Clark's opportunity as Vice president to Edwards

[MalloyLiberal]

You know how he's been saying he doesn't have the money or support.

HE WOULD AS THE VICE PRESIDENT!!! to become President in 2016!!

[lojasmo]

1. No.

Hillary might choose him. Edwards would not.

[MalloyLiberal]

3. Well, when the time comes, we need to vocally speak up and say Edwards

pick Clark!

[greendog]

2. How old will Clark be in 2016?

~

[MalloyLiberal]

4. I don't know but he's wonderful

He needs to lead our country one way or another.

[greendog]

7. I agree he's wonderful, but I think his age will be a problem...

...in 2016.

He'll be 72.

He'd be great in some sort of cabinet level position.

[phillysuse]

5. Wesley Kanne Clark Born December 23, 1944

He is 62 now, will be 72 in 2016.

Too late.

[Donna Zen]

11. Although

I'm guessing that he'll still be in better shape than most other people on the planet.

[phillysuse]

6. Wes Clark Jr said that his Dad would not

be anyone's Dick Cheney.

[Superman Returns]

8. no

at least not for Edwards. We are not having two white males on the ticket this time around. Plus, there is still bad blood between the two.

[Donna Zen]

10. A bit untrue

Given that the Edwards' campaign impugned General Clark's 34 years of service, one might expect him harbor ill feelings, but somehow I don't think he does. It would only drag him down, and Clark isn't necessarily interested in settling scores. It should be noted that it was Clark who accompanied Edwards when the latter made a foreign policy speech, and you must have noticed that Clark campaigned very hard for that ticket. Clark not only existed but succeeded in one of the most politically charged institutions in America: the Pentagon. So I'm not sure we can say for certain that there's bad blood, he's likely to be much too grown up to bother with small stuff.

As far as Clark being VP for anyone, I rather doubt that would ever, ever happen. Clinton probably assumes that she can carry AR, and any attempt at bolstering of her foreign policy/military credentials would only succeed in making her look weaker than she is. (look for DLC and $$$) Especially if the person chosen to prop her up had advised her in advance to vote against the war. As for the others, I'll just write "ditto." Besides, most of the cabinet jobs have already been promised to crony insiders, I don't think that Clark's part of the cue.

The General told a story the other day about MacArthur. He said it was not meant as an historical critique of MacArthur but merely an illustration of how people face adversity when then have a plan that they believe in. If Clark was faced with a plan or policy that was wrong for our country, but was a function of purely political thinking, it would place him in a tight spot. Thus, I hope that Wes Clark stays as far away as possible from most of the Democratic candidates. Really, he's already earned his stars; he doesn't need the aggravation of participating with people who check the polls before they decide what to have for breakfast.

[Adelante]

9. No, thank you nt

[FrenchieCat]

12. I don't believe that Clark's winning qualities should be used for another's aspirations........

to the highest office in the land. For those lacking a quality which could make the difference between winning or losing, the Veep can't make them whole.

In fact, it is the Edwards camp that maintains that folks don't vote for Veep. That's been the stock answer given when the question has been asked about how come Sen. Edwards didn't make a difference for John Kerry in the South during the last election? They have always responded, "voters don't vote for VP". And so I guess it doesn't much matter who Edwards pick if he wins the nomination......or so they say.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Ticket balancing has been done for 200+ years

While the VP pick does not make a big difference (unless you believe Dan Quayle is the reason Bush won in 88' :crazy: ), there has to be a VP pick and historically the VP choice has helped balance the ticket.

The condescension toward Edwards is amusing. Clark has the "winning qualities" but Edwards does not. That is why he finished 2nd in 2004 (Edwards was the only candidate other than Kerry to win more than one primary), is catching your current candidate for 2nd with far less media coverage, and fares the best of any Democratic candidate in general election trial heats. But, yeah, a retired general from North Carolina advised him, shared an opinion when asked a question after a speech at a college 3-4 years ago so that makes Edwards an eternal electoral loser. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

14. Since Edwards' has all of the winning qualities, I suspect he doesn't

"need" Wes Clark.....and so I'm sure that if Edwards is the nominee he will do just fine when he picks someone else for his ticket.

But to put your "Edwards was the only one that won two primaries other than Kerry" statement into context, Edwards winning North Carolina primary war really a bit of a joke. 17,420 folks voted out of a population of 8 million+ and the primary occurred after most of the other candidates had already dropped out. That's a bit over 2% of the population, and Edwards got 1% of the population voting for him (since he won by 51%). In other words, considering the adoring press that Edwards got after coming in 2nd in Iowa, he actually didn't really fare very much better than anyone else (including those who got no press or bad press) during the rest of the primaries. Kerry was really the only clear winner of that primary process through and through.

What makes Edwards an enternal electoral loser are the numbers results in the general election; the fact that he helped the ticket very little in the south (if at all) although that was supposed to be one of the main reason he was selected.......and has little to do with any general and what that general might have said to disparage another candidate......all the while "advising" Edwards. Hey!Maybe Edwards can pick that General as his Veep instead to make up for the qualities that John Edwards doesn't lack. :shrug:

In reference to who's "Condescending"...I believe that it is relative.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Who ever said he "needs" Clark?

He doesn't "need" Clark or any particular individual on the ticket. He just has to pick a VP candidate if he wins the nomination and Clark would be a great choice (as he would be for any of our candidates, except Obama since an Obama-Clark ticket would have only 2 years of significant political experience).

==Edwards winning North Carolina primary war really a bit of a joke.==

That is ironic. Clark lost Arkansas, right?

==he actually didn't really fare very much better than anyone else==

Finishing 2nd, getting on the ticket because of that, and challenging Kerry all the way to Super Tuesday was not much better than dropping out in January or early February?

Edwards won South Carolina as well and barely lost Oklahoma.

==What makes Edwards an enternal electoral loser are the numbers results in the general election; the fact that he helped the ticket very little in the south (if at all) although that was supposed to be one of the main reason he was selected.==

So why does he consistently do better than any other Democrat in general election trial heats? You seem to take it as an article of faith that Edwards is a weak GE candidate but never present any actual evidence to support that claim.

==as little to do with any general and what that general might have said to disparage another candidate......all the while "advising" Edwards.==

He was asked a question while speaking at a college. Did he have a secret script from the Edwards campaign and was just waiting for an opportunity to make that comment? I doubt it...

==make up for the qualities that John Edwards doesn't lack. :shrug:==

Edwards is not perfect (and neither is any other politician...). There is a 200+ history of ticket balancing. It is irrational to think such considerations will magically vanish simply because Edwards is the nominee. Clark, too, would have to do the same if he won the nomination...

[FrenchieCat]

16. I said he "doesn't" need Clark..........wasn't that clear?

Clark had dropped out by the time Arkansans voted.

John Edwards didn't finish 2nd as much as just hung in there, while the corporate media sold the idea that Edwards should be the Veep nominee. Hell, they preordained it. Which is why it is so ironic that many now claim that Edwards is "hated" by the media....cause in 2004, the media loved them some John Edwards. He was the guy that could talk owls out of trees, the next Bill Clinton, the positive campaigner, etc., etc., etc....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. North Carolina voted on May the 4th

The implication was that he "needs" Clark on the ticket.

==Clark had dropped out by the time Arkansans voted.==

And Edwards was long out of the race when North Carolina voted as well. Dean also won his home state after he dropped out.

==John Edwards didn't finish 2nd as much as just hung in there==

That isn't true. You are acting as if he were a Kucinich. He finished a strong 2nd in Iowa (kind of a big deal) before finishing a weak 4th in NH (a few votes behind the 3rd place candidate). Next came the 7 state Tuesday. He won South Carolina, almost won Oklahoma, and finished 2nd in Missouri and Delaware. Clark did well on that day as well, winning Oklahoma and finishing 2nd in three western states. Kerry won 5 of the 7. No one else did well. Dean finished 2nd in the next three states, with Edwards (3rd, 4th, 4th) and Clark (5th, 5th, 5th) lagging well behind. Then came 2/10 as Virginia and Tennessee voted. This would essentially eliminate either Edwards or Clark. They were essentially even in TN (Edwards 27%, Clark 23%) but Virginia doomed the Clark campaign (Edwards 27%, Clark 9%). Clark then dropped out. Edwards and Dean remained as the viable challengers to Kerry. The death blow to Dean came in Wisconsin on 2/17, as Edwards finished a strong 2nd (34%) and Dean a distant 3rd in almost a replay of the Iowa results. Dean then dropped out. That left Edwards standing as the only viable alternative to Kerry. Did he get there by default? No. He beat Gephardt, he beat Clark, and he beat Dean to earn that position.

==Which is why it is so ironic that many now claim that Edwards is "hated" by the media....cause in 2004, the media loved them some John Edwards.==

It is ironic to see a Clark supporter complain about people complaining that the media that once was very favorable to their candidate now "hates" him...

[FrenchieCat]

18. You are right about this........

"Then came 2/10 as Virginia and Tennessee voted. This would essentially eliminate either Edwards or Clark. They were essentially even in TN (Edwards 27%, Clark 23%) but Virginia doomed the Clark campaign (Edwards 27%, Clark 9%)."

and considering the amount of press Edwards was getting and the amount of press ignoring Clark.......I still am amazed that Clark did as well as he did. That was a feat to behold!

Hope Edwards does as well as Clark did if the press decides to totally ignores Edwards right before the vote occurs (like they did Clark)and during the votes occuring (like they did Clark) and after the votes occurs (like they did Clark). Because then, I might get impressed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Clark had been running ads in TN since December (as he was in several other states)

You forgot to mention that minor fact. ;)

Edwards finished 2nd with 32% of the vote in Iowa with virtually no press. Clark, who entered the race with a frontpage story on USA Today, received a tsunami of media coverage and hype when he entered the race as he was hailed as "the savior" (you claim the press turned against him. Sound familiar? ;) ). This is why he immediately took the lead in the national polls. Edwards got virtually no press until Iowa because prior to Iowa he was in the polls where Biden is today. Clark had a ton of money (by 2004 standards), was camped out in New Hampshire since he skipped Iowa yet barely beat Edwards in New Hampshire (after bleeding about 2% support each day between Iowa and New Hampshire. It was sad to see.). After that the media can be possibly be blamed for Clark's poor showings, if you ignore the minor fact about adversing... One major problem Clark had was that he received virtually no bounce from winning Oklahoma. Why? Because the result was not known until after newspapers had filed their stories. The headlines the next day were "Kerry wins 5 states, Edwards wins South Carolina, Oklahoma too close to call." Had Clark won decisively in Oklahoma the headlines would have been "Kerry wins 5 states, Clark wins Oklahoma, Edwards South Carolina." If that happened it may have been Clark, not Edwards, who made it onto the ticket. Of course, that did not happen. It is a shame Clark did not contest Iowa. As WC himself said to a supporter as he walked out the room after announcing his withdrawal from the race, everything could have been different.

[LaPera]

19. Edwards/Clark - really would be a hard ticket to beat!

And why the republicans are trashing and want Edwards gone, ASAP...Not unlike how they wanted and got the excellent Howard Dean gone in 2004 (because the republican media stuck together and made Dean's enthusiastic win in the primary, which was a complete non issue...nevertheless it worked)....The republicans usually always get what they want, they certainly aren't sitting idly by waiting, they never have nor ever will, their survive depends on it....of course the republicans want the weakest Dem candidate possible, who can deny that....the republicans wanted Bill Clinton gone...but he stood tough (Hillary is NOT Bill)....hopefully Edwards who is a fighter and politically astute will be able to do the same against overwhelming media, who are pushing Hillary like I've almost never seen them do before, and it's obvious to anyone with an open mind, why!

[amandabeech]

21. Veeps frequently don't do as much as some cabinet secretaries.

While I'm not a Clarkie, I think that he would make an excellent Secretary of State or of Defense (if he's been out of the military long enough). National Security Advisor also might work.

Why waste Clark on funerals or have him outdoing whomever is picked as SecState or SecDef?