I have to say it...don't want to...but...Wesley Clark would be the best VP

[KoKo]

I was never a fan of his. Mostly because I did believe Eisenhower's "Beware the Military Industrial Complex" caution.

And, since I was an "anti-Iraq Invasion DU'er" those words went to my gut. I didn't warm up to Wes, also, because there was so much "agressive energy" here supporting him, and I have a naturally suspicious nature about folks "in my face."

BUT....Of all the candidates I think might be great with Kerry, racking my brain as to whom I could accept and who would push Kerry forward, I'v e got to say that Clark keeps coming up. He's sounded better to me since he left the Campaign than he did when he was pushed here on DU.

I'm not into Military running our country. And, I don't want to see Any more Colin Powells as "tools of Presidents or P-residents! But, somehow, I don't think Wes is Powell, but maybe he could be?

Wonder if I'm missing the "downside" here of Kerry/Clark? Or is this a winning ticket?

[Sparkly]

1. Aw, go ahead and say it

Personally, I agree completely. :)

Clark helps take the War President crap off the table. He's also very, very brainy.

[smiley_glad_hands]

2. You forget that Wes is an intellectual too.

He would be great as a VP or a Sec of State. Don't know about Sec of DEf though---he has a problem with the chain of command--which goes back to his intellectuallism.

[Zen Democrat]

8. Clark is prohibited by law from being SecDefense

By law, a former military officer must be retired a minimum of 10 years before he is eligible to be Secretary of Defense. I see a lot of postings regarding Clark as SecDef, but he is barred from that position at least until 2009. I wholeheartedly believe Clark is the perfect VP for Kerry. Two war heros -- the Peace and Sanity ticket.

[IndianaGreen]

25. "the Peace and Sanity ticket"?

As opposed to Bush/Cheney's Fire and Brimstone ticket?

I'll take sanity any day!

[LandOLincoln]

12. He can't be Secretary of Defense. He hasn't been out of the Army

long enough. He's been out four years--has to be at least 10 to be SecDef.

But yes, he's far and away the best VP choice, IMO. He's the model of the Soldier/Scholar/Statesman that it's West Point's mission to turn out.

(BTW, Google John Abizaid when you've got some time. His resume is pretty impressive too, and of course he's also a West Point grad.)

I've read that by the time a man reaches general officer status, he's at least as much diplomat as warrior, and that's certainly true in Clark's case.

BTW, did you know that 55 U.S. diplomats/ambassadors/foreign service personnel endorsed Clark for prez when he was still in the race?

[Jai4WKC08]

37. Aside from the fact that Clark can't be SecDef...

Chain of command is really not an issue.

For one thing, as a principle cabinet member, what chain of command is there to go around? Any one of them reports directly to the President, granting they may go thru the VP on National Security Council functions, and other issues depending how the President uses his VP.

Now, the fact is that Clark is a man of strong convictions, who has a tendancy to say what he thinks and to fight for what he believes in. He is not a "yes man"... but he is a team player, and recognizes the need to support the guy he works for and the people he works with. For example, he never went public (until much later) with what he saw as a failure in the Defense Dept refusal to commit ground forces to Kosovo, or to even plan for it, but he did continue to push for that option even after he was told no. But Albright saw the need, and so did Solana in NATO, so it may well have seemed that Clark was working with both or either against his military superiors.

But in actuality, Clark did not work around his chain of command as a four-star. Part of the problem was, he had more than one chain, since as SACEUR he was directly answerable to NATO Secretary General Solana, as the senior US commander in NATO he was responsible to the head of the US delegation to NATO, which brought Albright and the State Dept into the equation, and as Cinc European Command he worked for the Secretary of Defense. The NATO relationships are unique to Europe, of course, but ALL regional CinCs work with State Dept reps in their regions, usually thru the embassies, but sometimes thru special envoys and other appointees. The SecDef and Joint Chiefs understand that--the supposed problem with Clark was merely another battle in the campaign to limit any US involvement in Kosovo, which in turn was really part of the war to discredit Clinton. Clark was one of many, altho probably the most visible, caught in the middle.

So the main problem with Clark was that he worked for a Republican SecDef at odds with the President's policy that Clark was obligated to carry out. There were no doubt personality conflicts at work, but fundamentally Cohen undercut Clark purposely to further anti-Clinton politics--his first loyalty was to his former collegues in Congress and their sponsors (who fwiw have put him in a rather cushy job since his SecDef tenure). And those people, you may remember, were dead set against US involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo. Again, wholely for poltical reasons, to undermine Clinton's authority and will.

When Clark was successful anyway, making Clinton look good, Cohen stabbed him in the back.

The thing is, by law, Clark as regional CinC worked for "the national command authority," which is further defined as the President AND the Secretary of Defense. The law doesn't anticipate that there should ever be a division in the intent of these two. But the assumption for most would be, I think, that first loyalty goes to the President as the US Commander-in-Chief. The SecDef is NOT a "deputy" in that capacity, for all that he is considered to be within the chain of command. Under normal circumstances, this ambiguity is no big deal, but of course nothing about Clinton's second term was "normal" and having a SecDef from the other party during a war that was not unreservedly supported by both parties was a huge mistake on his part.

In any case, it was Cohen who "fired" Clark, without Clinton's knowledge, and with the official reason that it was merely a fairly routine rotation of general officers. Then Cohen purposely leaked the information to the media before Clinton found out, so that it would have looked bad, and caused Clinton further controversy at a time he didn't need it, to contermand the order. Clinton has since gone on record as saying it was a mistake not to intervene anyway, but at the time, I'm not sure he had much choice.

The mistake was in appointing Cohen in the first place--so much for the spirit of bi-partisanship. Think about that, those who would have McCain in a Kerry administration.

[maddezmom]

3. good to hear you say it

couldn't agree more. :)

[KoKo]

4. A "thinking mans/women's General, in these times might be a good thing.

but then we thought that with Powell. (I didn't think it with Powell, never liked him, but many Dems did think that, so they saw something there). :-( BTW Powell's son at the FCC sort of shoots down what any of us could have thought about him as being "reasonable," doesn't it.

Ugh!

[madmax]

5. I think it's THE winning ticket

Two decorated war Vets with brains and ability.

[KC21304]

6. Definately a winning ticket.

No matter how people answer poll questions about the economy being most important, when it comes right down to it I know it is going to be terrorism and Iraq that will be the deciding factor. If for no other reason than that is what Bush/Cheney want it to be about. And if we happen to have an incident between now and the election. . ..

So I think we have to have Clark on the ticket. I saw them together in Madison when Clark announced his support for Kerry and they were great together.


Actually I was about 2 feet in front of Kerry and Clark when the picture above was taken, Madmax.

[madmax]

9. Oh, please don't torture me

;) I'd give anything to be that close. <sigh>

[West Coast Democrat]

7. I don't understand how anyone could not love Wes Clark

He is not a pro-War military guy; he is cautious. He is intelligent, handsome, sincere and has tons of experience.

I don't see how we could lose with this ticket.

[ThatPoetGuy]

10. I've said this before, Clark will break the Republicans.

The military, military supporters, military families, are a key part of the Republican voting constituence. Run Clark with Kerry and we get that bloc. Each of those votes is worth two of ours; we take one from the other guy, and add it to our side.

Kerry/Clark wins Congress back and possibly the senate. Kerry/Clark sends Republicans worming back into their filth for a decade.

[MoonRiver]

11. Well, I totally agree with you!

And welcome to the Kerry/Clark camp!! Wes really is the best!

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. It's the winningest ticket.

:7 Clark is the perfect choice for this day and age. I can see no downside to him being VP. None.

[Sparkly]

14. If only the VP decision were made

by a referendum on DU! How can we influence the campaign, or can we? It was easier to know how to support Clark for president than it is to know how to support him as a VP candidate.

[MoonRiver]

15. I read a post from somebody connected with the upper echelons of the Dem

party, that they DO read DU and pay close attention to what we say. I can't remember the name of the poster or thread so I can't do a search for a link. Maybe somebody else remembers and can search.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

28. Well so long as they're reading, here's another vote for Clark

In addition to all the excellent reasons posted here, here's a dumb but real marketing reason: It just sounds great.

Kerry-Clark
Kerry-Clark
Kerry-Clark

Sharp, smart and packed with that great "k" sound that makes it sound like a train on track.

Compare to Bush-Cheney which sounds like an aging, leaky valve. Kinda like the ones in Dick's heart. :D

[MoonRiver]

30. I've had that same "petty" thought from the beginning!

But really it's no more petty than having handsome faces. All these factors have to go into consideration. Not the most important but they are factors.

I see you're a "Rumpold of the Bailey" fan! I always thought that pet name for his wife was totally hilarious, and have used it many times when teasing my husband!

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Not only does Clark have the resume....

he's one of the best speakers we have when we want to stay on point. He destroys anyone who takes him on.

Yeah, as someone said, this election is ultimately a referendum on terrorism and how Shrub is handling Iraq, no matter what we would like it to be about.

They're already losing it trying to paint Kerry as soft, and they'll completely fall apart with Clark on the ticket. No way you can label Democrats as ineffective on defense with that team.

The slime machine will try, but they'll just be throwing shit into the fan.

[dogman]

17. The best thing about Clark for VP is

that for him it's not about himself and whether he'll be the star of the Party. He will put all of his energy into getting Kerry elected as President. It's not about what position he'll hold or where he'll be in 4 or 8 years, but getting B$$$ out now. On top of that he brings more to the Party than anyone else I've heard considered. He can do any task that Kerry might ask of him and he is able to focus on the mission at hand.

[Leilani]

18. Right about Clark not wanting it for himself!

He is a true Patriot. He loves his country & sees it going to hell.

He has worked harder for Kerry than anyone else in the party.

I not only think he will bring the most to the ticket, but would be SO valuable as Veep. The mess in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, homeland security, foreign policy & making amends to our allies; these issues will require perhaps more time & energy than any other, & Wes could prove to be an invaluable help to Kerry.

[grannyfran]

19. I Agree!

The man is intelligent, articulate, compassionate, experienced, ethical, progressive, well-read and seriously cute. What more could you ask for!

[Nashyra]

20. Warren Buffett thinks he's good too

He donated 2000.00 to his Presidential campaign. Buffett knows a little about finance also.

[KoKo]

21. Does anyone know what Kerry might have thought of him though? So far

he's keeping a lid on who he might favor the most. We know he's friends with McCain and there's been a buzz on DU about that, and Gephardt has been floated, although why they would be a good pair is beyond me, but of the Candidates I wonder which he might have been closest to?

Wes Clark was around Washington long enough I would think he would have run into Kerry, but maybe not. :shrug:

[Adelante]

23. They know each other well

There was a bit of difficulty when they were running against each other, naturally, but they have known each other for many years. I don't say they are best buds, but certainly friendly. They've each called the other "a friend of mine." In any case, since Wes dropped out and endorsed Kerry and is campaigning for him, it is certain they are in touch regularly. In my opinion, if Kerry had been doing better in his campaign last year, Wes would never have accepted the draft. He saw that Kerry was the only possible candidate, once Bob Graham dropped out, who had the necessary foreign policy credentials to deal with the mess we are in. With Kerry flagging and Graham out, Wes felt compelled to step into the void.

[KC21304]

35. As I have said here many times, when Clark endorsed him

in Madison, the chemistry was great. I was lucky enough to be in the front row and I called it magic, but maybe I am a little prejudiced because I have said Kerry/Clark since before Clark entered the race.

Kerry said that day, not only was Clark now behind him, he would be beside him the rest of the way.

This was Feb 13, and it was not certain Kerry would get the nomination. Being in front I got to talk to both Kerry and Clark. I told Clark that he had to take the VP spot when it is offered. He actually put his hands on both of my shoulders and said " Well first we have to concentrate on getting John the nomination , and then you know it is John's choice to make." He had that glorious twinkle in his eye.

Because my daughter told Kerry how long I had been a supporter I got a hug and a peck on the cheek from him so I was floating for quite a few days. My pictures are not as good as some here of that event because I was actually too close, if that is possible. Have a few where I can see Kerry's nose hairs and Clarks tonsils. LOL.

Don't mean to go on about this again but just wanted to let you know that I think Kerry/Clark would do the trick. I think the longer the war and home security are front and center the more sense it makes.

[Adelante]

43. I can't imagine what it must have been like for you

Just watching them together on television was extraordinarily moving.

But this says it all:

"Well first we have to concentrate on getting John the nomination, and then you know it is John's choice to make."

Wes is about what is best for the country, and that is getting Bushco out of power, and the Democrats in, and making the nation and the world safer. That's why he barely waited two heartbeats before endorsing the man he would have supported anyway, if Kerry's campaign had not faltered last year. Wes is pledged to Kerry and his own best interest just does not enter into it. He doesn't look at life that way and that's what so many, unfortunately, miss about him. For Wes, it's not about ambition, although he is ambitious, it's about service. Whatever position John Kerry chooses for him, it will be where Wes can best contribute to national security. I trust that in Kerry.

[Adelante]

22. Well, KoKo

This comes as a shock.

But it's always nice when somebody finally "gets" our guy. Wes is the real thing. He won't let this country down ever. BTW, throughout the campaign, Clark said many times what Eisenhower said, "Beware the Military Industrial Complex."

While I'm on record as not being much in favor of Wes as VP, it is not because I think he would not be a great one or that he would not help the ticket. It's because I think he is needed elsewhere, specifically in national security/foreign policy. When Kerry talked today about a High Commissioner to Irag, I couldn't help but think of how much more useful Wes would be in that position than presiding over the Senate. That said, if Kerry wants him as VP, Wes would never say no, and if it's what they both want, then I will want it, too. The important thing is that his talents not be wasted at this critical time.

[Gemini Cat]

24. I agree!

A Kerry/Clark ticket is a winning and the best ticket!

[Merlin]

26. I absolutely agree. Have all along. Here's another very important reason.

Consistenly since Kerry locked it up, he has polled way ahead of Bush on everything except the WOT and national security. Clark would take away Bush's last line of defense.

I have no doubt that Kerry is going to choose Clark ultimately. In the meantime, he needs to make a lot of other wannabe VPs happy by giving them some consideration, so their grandchildren will be impressed.

[DaveSZ]

27. Yep

He would take the national security issue off the table.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Here are some good reasons that I agree with you.......

(repost from my entry in the VP "Skinner" thread)

General Wes Clark just completed a run for political office, and although he did not succeed in winning his race, he did much better than he will ever be given credit by the media pundits.

The same Talking Heads who deliberately both smeared and/or ignored Wes Clark during the primaries are the ones who came up with the "he's a bad campaigner" meme. The fact is that Clark raised an impressive amount of money during his short run (more than Edwards and Kerry and Dean in the month of January). He also worked the Internet in a way that came second only to Howard Dean's performance. He was really the only candidate besides John Kerry that won a state that was not his "home" state (and did it without free national media...as they virtually ignored him following Iowa...Edwards was the media darling throughout).

Wes Clark, as a political novice, handles the Republican Mean Machine Smears and the Democratic challenger's attacks remarkably. You see, Clark got it from all sides during the primary, precisely because of the threat he represented to all concerned. He got, what one would call "General Election" treatment from the get-go.

In reference to possible baggage, Clark was already vetted by the media during the primaries (as well as being vetted by a Republican congress in 1997 when he became a 4 star)....(unlike Edwards who was treated with "Kid" gloves by the media...but watch those gloves come off if he gets the VP nod).

for those worried about Clark attacks such as the Shelton-Cohen Cabal, think again. Since Shelton attributed his initial unsubstantiated attack on Clark to "just politics" during the Milosovic Trial in December, what else is there that has not already been discussed? Waco, WWIII, Hat Exchange, fired by Cohen, Perfumed Prince? All have been debunked, addressed or retracted. As always in politics, the smears that were leveled at Clark were orchestrated with an express purpose seeking a desired result. What's new about that? John Kerry is going through the very same tactics now. Difference is that John Kerry with Wes Clark on the ticket would have the entire Democratic Party and many millions of dollars to come to their defense. Also know that I can give you a long list of Clark military allies....as well as the list of the 55 Ambassadors who endorsed Wes Clark during the primaries.

The other smear of Clark being a Republican bodes well in the General Election. Kerry can even use the Clark Video in where he praised the Bush foreign policy to highlight how Americans tried to have faith and support the President....but he veered off into the wrong direction....and now our country is also taking that route.

And please don't underestimate what this man would bring to the table besides possible electoral votes. General Wes Clark's vast knowledge on all things concerning "real" national security, a proven military track record, a fresh non political face, charismatic energy, stellar Rhode Scholar intelligence, Southern every man roots, and a diverse electorate following (American Indians, Hispanics, Veterans, Gays, Jews, Muslims (due to Kosovo), the Southwest (came in 2nd in New Mexico and Arizona), Catholics, Baptists, the anti-war voters, the moderates, the Independents, and yes....the irked Republicans).

Also, don't neglect the coattails that John Kerry needs to provide the Democratic Party to win various Senate and House races (in more than one state).

Best of all are Clark's clear articulation of patriotic earnest concern for this country and his ability to discuss religion and tying it to Family values....in a way that even Fundamentalist Christians can agree on.....

The April Marist poll shows that 53% of Americans are most concerned with the War on Terror (33%) and the Iraq situation (20%)....while the economy is of concern to 44% http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/PZ040426.htm

Importantly, what Nascar Dad is not going to go for the General as their link to justify voting Kerry as opposed to the Bush machismo myth? Kerry can't get them on board any better than by having Wes on the Ticket. Edwards attracting Nascar voters is laughable......He oozes soft female cuteness....not hard angles and the tough type of charisma needed to woo these voters.

"but support from women is not Kerry's biggest problem. Closing the male side of the gender gap is." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4863243 /

The quote above from this article should remind us all of the meme that was being floated in New Hampshire back in January (the one that spurred all of the "sweater stories"....that Wes was not polling as well with women....but was doing extremely well with the male vote).

Personally, I think that it's about time that the Democrats put up their Heroes against the GOP Zeros currently occupying the White House. Kerry as the trust of a majority on the economy, and Clark would certainly neutralize the National Security advantage currently held by the Bush/Cheney team.

Maybe some think that Clark would be a big risk....But maybe, John Kerry needs to make a bold, courageous and brilliant choice.

Many in the media constantly state that John Kerry needs to "define" himself. What better way than by re-inforcing his perceived weakest flank while doubling his hero persona? Winning a particular state might be important, but the right presentation of the national security issue in this post 9/11 world would actually increase John Kerry's odds of winning in many states.

Plus Clark has proven his classy style of attacking the GOP. It's uniquely strong and concise yet elegant and refined. A great looking and smiling pitbull with muscles....tearing Cheney and Bush to shred at every turn of a well articulated sentence.

Now, that's my case for Kerry-Clark ticket....the Heavy Medal ticket.

[KC21304]

36. Thanks for a great rundown of Clark's strengths.

I remember when he first entered the race. His numbers were sky high. I believe they will be again. I just know he would put that ticket in the stratosphere.

[KoKo]

42. You make some interesting points. Particularly that he's already been

vetted, so the worst is out there,hopefully.

[MessiahRp]

31. I like Wes Clark an awful lot...

I was always a Kerry guy but Wesley Clark has really warmed up to me with his soft spoken caring demeanor yet strong intellectual presence. Being in the military only makes him an asset in an election which appears to be about the Nation's Security, and I like Wes' stances on pretty much everything else.

I would love to have him as our VP candidate.

Rp

[Toucano]

32. Where are my flip-flops?

Just kidding. ;)

If only the freepers and repugs were capable of the same critical, thoughtful analysis of issues that you've demonstrated, the world would be a better place.

Thank you for using your brain! :loveya:

[JVS]

33. oops, I meant to post to the original not to you

sorry

[JVS]

34. It would be nice to have someone who didn't support the war on the ticket

But I doubt that it will happen. Maybe Vilsack, but I don't know his position on it.

[PSU84]

38. Kerry/Clark '04

Wes Clark is an extraordinary person - and not a "typical" Army General. I'd love to see him debate draft-dodger Dick Cheney!

[Cornus]

39. Wesley Clark would be the best VP...

...but Kerry/Anyone will be the winning ticket. He can choose anyone he wants and he is STILL going to win.

[Armstead]

40. I agree

Clark botehred me a bit during the primaries, but he's been looking a lot better since then.

His position on Iraq is much more substantial and nuanced than Kerry -- or at least he explains it better. He is able to explain how we fucked up, and what can be done in military and political terms.

He's also more in line with us crazy progressives than some of the drab DLC corporate clones, in that he seems more willing to acknowledge liberal principles than a Bill Richardson, while not being threatening about it.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. It's like we tried to tell y'all in the primaries...

There's a big difference between actually having done this sort of thing, and just having debated it in Congress. That's why Clark can explain it better, in more detail, and with a deeper comprehension of the subtleties involved.

That's not a slam on Kerry--God knows we need good, smart Senators and he's one of 'em. But it's not the same as hands-on experience.

[Leilani]

44. And as the War in Iraq Worsens

it becomes a more important issue for voters.

Wes Clark not only has the hands-on experience, as you say, all the Generals over there either worked with him or for him at one time.

Send Wes to Iraq to talk to the people on the ground & try to find a way out of this bloody mess.

[KoKo]

45. Interesting, what you say about his articulation of his position.

Thanks.

[salonghorn70]

46. Oklahoma

I wonder how a Kerry-Clark ticket would play in Oklahoma. If we could force Bush to spend some time and money in a state like Oklahoma, then that would be great.

[Ilsa]

47. He and Edwards are the only two

that add excitement, IMO. Everyone else puts me to sleep.

[LuLu550]

48. Wes-ley, Wes-ley

I think he's the best, too.

[RafterMan]

49. Not that it's scientific, but...

http://www.politicsnationwide.com/voteresults.asp

Who should Democratic U.S. Senator John Kerry select as his running mate for Vice President of the United States?

Percentages of votes cast by all Democratic voters:
41.25 percent U.S. Senator John Edwards, D - NC
31.11 percent General Wesley Clark
8.04 percent U.S Senator John McCain, R - AZ
5.59 percent Governor Bill Richardson, D - NM

Percentages of votes cast by Republican voters:
21.59 percent U.S. Senator John Edwards, D - NC
12.50 percent U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D - NY
10.22 percent U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi, D - CA (8)
7.95 percent General Wesley Clark

Percentages of votes cast by all Independent voters:
47.45 percent General Wesley Clark
18.64 percent U.S. Senator John Edwards, D - NC
16.94 percent U.S. Senator John McCain, R - AZ
5.08 percent U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D - LA

Combine this with the polls that show Bush's continued strong lead in national security issues and pat yourself on the back for choosing the right answer.

[Adelante]

50. Maybe they are listening

He had better hope so, for President Bush's own list of wartime vulnerabilities is growing. Last week was the first anniversary of his "mission accomplished" landing on the USS Lincoln, and the videotape of his strut across the deck in his flight suit is arguably far more politically damaging than the one of Kerry as a shaggy-maned protester in 1971. Other recent footage—from Iraq—is even more problematic: images of wounded and dead American soldiers on battlefields, and of Coalition members humiliating prisoners in a Baghdad jail. Poll after poll shows support for the Iraq war eroding—a trend unlikely to be reversed by Ted Koppel's reading of the "names of the fallen" on ABC's "Nightline" last week.

In the meantime, behind the scenes, Team Kerry has stepped up the pace of the search for a running mate. Jim Johnson, a longtime friend of Kerry's, is supervising the process, which has fully vetted two contenders so far, Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. John Edwards. A third is undergoing the process now, NEWSWEEK has learned. He is retired Gen. Wesley Clark—a further sign of Kerry's interest in the commander theme. And the tight-lipped Johnson, NEWSWEEK has learned, privately expressed considerable interest several weeks ago in Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, who meets several veeply criteria: he's close to Kerry (having helped him win Iowa), he's Roman Catholic (which has become a major plus in national politics) and he's a geographical twofer, having been reared in western Pennsylvania, a key battleground. One insider predicts that Kerry will pick someone by the end of this month—extraordinarily early but perhaps an urgent necessity to fend off GOP attacks.

But the more urgent task is developing a coherent message. For that, Kerry has deployed a consultant team led by Robert Shrum, the widely praised—and widely derided—writer and adman. Shrum is known for lilting, alliterative speeches, union-hall populism and his track record—which is excellent in everything except presidential campaigns. Working with Mary Beth Cahill, the campaign manager, Shrum and his partners have assembled their pitch. They are planning to sell their candidate as a paragon of "service and strength" whose mission statement is "Together, we can build a stronger America." A new, lengthy (60-second) "bio" spot will run for three weeks in at least 20 states, including at least one (Louisiana) in the South, NEWSWEEK has learned. It will include footage of Kerry in Vietnam and as a protest leader ("We aren't going to run away from that," said one adviser). There will be testimonials from some of Kerry's Vietnam compatriots.

What's interesting is not how different the substance of the message is from Bush's—but how similar. In a post-9/11 world, it seems, "togetherness" is a good idea, but "strength" is indispensable. In a well-crafted—and well-received—speech at Westminster College in Missouri late last week (a speech written by newly installed wordsmiths), Kerry in essence agreed with Bush on most points: that we can't leave Iraq precipitously, that we may need more troops, that we have to involve NATO and train the Iraqi military carefully. "We should sign him up as a surrogate," said Nicolle Devenish of BC'04. "Those are all our positions." But she may be missing the point. For now, at least, Kerry's strategy is clear: if the country wants a commander in chief, pick the one who has actually been under fire in war, not the stateside guy who got us into Iraq.

Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4881085">Newsweek May 10 2004