clark was doing as a surrogate. If Clark were a VP, Obama would have had to spend the needed capital to defend that Clark did not attack McCain's service. (A political campaign at that point is not "fair". Had Obama misspoke - and there were a few times he did - every strong surrogate would be out trying to mitigate the damage - even if it somewhat hurt their own image. Some pretty senior Democrats took on the rple of attack dog. This was needed to give Obama the opportunity to stay above the fray. But, you would never have the candidate defend a surrogate unless - for some reason - there own interests demanded it.

[anAustralianobserver]

77. I remember it was a perilous situation in the context of the 2004 swiftboating operation

but the magic of the Obama 2008 campaign was that he took risks to say what he really thought at critical times and it kept paying off, against the odds.

I don't remember what Obama said but if I remember correctly he effectively played into the idea that Clark was being callous about McCain's suffering or mocking McCain's competence (maybe it wasn't that strong). I was left with a feeling at the time that a clear statement from Obama defending Clark would have resonated well with military people especially and would have been worth it. Bit of an old story now though; Obama has been in and out of tune on many more important things since then (!) but was interesting to discuss it. It'll prob come up again one day.

[elleng]

3. I'd say YES to anything involving Wes;

I don't see the Dem establishment 'honoring' Wes OR Dean as you propose. And I wonder what you mean by 'interventionist,' vis a vis Wes Clark.

Wait a minute, do we know eachother??? Aussie???

Nevermind! Wrong Aussie.



E:hi:

[anAustralianobserver]

9. no don't know eachother. I remember Clark said he supported state building?

I can't remember what the term was 'state building' or something, but it sounded a bit unsettling when I heard it.

[elleng]

12. Don't know to what you refer; will look into it,

but Wes has never stated anything 'unsettling,' as far as I'm concerned. He's HUGELY wise, intelligent and smart.

[elleng]

20. 'Nation building?' Maybe

Take a look at this, from 2006!!! Tells us a few things, imo!

The mission in Afghanistan is far larger, more distant and more difficult. And make no mistake: we are not winning. Instead, we are at a crossroads. If we persist in failing to face up to the profound economic and political requirements, if we neglect the need for strong coordination, if we think the mission is only about counterterrorism or counterdrug operations, then we will lose. In order to succeed we must adopt some of the lessons and practices we put in place so painfully in the Balkans. We must acknowledge the magnitude of the task and pull in the full authority of the international community. NATO can do much more than just supply troops. We need to acknowledge that, yes, we do nation-building.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14973488/site/newsweek/

[anAustralianobserver]

27. Yes, nation building. He's a great strategist and tactician and communicator.

I think diplomacy and military morale would be in a better position with him as SecDef. I tend more towards non-interventionism and pacifism, but he's a military person I respect. He can even make you question whether cluster bombs might be necessary in some situations (!)

[tishaLA]

4. I think HRC is going to be VP candidate....

when they win, Susan Rice goes to State.

Beyond that, no guesses.

[anAustralianobserver]

33. Yeah I guess that's possible, but he'd have to balance her appointment with some

high profile lefties to not lose the anti-IWR, anti-occupation and fiscal left.

I like Susan Rice from the few times I've seen her.

[katanalori]

6. Where is Hillary?

Why is she missing????

[blueknight]

8. i honestly think

i stand a better chance to get elected in 2012 then obama-biden. and it kills me to say that

[elocs]

23. 2012 will not be pretty at all. The economy and jobs had better be much improved by then.

Obama did not create these problems but the American electorate will hold him accountable for not significantly improving them. We can rant here all we like about the Republicans and their obstructionist agenda, but in the end that will not matter much. Republicans will pragmatically get out and vote while too many Democrats will sit on their hands and pout.

I can guarantee that the next president will either be Obama or somebody else and any who choose not to vote for Obama will aid in the election of somebody else. Actions and choices have consequences. As disappointed as many have been with Obama it is assured that they will be far more disappointed with his alternative.

[anAustralianobserver]

35. I think he will significantly regain support by then, but yes maybe not enough.

I think the main reason is he hasn't been transparent enough. I think Open Government was the 2006 slogan but it's really only been "much more open than Bush but not open enough government", and he set such high expectations for himself. If the legitimate doubts about him don't go away or increase, maybe he should not run again and implicitly endorse someone who can be a force for more openness.

[anAustralianobserver]

29. Maybe a non-foreign policy position where she can shame Republicans.

[DFW]

10. Howard is not interested in elective office.

He would still take a post where he could do some good (HHS for example), but he is doing
what he promised 2 years ago ("raising hell for causes I believe in"), and seems to be
perfectly happy doing that while not having political or financial IOUs hanging over his
head. At this point, if Obama were to offer him ANYTHING, Howard's first question would
probably be "Why?" His second question would probably be, "what condition would that be?"
His third question would probably be "shut up about WHAT?" His fourth question would probably
be, "Whatever gave you the idea that I'd keep my mouth shut about THAT?"

[elleng]

13. Right again/still, DFW!

[DFW]

18. Well, technically, pure speculation on my part......

But more than just a wild guess, I'd bet.........

[anAustralianobserver]

31. I hope Obama's not that compromised. He's not transparent enough imo but I think

transparency is his trajectory.

[seattleblue]

17. Unfortunately Dean would just be too old by 2016.

[Ter]

45. 67 is not too old!

n/t

[seattleblue]

50. In our society it is.

Every poll showed McCain lost votes because of his age in 2008. In Congress you can keep on getting elected when you get old but that is because you have been there for a long time and have the name recognition and power. Can't do that for President. I know some will cite Reagan but Reagan was a professional actor by trade and had a lifetime of experience handling himself before cameras and the crowds. Dean is a physician.

[Ter]

62. McCain was 73

67 is not the same thing. I know it's only 6 years, but 67 sounds way better and it wouldn't be an issue.

[seattleblue]

63. Upon taking office Dean would be 68 and McCain would have been 72.

You may see a big difference but I don't and I don't think most voters would either. I like Dean and I would support him if he were the nominee but I like to be realistic.

[Jennicut]

19. I am pretty tired of the endless speculation of who will be VP and musical chairs.

Honestly, it is getting ridiculous now. Guess what? The VP doesn't always win reelection. I don't want someone "groomed" for the job, I want to pick the right person in a primary! Ugg. Plus, Obama is intelligent enough to have picked someone he actually likes working with and considers that person's advice to be valuable. I don't see it. If Cheney and Dan Quayle were kept as VP's then why would Obama change his? Blah.

[anAustralianobserver]

39. It would be really nice to see the enthusiasm & promise of 2008 again, somehow, maybe by some swaps

and new high profile appointments. And isn't SecState a more influential position than VP?

As for grooming; the president giving a more progressive person a head start seems like a good thing, even if they lose in the primaries.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. Hillary is a much better SoS than Biden would ever be.

Joe is just fine where he is.

[anAustralianobserver]

47. I admit I haven't followed her work as SoS; but I liked how Biden had a narrower Afghanistan

mission focus than her, even though they both voted for the IWR. I'd like to see Kucinich as SoS!

[w4rma]

22. Obama doesn't seem to want a non-DLCer anywhere near his administration.

It ain't happening.

[anAustralianobserver]

40. His seeming exclusion of the 'democratic wing' & the more progressive voices is the real issue isn't

it? But Howard Dean supports Obama so it seems complicated.

[saltpoint]

24. The political rise of Lee Mercer is imminent.

Watch out, everyone.

http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/

[grasswire]

25. obama + dean = oil + water

No go.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. How about that is silly?

[obxhead]

28. I'm guessing you're counting on Palin getting the Pres nomination

Any other Republican running against Obama in 2012 has a serious chance of winning. Especially if the Obama admin continues to ignore the needs of progressives and alienate independents. These groups may just sit home in 2012 and they are the groups that gave Obama the huge victory in 08. I think only Palin as pres on the Republican ticket will have the ability to create a mass turn out for Obama in 2012.

[depakid]

34. Dean was lucky not to be involved with this administration

Christina Romer- not so much (although in her case, the writing on the wall wasn't quite so clear as it is now).

[anAustralianobserver]

48. I just looked her up on Wiki; I don't know anything about her.

[Yeahyeah]

36. Oprah's not going to be VP?

[Jim Sagle]

38. That's right! Get rid of that icky gurrrrrlllllll running the State Dept.

:puke:

[depakid]

41. My guess is that she'll leave on her own before then

[Sebastian Doyle]

76. She pretty much said so herself

I remember Hillary's interview on 60 minutes where she said one term as SOS would be enough for her. And that was early on before she even had NuttyYahoo or the escalation of Afghanistan adding to her stress. I've never been Hillary's biggest fan, but she's probably done about as well as anybody could under the circumstances, and certainly better than Kindasleazy Rice. But when she says 4 years on that job will be enough for her, I'd take her word for it.

Bill Richardson was my first choice for SOS. Perhaps he might be the next one?

[anAustralianobserver]

42. We have a female Prime Minister and I'm voting for her enthusiastically in 2 weeks!

[SheilaT]

46. Are you thinking that

Hillary Clinton won't want to continue as Secretary of State?

Also, for what it's worth, there's no tradition in this country of vice-presidents resigning or being moved to some cabinet position. I'm only aware of one VP who resigned, and that was Spiro Agnew in 1973. He resigned because he was a corrupt SOB, and it was pretty clear that Nixon would be impeached and Agnew would have been a very bad replacement. Anyway, the scenario you're proposing simply isn't how it's done here.

[seattleblue]

52. John Calhoun also resigned. He took a seat in the House in 1832.

[anAustralianobserver]

54. haha you should be on the PBS news hour doing retrospectives to wistful music.

[seattleblue]

55. I'm more of a rocker. The wistful puts me to sleep.

[SheilaT]

64. Not exactly a modern and pertinent

example, although I do appreciate learning that another V-P did resign, albeit in the distant past.

But the scenario proposed by the OP has no basis in reality, or current American politics for either political party. We just don't do things that way.

[anAustralianobserver]

53. My guess is she still wants to be president and her and her allies are considering convincing Obama

not to run.

I see, so VP to cabinet would be very novel. Yes, parliamentary-system politics is more flexible in some ways and I'm not aware of some of your traditions.

[anAustralianobserver]

56. ed: oops "she and her allies"

[Tx4obama]

51. Obama/Hillary 2012 ... Biden wants job of Secretary of State. Then Grayson/Weiner 2016 . n/t

[anAustralianobserver]

57. I like Grayson and Weiner. Weiner especially would be awesome!

Weiner's the rising star of the party, I think.

[kjackson227]

59. Why mess up a good thing?

[anAustralianobserver]

72. Please see #35

[karynnj]

60. Other than getting all your favorites in, why do you think this could happen?

Why would Biden change to Secretary of State. As VP, he can and does have a foreign policy role. He, more than anyone, has been the high profile person on Iraq. As Secretary of State, he would get the responsibility of running the state department. He seems happy where he is.

As to Dean, it is clear that Obama chose to replace him as DNC head and to give him absolutely nothing in the administration - even after Dean publicly signaled he would welcome being asked for a position of Surgeon General, which would have seemed to many too small a job for him. As to Clark, there is nothing I can remember that showed that Obama and Clark were close. (I think Clark's best chance to have gotten a role in an administration would have been had Kerry won.)

[anAustralianobserver]

69. "He, more than anyone, has been the high profile person on Iraq." I didn't know that.

I was going by the speculation here that he wants the job. Kerry also I'd like to see in the cabinet but that would be the end of his Senate career I guess.

Obama needs Dean on his side seemingly more than Rahm and his top-down faction want to admit. I wonder if Obama shares Rahm's animosity toward Dean. I hope it's not too strong to talk about 'factions' in the party. In Australia the factions in parties are less obscure I think, partly due to the leadership challenges between elections in a parliamentary system.

[treestar]

65. No

What would be the purpose?

If you're thinking Dean could run for President afterward - it's starting to look like VP is not the best place to come from. It's not so much of a pre-Presidential job.

A new Sec Def who is a Democrat is something I would go for.

[anAustralianobserver]

70. Purpose, see #66. Dean: I was thinking it would neutralise the loose cannon, radical

image the ignorant have of Dean; though I think it's mainly the disingenuous who prop up that image at this point.

[VMI Dem]

67. Wes Clark, Clinton sycophant?

No thanks.

[anAustralianobserver]

71. Maybe Clark would be able to integrate the preventive war and hawkish and dovish

interventionist parts of the military, and in the Dem party, in a way that no one else could. And also help integrate the dissociation between the military and civilian US public.

[Doctor_J]

74. Dean and Clark were snubbed by the admin from the beginning

that was one of the first clues that we were going to be triangulated again.

[NorthCarolina]

75. Right now I simply looking forward to the 2012 Primary

and hoping with all my might for a Liberal Dem challenger for the White House.