Skip to main content

A recent article in the Washington Post says top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been privately getting together to converge the two teams. It claims there are growing reports that the only way to repair the rift between the two parties is for Obama to pick a top Clinton surrogate as his VP nominee:

"There’s a gale-force pressure for Obama to choose a Clinton loyalist as a running mate to heal the party but avoid putting her and her formidable baggage on the ticket," said one Obama ally in Washington. "You hear the names (Ohio Gov. Ted) Strickland, (Indiana Sen. Even) Bayh, and (retired Gen.) Wes Clark almost constantly, and it’s no secret that Jim Johnson and Tom Daschle are purveyors of that wisdom."

In making his decision, Obama might consider the importance of the historic moment. As he has been called a transitional candidate, so we are today in a transitional awakening – a springpoint of historical dimensions.

The candidate chosen should be one who intuitively saw the contours of the transition coming,  as President Bush and his agents embarked on a misplaced adventure in Iraq: What we want here is the one who was the first to see and the first to act. Obama did, and so did Wesley Clark. And at every point in the delusional spiral of Bush's policies, Wes Clark provided a stepping stone to the truth and a new direction for the Democrats to take.

The Democrats have taken that path; incrementally at first and now in the mainstream. Democratic policy today on Iraq as it is expressed by Obama can been seen to have historical process and path from September, 2003 when Wesley Clark joined the 2004 race for President, to June, 2007 when Clark’s position on Iraq became the mainstream position of the Democrats.

There is no doubt that the current breach in the Democratic Party could be fatal in November, so the question of Obama’s VP  is a vital one.

But it is equally important to pick the candidate who will rise with the times and carry the generations with him. And generations here today are more important than region. As VP, Strickland, Bayh or even Ed Rendell, Gov. of PA would help Obama with regions which have been reading unfavorable to him, but – Rendell aside – some of the figures mentioned to bring regional balance and detente with the Clintons are benign Democratic figures and the thinking here goes perhaps: Let’s get a Hillary supporter but a benign one who would be seldom scene and will make no complaints – in the corporate parlance, it would be throwing a bone to the Clintons.

It is always a mistake to do this for in every situation we should strive to pick the best and the brightest among us; even with our Republican opposition, the best and the brightest in opposition make us stronger and better. But in this grouping, General Clark should be the first and only choice considered.

Clark began to conform to the Clinton camp about a year ago and if he planned to do so earlier, there was no suggestion of it even in conversations I had with his closest friends, relatives and representatives. It is hard to imagine that he would do anything other than lend support to his former Commander-in-Chief, fellow Rhodes Scholar, fellow Arkansas traveler and friends and colleagues for 25 years. The country and the world got a lucky break when President Clinton specifically took General Clark’s plan and advice on Kosovo when the foreign policy establishment was otherwise adrift.

But that was then and this is now.

We are today at the critical Millennial Makover, as authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais say in a recent book of that title (Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics). The generation which is rising now will continue to rise and create policy – create our world – into the next 30 years. The overall inclinations of this generation can be found daily here at Daily Kos. It is a harbinger and barometer of that generation’s hopes and yearnings, and that generation’s clear choice is Barack Obama. So what grows here in 2008, will continue to grow and flower into its own political eco system.

It is no secret that Senator Clinton has little support here. As DKos founder, Markos Moulitsas, recently pointed out, she has never registered above 11 percent in a monthly DKos poll of readers.

Thinking generationally seems to come more easily to the artist, monk and poet. It bugs most statisticians, political scientists and objective analysts because it finds its judgments not by specific causality of one event to the next, but by the study of parallel events and alternating events over extremely long periods of time; hundred-year intervals of thousand-year historical movements. But generations are history’s engine. Consider it this way: Imagine inviting Perry Como to have a role in The Beatles, so as to not hurt his feelings or those of his fans. It just doesn’t work, and bringing in the wrong Clinton surrogate to the Obama camp would likewise poison the pudding.

But not Wes Clark. As Senator Clinton’s approval ratings were hovering around zero here two years ago, General Clark’s was sky high. He has always been a favorite of the new generation and it was a web-based campaign which originally urged him to run in 2004. He was, with former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, the first prominent politician to appear at the first Yearly Kos, and all Presidential contenders would follow at the next.

So whatever else is taken into consideration, Wesley Clark would satisfy the needs of the Party and the new generation.

But Jim Webb, the Senator from Virginia, is also a favorite of the new generation and his election in ’06 was considered one of the first to resonate on the Internet. He was also a favorite here at Daily Kos. The recent publication of his new book, A Time to Fight, suggests he might like to be VP. The Nation says he is running for VP:

"Ronald Reagan's former Secretary of the Navy's got a new campaign book out -- A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America -- and he is undoubtedly aware of the fact that he's currently topping Obama Veepstakes" survey."

Jim Webb is certainly qualified to be President and VP on the First Tier as a former Secretary of the Navy and certainly one of the most versatile and creative individuals ever to enter the Senate. As a well-known author, Webb would pull in the Salon crowd but Obama already has them. Speculation is that as a rural Virginian he would help Obama with voters there. But there is nothing Webb brings to the southeast side of the Smokies and the Blue Ridge that a Southern General doesn’t bring as well.

Clark appeals to the South, the East, the West and the Great White North, and as a generational figure, he links time past with the future. There is a new generation of Democrats rising: Webb, Clark, Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Warner, John Lynch here in NH, hooking up with the Old School and the Wise, including Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma. All of these will converge around Obama into a new kind of Democratic Mandala.

Clark, in his great support for veterans in the '06 race, has already altered the climate of the Democratic Party, bringing  a strength of character and a patriotism to Democrats that we have not fully experienced in the most recent years. He should be  Obama's first choice in this matter.

Originally posted to Bernie Quigley on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I always though that Clark would be perfect (23+ / 0-)

    The problem is that he has said some things in this primary that it will be hard to take back. He was one of the surrogates actively suggesting that Barack doesn't pass the commander-in-chief threshold. It's very hard for him to walk back from that.

    That's why that whole line of attack is so taboo. It's DESTRUCTIVE and you don't speak that way about a fellow Democrat, ever, ever, ever.

    I still like Clark a lot. And I understand why he's a good choice. But beyond the fact that he made those comments, I think the VP should be someone who made the right choice this primary. Someone like Bill Richardson who made it clear that he stands with "change".

    •  Really - I must've missed that (4+ / 0-)

      Yikes I'd have to reconsider also what a tool.  That line of attack was especially problematic because it reinforced the view coming from the Hillary-wing of the party that the only way one can pass the 'threshold' was by invading Iraq, basically.  The same old tripe rolled out by the Beltway class every Sunday morning.

      Give me liberty, or give me death!

      by salsa0000 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He still is an excellent selection (8+ / 0-)

      I personally have seen my own opinion of Obama as Commander in Chief and President improve from the time that he first began his run, and I have to tell you that I didn't think much of him early on. That's why we have a primary system, and one of the reason's that a previous Clinton was able to win the nomination and presidency.

      Wes Clark is a proven administrator, and has a very modern world view from his work as NATO Commander in Europe and that is the balance that he would bring to the ticket. Certainly, Richardson would be a good choice as well, but I would find that Obama will be the better for choosing some of Hillary's and Edward's supporters for high level positions.

      I disagree with choosing only from the pool of early supporters and relatively late endorsers. It won't serve his Presidency, and it might even make it a bit more tenuous during the election campaign.

    •  Read Team of Rivals (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pat208, witchamakallit, batgirl71

      Clark is perfect, Clinton supporter, Military, Arkansas, brilliant as Obama, would challege all conventional wisdom!

    •  He has said things before this primary. (0+ / 0-)

      I've disliked him intensely since Iowa 2004. It is too bad because he had me on board for a while there. He is an intelligent man and well educated.
      I go for Webb if he can be a team player.

      Make that change.

      by barnowl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:57:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Give Clark a listen (0+ / 0-)

      His speech at the 2006 Texas Democratic Convention (Clark begins speaking at 5:15) is a fairly eloquent preview of many of Obama's campaign themes. Even if he said some contrary things as a Clinton partisan, Clark seems to have both the vision and the force of character (he accuses Bush in no uncertain terms of nothing less than dereliction of duty as Commander in Chief in his handling of the run-up to 9-11) to squelch one of the Republicans' strengths (oddly, they are poised to win the argument that they're tough on national security even though they've dismantled our foreign policy and turned Iraq into a terrorist haven).

  •  Clark. No doubt about it. (17+ / 0-)

    He will add some much-needed Gravitas to the Obama ticket. And he is well-respected world wide. He is the guy who should be going out and mending fences with the rest of the world after Obama is elected.

    We must defeat John McCain. Period. End of story.
    STFU, Dubya.

    by Pris from LA on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:25:38 AM PDT

  •  There is no patriotism deficit with Obama that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, In search

    has to be made up by picking a vp with a military background. Actually, such a choice would send the message that the candidate or the campaign thinks there is such a deficit, other than in the repub talking points.

  •  Wes Clark (5+ / 0-)

    He is a good man and will serve Obama well on the campaign trail and in office.

    Dogs have so many friends because they wag their tails instead of their tongues. -Anonymous

    by gloryous1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:25:45 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't Rendell have the exact same problems? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sc kitty, revgerry

    I thought Rendell had the exact same demographic 'problem' as Obama.  I recall reading somewhere that he won something like 5 counties in his primary race against Bob Casey for the gubernatorial nod...and then went on to win the general election.  I know it's conventional wisdom that Rendell could help with the voters Obama seems to have lost to Hillary, but actually I don't see that supported by data (maybe I didn't look hard enough - that's entirely possible).

    Clark would be my favorite of Hillary's high-profile surrogates.  I like him a great deal.

    Give me liberty, or give me death!

    by salsa0000 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM PDT

    •  All these opinions about Obama's running mate (7+ / 0-)

      and all of them seem to pick people who supported Hillary Clinton and lambasted Obama. First, if he's smart, he doesn't choose anyone from the Senate. Because there is such a small margin in the Senate, you want the democrats you know to stay because of their seniority. Second, you don't choose someone loyal to your opponent. It comes down to trust which is something Kerry learned about when he chose Edwards. The Kerry people were mistrustful of Edwards, and in the end pissed off at him because he didn't want to do any of the dirty work they asked him to.

      You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

      by tazz on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:35:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rendell adds nothing (0+ / 0-)

      is a liability in many ways, is corrupt, and is a backstabber.  
      Even Clinton would be a better option as VP.

      The Clintons are corrupt selfish race baiting zero character scumbags. I'd rather be run over by a tractor-trailer than willfully vote for any Clinton again.

      by IhateBush on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Considering that most Daily Kos readers (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dburbach, Lepanto, pico, blindyone, OrdinaryGal

    are over 35, I'm not sure what the generational stuff is doing in here.

    Creative defense of the schlocky writing about generations, though -- it's not that it's imaginary, it's that it's artistic!

    •  I'm 53 (0+ / 0-)

      And, as I recall, I am one who helped persuade you to read Audacity of Hope way back when.

      Age/generation is a state of mind. Perhaps it is because my occupation keeps me constantly in touch with college students, but the primary results show there are many more like me.

      Hope you are faring well  . . .

      P.S. I met and observed you at the very first YKos. You acted a tad old and frumpy (for your age) ;)

      The premier political debate coverage site: DebateScoop

      by demondeac on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would like to see a woman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      who has executive experience for VP

      •  Nothing against women (0+ / 0-)

        but: I think Obama need someone standing out in Foreign Affairs, military (Zinni), tough guy!

        •  Voters are going to vote (polling!) about: (0+ / 0-)

          The economy (not a foreign affairs matter)
          The war (Obama needs no stand-in here)
          Health care
          (and other issues...)

          A (female) governor would be a superb choice to bolster the "executive experience" part.

          If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

          by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:03:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I keep thinking he needs... (0+ / 0-)

      ...a white man, but that's buying into silliness.

      I do, however, think he needs someone west of the Mississippi. Which puts Sebelius and Richardson on the list.

      Folks are saying he needs a Hillary endorser. Strickland would be the best among those, but word is, he's not interested.

      •  If I had to choose (0+ / 0-)

        between Rendell and Strickland, I think I would choose Rendell.

        I've met Ted once and know multiple people who know  him personally (He used to be the Ohio State Rep for my district before redistricting, which ironically is what probably helped propel him into the governorship). Everyone I know speaks highly of him. I would be really stunned if he had skeletons in his closet.

        But to be blunt my impression is that he is currently at his level of political expertise. Like I said, just my impression.

        Rendell would be good because he knows the PA machine. I think he is a stronger overall politician.

        With Rendell and Strickland actively working for Obama, Obama could take Ohio and PA. I don't think its that important Obama gets the "low information" voters. I don't think he should ignore or disparage them either.

        Instead, he should focus on strength: run up the vote as high as possible in the urban areas in both states and concentrate on not falling too far behind in the "low information" areas.

        Whether or not they are on the ticket, he needs Rendell and Strickland.

        •  I respect Rendell but don't like him as an option (0+ / 0-)

          because he's not a straight talker, it's too easy to see through his spin. His television appearances in support of Hillary were farcical.

          I've always wanted to make a comment that ends with the word Mayonnaise

          by frankzappatista on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:08:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Clark would seem a great pick (0+ / 0-)

    If Bayh can win over neighboring Ohio he'd be a fine pick too.  Young so the ticket could be about the future, but he has exec experience and he won't make mistakes.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:28:44 AM PDT

    •  Didn't Webb support telecom immunity in FISA? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, dgone36

      Any evidence showing a lack of respect for civil liberties and accountability in defending our rights of privacy and our constiution is a big deal for me.  

      While I do not know where Webb stands on these others, I would also be suspicious of any Democrats that demonstrated other "symptoms" of a non-progressive orientation such as support for the Iraq War, the many Patriot Act extensions, lack of support for the Feingold Censure, support for Kennedy's call to have Dick Cheney testify under oath, etc.  

      We have got to start holding those withen our own party who sold out to the Bush-Neocon mindset accountable.  And continue to sell out and/or demonstrate a history of lack of courage to stand up and defend progressive principles.  

      Or at least not be promoting them.  

      Opportunities like this, or important high leverage points for upgrading the quality of our own Democratic leadership, which still needs substantial improvement, IMO. Too often, we complain about being stuck in situations where we have "no choice" about supporting highly problematic Democrats as our only option against much worse Republicans.

      When we have free choices let's go for the best, and show our committment to still emerging deeper values and move in better directions.

      Can someone who know's Webb's history and orientation better than I, please elaborate and clarify?

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why do we keep insisting on Webb or Clark? (4+ / 0-)

    Webb won't help him - musmouthed and barely won Virginia (and could lose it for us by pissing off Virginia voters for abandoning his post); Clark has no pull, probably not even in Arkansas.

    Lately, I am thinking Dianne Feinstein -- she is conservative, but liberal on social issues and she is jewish. That is a plus in Florida.

    Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

    by Bensdad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM PDT

    •  I appreciate your outside-the-box pick of DF (0+ / 0-)

      and wonder out loud whether or what that would cost HER as related to her political and corporate interests ... like, would she do it even??? And, YES, she would have to be vetted big time.

      Revolutions never go backwards.

      by sundancekid11 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No way! (10+ / 0-)

      Feinstein voted for the war!  I left the place blank on the ballot in 2006.  I told her office back before the war I would do this and I did when I was told on the phone she would vote yes.  
      Boxer voted No.
      California will vote for Obama.  I like Clark.

      •  Accountability works! We need to remember out (0+ / 0-)

        goals and real values, examine reality -- diligently track the gaps, and then take the appropriate corrective actions when we have unconstrained choices.

        Only by using the same corrective (technically called "negative" or goal-seeking" feedback systems used in any guidance systems will we make long term progress in upgrading our leadership.

        We have a numerous incumbant Democratic leaders who could benefit from strong primary challenges by more progressive and higher integrity candidates we should be cultivating now.  

        I don't know the details of Feinstein but I support the principles silverlil is bringing to the evaluation.

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:56:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some great Senators voted for the war... (0+ / 0-)

        ...they should not have done so. Dianne Feinstein is not a progressive, but she is a social liberal, with a middle-of-the-road credential (and on the left side of that middle line).

        To progressives, well, she is perhaps not a heroine. However, understand this: It is going to take a miracle to get a progressive elected President. No progressive can get elected President with another lefty on the ticket. Can't happen. Accept that and move on. You must appeal to the center, and perhaps even the center right.

        Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

        by Bensdad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (2+ / 0-)

          ...they should not have done so. Dianne Feinstein is not a progressive, but she is a social liberal, with a middle-of-the-road credential (and on the left side of that middle line).

          but there are a lot better non-progressive options than DiFi for the ticket, both from electability and governing perspective.  

          The Clintons are corrupt selfish race baiting zero character scumbags. I'd rather be run over by a tractor-trailer than willfully vote for any Clinton again.

          by IhateBush on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sebelius (0+ / 0-)

          has held relatively progressive opinions--and supported them--in Kansas... while EXPANDING her support and margin of victory in re-election.  Appeals to relatively conservative voters even so, including Republicans.

          If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

          by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:06:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Damn straight! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I always vote for Boxer and Pelosi, but Feinstein sucks ass.

        Just when they think they've got the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

        by McGirk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:19:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, No, No. No On Feinstein (8+ / 0-)

      She just fucking AWFUL. Every time you see Mukasey, remember she and Chuckie Shumer put him in there.

      I'd fight like a wounded bear to stop her cold.

      That idea is dead in the water.  To know her is to loathe her.

      You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

      by mattman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you mean Feinstein? Yes, we need a list of (0+ / 0-)

        the worst votes of Democrats including Mukasey, Iraq War, not supporting the Feingold Censure, the Kennedy demands that Dick Cheney testify under aoth, support for the impeachment legislation etc.

        And a point system.  While I'm sympathetic that even many of my "Hall of Fame" progressive heros didn't make all the right calls, and we need to respect special circumsance, we also need to have a list of top Democratic incumbant seats that need to be "upgraded."

        We need to develop a better more effective system of progressive accountability we can be continuously implementing over the longer term when our memories are not as clear.  

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:01:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And the point about CA being blue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        in the first place is something to consider.  As it is with Biden and Dodd, unfortunately.

        Never give up! Never surrender!

        by oscarsmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:02:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  no way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, mjd in florida, oscarsmom

      A black and a Jew?  Good luck with that in the other 40 states...

      Webb narrowly won a light red state vs an incumbent who at the time was a possible candidate for President. Not easy to do that. That was a major win for Webb and I dont think you can belittle it by saying he did not win by enough.

      If the solution has never been to look at yourself, how is it that you expect to find it anywhere else?

      by glutz78 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:54:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree Webb and Clark are being overrated, but (5+ / 0-)

      Feinstein, aside from her dreadful politics, is 75 freaking years old and has a history of, uh, questionable transactions involving her husband.

    •  Wesley Kanne Clark is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bensdad, witchamakallit

      half Jewish - father Benjamin Kanne was Jewish.

      And let me tell you, the silver fox will help you with women over 60, especially in Florida.

    •  Feinstein (0+ / 0-)

      is a senator... not something we need another one of on the ticket... AND has pissed off enough Democrats in her own state (me included) that we're ready to actively support a primary contender to take her out.

      Bad, bad, bad choice.

      If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

      by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:05:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, the reason, I presume..... (0+ / 0-)

        ...that you don't like her is she is not liberal enough. That's exactly why millions of others WOULD like her. We have to go toward center. Geo Bush was installed TWICE.

        Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

        by Bensdad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shit. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm quite capable of accepting someone "not liberal enough."

          But someone not in a corporate back pocket, not inclined to vote in favor of a flag burning amendment, etc... would be nice.

          It's why I'm leaning to Sebelius right now.

          CA is a done deal for the Democratic candidate.

          What does DiFi bring that Sebelius doesn't?  Only Sebelius is young enough to be not a geriatric candidate in 2016, has been an executive, wins by a big margin in a red state... and doesn't have a long senatorial voting record to be parsed and distorted to death.

          Oh, and she's not a dreaded "coastal" candidate.

          DiFi would add nothing except a presumed appeal to women.  Sebelius has that too.  Only more.  Because she would not be there just to keep the VP slot filled, but would still be a viable option in 2016.

          If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

          by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:27:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The California Supreme Court just approved... (0+ / 0-)

            ...same sex marriage.

            California is at risk.

            Who the hell ever heard of Sibelius? Not too many beyond these Orange walls, and she is too new.

            Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

            by Bensdad on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Trust me... (0+ / 0-)

              CA is not at risk.

              McSame's chance here is equivalent to that of Ahnold getting the Constitution revised to permit non-native born citizens to run for the presidency.  And I live in the really conservative part of the state.

              If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

              by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:26:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Turning this country around is going (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ogre, oscarsmom, dgone36, In search

    to require long term planning and execution whoever is vp must have vision on a global scale, at least on the international and economic side because, hopefully, whoever is the vp in 08 will be the president in 16.

    I like General Clark and hold him in high esteem for his honesty and willingness to speak up when we needed him.  I don't, however, think he fits the bill for the future.

    •  Did you ever read his 100-Year Vision? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      witchamakallit, real world chick

      I don't know if it's still available anywhere, but it was visionary.

      I've often thought his philosophy is so similar to Obama's whereas his early loyalty was to the Clintons. It's interesting that I haven't seen him anywhere near the Clintons in recent weeks. I suspect it has become too difficult ethically for him to support their wacky behavior of late.

  •  Between The Two.... (5+ / 0-)

    ...I'd pick Clark.  I would not want to forfeit Webb's hard-fought Virginia Senate victory.  Clark could also conceivably put Arkansas in play, which it wouldn't be without him on the ballot, whereas Virginia is likely to be in play with or without Webb.

    •  I'd agree. (0+ / 0-)

      Clark over Webb.

      Even so, Clark's not my first choice.  Probably not my second or third--but that's not to suggest I'm consigning him to the outer reaches.

      If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

      by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:11:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jim Webb (9+ / 0-)

    no question.

    fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

    by seesdifferent on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM PDT

  •  Do you have a link? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Practice random acts of kindness.

    by Sally in SF on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:30:35 AM PDT

  •  Oh yeah, like Obama is going to listen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to Tom Daschle.

    So now that the talk of Clinton herself as VP candidate is dying a well-deserved death, the talk shifts to a Clinton loyalist.

    And when that doesn't work will they then talk about putting someone on the ticket who at least doesn't hate her?

    You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

    by A Mad Mad World on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:30:43 AM PDT

    •  nuff said (0+ / 0-)

      is anything BUT an argument in anyone's favor.

      Victory by blatant assertion.

      If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

      by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I could live with Wes Clark (8+ / 0-)

    if Obama thinks he can be a real asset in the fall campaign. Some say he is a bad candidate based on his brief run in 04...I am not going to go there because everyone but the winner could be portrayed in that fashion.
    I know he is very smart.
    I know he has all the military credentials to offset McCain.
    I know he was very loyal to the Clintons,which is ok with me.
    Can he ensure that Obama would carry Arkansas?
    Will disaffected female HRC voters be mollified with Wes on the ticket?
    Would he make a good president either now or in 2016?
    Would he help with the Jewish vote?
    Would he help with the Appalachian vote?
    Is he in line with Obama's foreign policy crew?

    I would not dismiss this idea out of hand certainly and think if he can convince Obama that he would have no problem giving 100% loyalty to Obama's program then Obama will have him on the short list.
    Webb also. Richardson,Schweitzer,Edwards,Biden and Sebilius are on my not so short list.

  •  The only valid rationales for picking a vp are: (0+ / 0-)
    1. Can it make the administration in charge more effective?
    1. Can it keep the ship of state on course in an unfortunate emergency, if the president is unable to carry out its duties?

    A reliable and reasonably clean high-placed insider of past administrations would be a much better choice than the pandering choice of somebody from the armed forces. All that would do is reinforce the message that Obama doesn't have a military background, something that the repub-controlled media will be sure to remind the voters, since their nominee does have one for a change.

  •  In order of probability (0+ / 0-)






    It really depends on the climate that develops over the summer.  If after HRC concedes her supporters are still acting like nutcases, Strickland and Clark are sure bets.  If weaknesses in independents develop and McCain looks stronger than he does now, Hagel moves up.  

    If all is rosy and clear, Sebelius.  She just doesn't bring much to the ticket.  I think Obama likes her and would take her on as a close advisor but she's politically a no asset.

    Sen. McCain, it's not your turn either.

    by Hope08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM PDT

  •  If we get 50% of the Hillary vote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, JayDean

    we will still bury McCane. McCane is the worst Repug nominee I have ever seen. His flip flopping on every principle stand he ever made will lose the indies and the fact he doesn't look well will keep demoralized Reeps home.

  •  Hagel would be a brilliant political move (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mangusta, Hope08

    and would completely undercut McCain's only talking point: national security.

    I watched Hagel last night on CSPAN-2 (on a Saturday night -- yes, being a new father imposes more than a few limitations), and he spoke openly, candidly and reasonably about the challenges we face -- and he sounded so much like Barack Obama. He even said to the media: enough with the damn flag pin stuff -- pulling on his jacket lapel. We have serious challanges. He pounded Bush. He took a pass on Patreus, saying that he's nothing special. He pounded the GOPers in Congress. He dismissed McCain's worldview as wrongheaded. He praised Michael Bloomberg.

    If we truly want to redraw the map and change the way politics works, reform Washington DC and win in a landslide in November -- convince Chuck Hagel to run with Barack Obama.

  •  You should add a poll. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Webb: Too important in the Senate (4+ / 0-)

    If I were from Virginia, I'd be saying, "Keep your hands off my Senator!"

    Candidacy for the Vice-Presidency should be a step up for the person to whom it is offered.

    Webb has tremendous potential as a senator; he wouldn't be able to achieve much of it when he's in the so-called "bucket of warm spit".

  •  if I had to choose between the two (4+ / 0-)


    "Bigotry dwarfs the soul by shutting out the truth." - Edwin Hubbel Chapin

    by kenjisan on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM PDT

  •  Obama has to choose someone he can work well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North

    with, both at a political and a personal level. I'd be fine with lots of names, including Clark and Webb, IF Obama chooses one of them. Obama will need to choose a VP who can help him get things done at the executive level, as well as fitting into his campaign strategy, and that takes personal rapport as well. So I can't choose for him. I must admit that I would be sorry to see Webb go from the Senate, though.

  •  there is no need to pick a Clinton surrogate (7+ / 0-)

    and there should be no objection to picking an Obama supporter.

    Now that we have disposed of both of those silly memes. perhaps we might consider possibilities on their merits.

    No one is without flaw.  But it is also a question of what kind of presidency Obama intends to have.  

    Obama has made clear that he does not think he requires someone with military or foreign policy expertise, because he has demonstrated appropriate judgment.  Thus merely picking someone with military background is insufficient.

    I do not think Clark brings a single state to the table, nor is it clear what beyond the military expertise he brings.  And given some of his remarks during the campaign, his presence on the ticket could be a problem.

    I can think of other possibilities, but Clark would no longer be among them.  Webb, Edwards (who has apparently let it be known that he MIGHT consider another run), Sebelius, Strickland (who was not especially harsh during the primariees, outside possibility of Rendell (locking down PA and giving a shot at FL - but he is more than a bit of a loose cannon), Kaine (peronsally very sympatico but giving up a governorship to a republican wingnut), Hagel (if you could get beyond his pro-life stand), Bloomberg (fusion without problems on social issues and a shot at FL), Richardson (not my pick - I think he is a weak campaigner) could all be considered as possibilities.  I would not consider Clark, nor do I think Bayh brings anything, and he is far too DLC for the message of a different kind of politics and government.

    There are others one might consider.  But the three names I would omit are  HR Clinton, Bayh and Clark.

    Real outside possibilities - Gore, if asked to serve in the capacity for one term (no doubt about his credibility on all issue), Feingold (totally right on quite a few issues), Biden, Lugar (better for Sec State)

    add your own names.  

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

    by teacherken on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:39:30 AM PDT

  •  I just saw Webb on MTP (4+ / 0-)

    He was saying again that he is not interested in the VP spot.  That worries me because he must know he's on the short list, and he IMO he would be tremendously helpful on the ticket.

    I was for Clark in '04 but now I think he dilutes the message of youth & new vs. age & old.

    I don't see Clark delivering a state, either.  Webb would be helpful in turning purple VA blue.

    I also think it's helpful that Webb has remained undecided as a SD.  That way it won't rub HRC supporters the wrong way if he is chosen.  Deliberate move perhaps?

    Never give up! Never surrender!

    by oscarsmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:47:19 AM PDT

  •  I'm amazed at all the Webb love here. (6+ / 0-)

    People pay attention to his voting record, right?  He makes Clinton look like Hippie Q Treehugger.  

    Besides, better to keep him in the Senate: he's a conservative Democrat, but that's better than a Republican in a state that trends Republican.  We need the numbers to secure a larger majority.

    If he were a better debater, I'd prefer Gov. Richardson, personally.  More foreign policy experience, executive experience, and pro-LGBT experience than anyone else who ran this year.  Problem is, he's a dead fish during debates.

    Sibelius would be a cleverly balanced ticket, but I don't know much about her.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:50:14 AM PDT

    •  Webb will not be making policy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman, Overseas, SBandini

      It's the best of both worlds--he adds the perception of balance to the ticket, without compromising Obama's basically liberal stance.

      If anything, it might be helpful to replace Webb in the Senate with someone more left-leaning!

      Never give up! Never surrender!

      by oscarsmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:51:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ALWAYS select a VP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with an eye on the real possibility that they could end up as president.

        Assassination happens.
        Fatal illness happens.
        Now and then... 8 years later, they're the presumptive nominee, too.

        If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

        by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and that is why I do not want him as a VP.  He is too Republican lite and god help us if for some reason her had to take the office.

    •  It's because we want to win (0+ / 0-)

      Webb is not my perfect politician.  I like populists, like Brown.  But the truth is that Obama does have a serious problem with a belt of white voters on the East coast (from Upstate New York down to the Gulf Coast). It's not even that Obama has to get them to come out and vote for him -- but he needs some of them who don't like him to at least stay home.  If Obama has a white southerner who comes out of that world -- whether it's Clark (of Oklahoma), Webb or Edwards -- that will help depress the racist vote.  Obviously, since Edwards is a progressive, he's my fave of the three but any of them would be an incredible asset in helping to neutralize those voters.  Part of what hurt us in '04 was that folks who normally might have sat out the race came out to vote against gay marriage. If Obama aligns himself with a man who comes from the voting bloc demographic that is most suspicious of him that will help us because it will keep some folks home.

      Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

      by Valhalla on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  economy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida

      issue #1 in the general election: Webb is anti-corporate economic populist.

      issue #2: foreign policy: gravitas plus the right side of Iraq and veterans issues.

      Your objections: irrelevant to the low information swing voter.

      The premier political debate coverage site: DebateScoop

      by demondeac on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:36:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No way a black AND a Hispanic (0+ / 0-)

      That eliminates Richardson.  I'm not saying that I would not vote Obama-Richardson, I would, but too many white people would be too chicken to vote a double minority ticket. A black and a white woman have a similar problem, unless McBush shocks the world by picking a woman.  If that happens, Obama MUST select a woman. A white woman.

  •  Rendell and Bayh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    are slimy race baiters and are totally unacceptable.  Rendell is also corrupt, anti-labor, and a backstabber, he proven this time and again from watching him here in PA.  He adds little to the ticket, this is a Jewish guy who has little ties with Jewish groups, yet gave lavish praise to Louis Farrakhan, and spouts his mouth with nonsense regularly.  I don't think Obama could stand him.

    Clark and Strickland, well would be decent picks.  If he needs a Clinton loyalist, you could do much worse than these guys.  If he doesn't need a Clinton loyalist, pick Jim Webb,  

    The Clintons are corrupt selfish race baiting zero character scumbags. I'd rather be run over by a tractor-trailer than willfully vote for any Clinton again.

    by IhateBush on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM PDT

  •  richardson (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    plembo, nsdq

    Real beauty is seldom appreciated by popular culture

    by Mikesco on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:54:24 AM PDT

  •  Webb (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, oscarsmom, blindyone, smileycreek

    You can't control him, but he's kick ass.

  •  Tom Kaine? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oscarsmom, lcarr23

    Just askin.

  •  How about neither? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'd rather see a female governor from a conservative state as VP...

    Lies, Torture and the American Way! (My Apologies to Superman)

    by Darksyde888 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:02:46 AM PDT

    •  Clinton will veto any female VP (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cph, Thaddaeus Toad

      other than herself.  It would take away her power.

      The Clintons are corrupt selfish race baiting zero character scumbags. I'd rather be run over by a tractor-trailer than willfully vote for any Clinton again.

      by IhateBush on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:07:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sebelius or Napolitano (0+ / 0-)

      (Caveat: I don't know either of them first- second- or even third-hand.)

      Both have extensive executive experience--a good thing to have in the Executive Branch.

      Either might help solidify demographics that Obama has trouble with. Besides the obvious gender factor, both Sebelius (nee Gilligan) & Napolitano could help back East with urban blue-collar ethnics.

      Either puts other states in play: Beyond their home states (not sure if either would be in play this year but ya never know), Sebelius has the OH connection (daughter of former OH Governor John Gilligan), Napolitano has links with PA (raised in Pittsburgh) and NM (HS in Albuquerque). Both are on the far side of the Mississippi & could help either in the Midwest or Southwest, respectively.

      Finally, both are Obama supporters.

      These are the upsides. I'm sure both of them have downsides (Sebelius' uninspiring 2008 SOTU response is often brought up); let's hear 'em.

      May I bow to Necessity not/ To her hirelings (W. S. Merwin)

      by Uncle Cosmo on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gore, Dean or Edwards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, lcarr23

    IMO, we need someone smart and honest, someone who appreciates Obama, someone who is not a Clintonista, someone who has electoral value, someone who is not a current office holder, and  someone the corporate giants, oil interests, neocons and  negative powers in this country would want even less than they want Obama.    The very worst VP prospect would be a Republican or Hillary or her surrogate.  Obama deserves a team player who would not be attractive at all to the neocons.

  •  I like them both (0+ / 0-)

    They have both said "No" but doesn't everyone (except Richardson)?  So I like to think they would be open if asked.  Because of the late stage of the game, I still prefer Clinton or Edwards, but if not one of them, then Webb or Clark.  Richardson is my distant #5.  Anything anyone outside of that shortlist just doesn't bring big to the table.  (Though in my heart of hearts, there's a flame for Joe Biden -- if only he had the charisma to match his brilliance.)

    Donate to the ACLU. Stand Up for Justice In The Military Commissions Proceedings

    by Valhalla on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM PDT

  •  Not Jim Webb (0+ / 0-)

    Obama needs someone who is progressive for a VP.

    •  Obama needs someone who will help him win (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pat208, mjd in florida

      Webb's not a dyed in the wool progressive, but outside of the FISA telecom immunity deal, I can't think of any major issue nowadays that most progressives or even Obama himself, would disagree with Webb on.

      Also considering the gravitas he'll give Obama on national security issues, taking care of our veterans, his belief in economic justice, his backround, the state he represents, he'll be more than a solid choice.

      •  far more progressive than you realize (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida, catchaz

        during Senate campaign he said government stopped at his door on three things, how he prayed, whom he loved, and his guns.

        He opposed the marriage amendment in Virginia.

        He opposed Clinton's falg-protection law.

        He has a union card (and three tatoos as well as his two purple hearts) and has walked picket lines while running for Senate.

        And he is very focused on economic equity issues.

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

        by teacherken on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Diane Feinstein has gravitas (0+ / 0-)

    including at the international level, but although she is far to the right of most of us in some ways, including FISA and Iraq (which vote she does admit was a mistake), we could live with that - the major problem is corruption charges that could stick - it wold be another Ferraro situation..

  •  Clark, hands down. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GOTV, revgerry

    He brings street cred to Obama's vulnerability on national defense, he appeals to the white southern so-called patriotic voter, he's articulate, he's a Clinton supporter,  and he has a national visibility.  The hawkish independent will feel comfortable with him.  

    I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

    by lightiris on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:16:38 AM PDT

  •  Neither (0+ / 0-)

    Webb is doing a bang up job in the Senate.  He said out loud that he doesn't want the gig, and I believe him.  Secondly, the VP should be someone who can realistically take over the job, and also someone that can affect the electoral map in November.  In addition to not being able to do both of those, Clark exercised some poor word choice about Obama back when Hillary turned the nomination process into a middle school playground fight.  At this point I think Bill Richardson is the best choice.   He has the international affairs pedigree, he's been the governor of a state that has dealt with domestic and economic issues, he can change the electoral map, and he could actually take over the job.

  •  Clark. He respects Obama, probably even more now (5+ / 0-)

    that he's watched the campaign unfold.  He's also very honest.  

    He's been very respectful of Obama through this campaign, with that one very small exception linked above.  He's refused to do the kind of mudslinging that other Clinton surrogates have been doing - Joe Wilson comes to mind here.  

    Also, I think Obama could trust Clark.  He's the only Clinton surrogate I can confidently say that about.  I think the others would try to undermine him on Hillary's behalf, but I think Wes Clark would not do that.  He's the definition of a patriot.

    There is no perfect candidate for either executive position.  Obama is as close as we'll get for president; I think Clark might be the closest we can come for VP.

    "We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." Barack Obama

    by keeplaughing on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:33:22 AM PDT

    •  Does he still think that Obama is a wimp? (0+ / 0-)

      Or that he's not ready to be commander-in-chief?  I think his previous comments about Obama disqualify him.  Besides, he's never been elected to anything.  He has no record on non-military matters.  Why take a chance with him when there are plenty more qualified Democrats with proven records on domestic as well as foreign issues?

      •  Where is the LINK to these alleged remarks? (0+ / 0-)

        I want to see proof that Clark called Obama a wimp.  Solid proof.  If you don't have it, then stop repeating it.  

        "We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America." Barack Obama

        by keeplaughing on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  CLARK = Clintonista (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Enough said. Oh and I dread the "Clark in 2012" (that starts by about 2009) from the diehard Clarkies It has been SOOOoo refreshing to have the Clarkies crap absent on Dkos since last fall.

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

    by AustinSF on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM PDT

    •  Half the votes we'll get in November... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... will come from people who supported Clinton at one time or another.

      It has been SOOOoo refreshing to have the Clarkies crap absent on Dkos since last fall.

      Boy, somebody really doesn't understand the concept of a political coalition, unity, the need for a majority in order to win elections, etc.

      "Not only do I want an elite president,
      I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me."
      -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08

      by pat208 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh I do - want no part of insider Clintonistas (0+ / 0-)



        also if you understand what has just take place we have voted Obama = Diplomacy - NOT WAR mongers like Hillary Lost - right?

        to even mention a Military Guy former Republican that voted for Bush in 2000 like Clark for this ticket is freakin crazy.

        Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008 -4.63 -7.54

        by AustinSF on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ughhhh (0+ / 0-)

          The burnzzzzz!

          The only friggin thing you got right was

          a Military Guy

          Never a Republican.
          Voted for Clinton twice.

          "Mankind must remember that peace is not God's gift to his creatures. It is our gift to each other." Elie Wiesel

          by witchamakallit on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:31:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Webb VP/ Consider Clark Sec of State IMHO (0+ / 0-)
    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

      Secretary of State? What? Wouldn't Secretary of Defense be 10 times more appropriate?  He'd get to be the boss of some of those guys who served under him and who are now generals themselves.

      •  ineliglbe w/o Congressional waiver (0+ / 0-)

        would not be retired for 10 years, which is a legal requirement.  It has been waived before - for George C. Marshall.   But it is not a guarantee.

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

        by teacherken on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Neither... come on people! (0+ / 0-)

    These options stink, but thankfully Obama won't be foolish and pick either of these guys.

  •  Either would be a good pick, (0+ / 0-)

    but I doubt either would take the job.

    Webb is a first term Senator who would likely say that he owes it to his constituents to serve his term.  If he did accept, he'd be the perfect "attack dog" and might tip the scales in VA.

    Clark is super tight with the Clintons and would only take the gig if Bill and Hillary encouraged him to.  Clark isn't the most dynamic guy on the stump, but he's surprisingly good on TV, and the media seems to like him.

  •  General and Secretary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat208, revgerry, smileycreek, RomeyDa

    General Wesley Clark. Outranks McSame. By a mile.

    Secretary of the Navy, Jim Webb. Someone who so far outranked McCain in the very branch of the armed forces McCain served in. Under Reagan no less.

    These are far and away the best two choices.

    Plus, they are both on record on the economy and "values" and neither one of them backs down in a rhetorical fight. We need the kind of surogate who can say, "Bring it," and back it up.

    Sebelius? Rhetorical dishcloth.

    Words matter.

    The premier political debate coverage site: DebateScoop

    by demondeac on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:43:16 AM PDT

  •  Tie goes to the runner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, smileycreek

    Between the two, Webb has no "pro-Clinton baggage." Plus, he is from a swing state. (Arkansas is not one, even with Clark on board. See also: Edwards in North Carolina, 2004.)

    Still, if not Webb, Clark would be my second choice.

    The premier political debate coverage site: DebateScoop

    by demondeac on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM PDT

  •  Joe Biden for VP (0+ / 0-)

    loved watching his attack mode defense of Obama last week and he is an 'elder' statesman that doesn't appear 'old'

  •  Wes Clark would get votes, Jim Webb woudn't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I like Jim Webb, but he doesn't have the gravity of a FOUR STAR GENERAL. Anything McCain and the GOP says on terrorism and national security can be shot down by Wes Clark with MORE authority that McCain. A

  •  IMHO I think (0+ / 0-)

    we need someone like Biden, tough foreign affairs guy.. or someone else, please think

  •  Here are my picks for Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Steve Beshear, Ted Strickland, Phil Bredesen, Joe Manchin, Don Bebbee, or Brad Henry.

    They are all governors with the "working class" demographics that Obama has not been fairing well with. He could perhaps bridge the gap between that currently exists between Obama and those voters.

  •  Two Bad Choices (0+ / 0-)

    That prove the proposition that Barack Obama is just a shiny new face for the same old military-industrial complex.

  •  I trust Obama to make his own best decision (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If I trust him to run the country, I must trust him to pick his own V.P.!!

  •  Clark would be a great choice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    witchamakallit, Delore

    Against the war from the beginning (read his Seton Hall commencement address), brilliant, thoughtful, eloquent in an understated way.  I can imagine him and Obama having really deep conversations on the issues.  Pretty progressive -- especially for former military -- actually far more progressive than Webb.  Also better temperament for VP  -- Webb can be very abrasive, high-handed, and abrupt -- not a good second position guy.  Clark would also mollify the Clinton supporters as he (understandably, given their history) supported Clinton this time around.

    Clark would also balance the ticket in that he is a working-class white from Arkansas, grew up poor, joined the military as a way up, and devoted his life to service for his country.  Certifiable war hero, wounded in Vietnam.  Blows the socks of McCain for both foreign policy creds and military heroism.  

  •  Clark over Webb (0+ / 0-)

    Webb would get LOADS of votes from GOP & independent voters. he might seal the election, if his previous sexist remarks don't anger the Clinton supporters who are already mad.
    but this is a rough world, and we have to face the possiblity that something could happen to Obama. we didn't work this hard to have someone as conservative as Webb become president under the worst-case scenario.

    so it's Clark. he's much more progressive than Webb.

    we should work to defeat any candidate who steals the Democratic nomination.

    by catchaz on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM PDT

  •  CLUE-FREE (0+ / 0-)

    Is my grip on the assertion that Hillary's core vote wants a Clinton-loyalist.

    Those who are in that camp will almost all grumble, mutter, whine... and vote Democratic anyway.

    The ones who might not, who need encouragement... are those who aren't personality cultists.  They are women who honestly thought that this election was going to be when a woman finally, finally....  And it's not happening.  And they're bitter, and they feel that it's sexism.

    Webb or Clark aren't going to appeal to them at all.  Look, another (white, older) guy who's been in power and gets to be VP because he was a supporter of the Clintons.  I don't think so.  That's not going to do anything at all to address the "it's sexism" charge.  Not at all.

    If Bill Clinton was the first black president... why can't Obama be the first female president? -- wry twinger, DKos, 5 May '08

    by ogre on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM PDT

  •  Neither has any charisma. (0+ / 0-)

    It has to be Richardson, Sebellius, or Nunn.

  •  neither n/t (0+ / 0-)

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM PDT

  •  I say Nunn or Zinni. (0+ / 0-)

    Webb too unreliable, Clark just seems too linked to Clintons for my taste.

    "Will the Democratic Party stand up for the next generation? That's my Patriotism!" - Barack Obama, May 2nd 2008

    by choochmac on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site