Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Would Wesley Clark running for Vice President help Obama deal with Sen. “McNasty”?

By
July 30, 2008

If Obama decides it would be helpful to have someone running with him who could play bad cop to his good cop in dealing with the septegenarian juvenile delinquent McCain I think Clark would be right for the role.

new: Idea gains traction with new website, A.P. story, Daily Kos and other blogs.

See update at end on column.

General Wesley Clark supposedly ruined his chances for the Veep selection with his remarks about McCain’s fighter jock experience and POW years not qualifying him to be president. Apparently a tendency to bluntly tell the unvarnished truth was deemed a trait not suitable to make the “short list”. But now McCain is playing dirty, so maybe the ever polite Obama could use the sometimes hard-edged Clark on his flank.

UPDATE: With the McCain campaign now being run by members of Bush’s dirtier than dirt re-election team, it’s no wonder we’re seeing a shift to GOP gutter politics. Here’s what today’s New York Times had to say:

The moves are the McCain campaign’s most full-throttled effort to define Mr. Obama negatively, on its own terms, by creating a narrative intended to turn the public off to an opponent.

Central to the latest McCain drive is an attempt to use against Mr. Obama the huge crowds and excitement he has drawn, including on his foreign trip last week, by promoting a view of him as more interested in attention and adulation than in solving the problems facing American families.

The intensity of the recent drive — which has included some assertions from the McCain campaign that have been widely dismissed as misleading — has surprised even some allies of Mr. McCain, who has frequently spoken about the need for civility in politics. Read article.

Before Al Gore and Dick Cheney demonstrated that a vice president can be more than a president in waiting, there were two criteria for selecting a running mate. The vice presidential candidate had to be seen has to be readily able to assume the presidency and ideally would be likely to help win one or more swing states.

This election we see the V.P. candidate as possibly making up for perceived deficits in the presidential candidates resume.

Voting irregularities and the fear factor of 9-11 aside, two things are generally agreed on as important factors in George W. Bush’s 2004 victory over John Kerry. One was the Christian evangelical vote and the other was Karl Rove and the advertising coming from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The later was so effective that Swift Boating became a readily understood term.

The man who promised a dignified and truthful campaign is now running a campaign that belongs in the sewage running in gutter of a third world road. The New York Times doesn’t exactly say this in the title of their main editorial today but with “The Low Road Express” (LINK) comes close enough.

I won’t list the recent examples of how McCain has tried to portray Obama as unpatriotic, even a traitor. The Times editorial describes some of them but more come out every day.

John Edwards was ill suited to take on the role of attack dog in 2004 fighting back against the Swift Boating while John Kerry remained above the fray.

Maybe West Point valedictorian, Rhodes Scholar and wounded combat veteran General Wesley Clark would be the perfect person to return fire for Obama.

UPDATE: (On the other hand, Hillary Clinton proved herself to be adept as she took occasional side trips on the low role towards the end of the primary campaign. See previous column. )

Watch Obama’s response ad, “The Low Road”. Will ads like this and Obama’s sound bites be enough to counter McCain’s crap assault?

UPDATE AUG. 2

Gaining traction –

This idea is getting some attention, including an Associated Press story about a new website, ObamaClark.com which was posted on Huffington Post:

Web site pulls for Clark as Obama running mate

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark is getting an online push for presidential running mate.

Excerpt:

A new Web site, http://www.obamaclark.com, offers readers a chance to sign a petition supporting Clark’s placement on the ticket with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Clark, a Vietnam veteran and former supreme commander of NATO under President Clinton, had been serving as a national security surrogate for Obama until he belittled McCain’s qualifications to be president during an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” last month.

McCain, a former Navy fighter pilot, was shot down over Hanoi and held prisoner during the Vietnam War.

“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.
LINK

and on the blogs, notably the high readership Daily Kos (here) and here for example

Read Clark’s impressive resume.

41 Responses to Would Wesley Clark running for Vice President help Obama deal with Sen. “McNasty”?

  1. griff

    July 31, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    Isn’t the comments where we get to editorialize?

    My point was not to petition for empathy but just a whisper of reality. One can’t ignore the economic hardships that have only just begun to manifest themselves in any real or dramatic way. The worst is yet to come, and I see no change in the future in terms of economics.

    Illegals will still pour across our borders and burden our schools and hospitals, with honest working Americans footing the enormous costs. We don’t need thirty million landscapers and maids here, especially since very few can afford them anymore.

    The Fed will still debase our currency and illegally manipulate the markets. Noone is allowed to even peek at their books, nor is the Congress given any oversight authority, in direct violation of the Constitution.

    So while at the surface things may appear to be different, the real problems we have are obfuscated under a littany of platitudes and feel good rhetoric.

    And to think that Obama will defy his masters in favor of the People is plain ludicrous. He is offering the illusion of inclusion, and nothing more.

    He wouldn’t have been allowed to get this far had be been a true representative of change. Ron Paul was a prime example of what happens to someone that represents real and fundamental change.

    Whether you liked him or not is immaterial. The changes he stood for and the power and energy of the people that supported him would not be tolerated by the Establishment.

  2. sherry

    July 31, 2008 at 10:13 am

    Kent I agree. If it weren’t so serious, it was almost be funny that people actually think BHO is somehow a different kind of politician.

  3. woody188

    July 31, 2008 at 10:45 am

    Yes, people should be realizing you don’t get to be one of the two-party system Presidential contenders without being owned by corporate, military, and special interests. Same has been true for at least 30 years, probably longer. It’s only more obvious now that we have the internet to expose the lies and propaganda.

  4. griff

    July 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    What Obama needs is to try and pay his bills on $6.00 an hour. Try that for a couple of months you megalomaniacal piece of pre-fabricated stool, and then get back to me with your “hope” and your “change”.

    Walk for a day in the shoes of John Q. Public and see how they fit. None too good, I would imagine. Spend a night in a tent city occupied by what used to be the middle class, and tell me how we need to lift other countries to our standards.

    Walk away from your comfortable, extravagant home and sleep in your car, like so many people have been forced to do, through no fault of their own but a trained obedience to a corrupt system and a greedy and gutless government.

    Explain to your kids how fun a “stay-cation” will be this summer, and how it’s necessary to be environmentally responsible while you jet around the world in messianic granduer, spewing empty rhetoric and blowing feel-good smoke up our collective ass.

    Explain to me why it’s necessary to slaughter innocents around the globe in the name of freedom while you take away those freedoms in your own country, and protect those that work against those freedoms.

    Explain to me where my country went, for I’ve looked and looked and it’s nowhere to be found. Not in your platform. Not in John McCain’s platform. Certainly not in the last seven years.

    So really, who cares who his choice for VP will be, other than the media circus and his wide-eyed, mesmerized disciples?

  5. Hal Brown

    July 31, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    You’re writing about empathy for others in this case those at or below the poverty level. Literally walking in someone’s shoes doesn’t provide empathy. Generally when politicians do this it is for show.

    It is up to voter to decide which candidate and which party has the most empathy for those at the bottom. Only John Edwards of the major candidates made an issue of the class divide between lower and middle socio-economic levels. The Republicans rarely address the other divide between middle and upper class. The Democrats do focus on this.

    I wish the Democrats would also address the problem of poverty in a meaningful way.

    Neither party has completed their platform. I doubt the input of a single person will make much difference to either side, but I believe the Democrats will pay attention to what people post on their platform website here.

    I think it is editorializing to suggest only the media circus and Obama’s “mesmerized disciples” care about the VP choice. Most of those who seriously follow politics aren’t in that later category.

  6. pollchecker

    July 31, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    I can tell you are a Republican, Grif, because you always find a way to blame Dems and exclude the GOP. Yes I know you think both of them are just as bad. So in all fairness, when you say you would like to see someone pay their bills on $6/hour, consider this….

    A Week In John McCain’s Shoes — His $520 Ferragamo Loafers, That Is

    In a day when John Edwards was criticized for spending a lot of money on his hair, isn’t $520 for shoes the same when that would pay some people’s rent or utility bill or health insurance for a month? I mean I know McSame’s wife is rich but if this were Obama well, the lie, cheat and steal Republicans would be using it against Senator Obama in their typical hypocritical fashion.

    I don’t believe that people are so much enamored with Obama as they just don’t want 4 more years of Bush through John McSame. And no matter what you or others around here say, there will be SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCESin how our country will work both today and in the future between the two men as POTUS.

    There will be a huge difference in judges, prosecutors, possibly the Supreme Court. There will be a huge difference in the bureaucracy and how it is handled. There will be a difference (notice I didn’t say Huge) in how they handle BIG ISSUES like Energy, taxes and health insurance. There will be a big difference in how they interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    This BS that there is no difference is a load of garbage meant to blur the huge chasm of differences between these two candidates.

  7. sherry

    July 31, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Poll, I do hope you are not suggesting BHO gets his shoes and suits at WalMart.
    From the looks of him, his clothes don’t come cheap.
    how is it you can diss JSM regarding the alleged price of his shoes. Do you know how much BHO’s cost?

    Go to page two for more comments.

  8. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    July 31, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Aren’t there any women candidates with strong Defense credentials short of Hillary Pants Suit?

  9. pollchecker

    July 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    yes, I knew that would be the first comment, someone made (grin).

    My point was…don’t sit there and single out Obama as someone who doesn’t know how to live on a budget.

    A — He’s not the only candidate who has expensive stuff
    B — He was raised by a single mom so my guess is that he understands what it is like to live on a limited income better than McCain
    C — Michelle Obama’s clothing budget is about 1/4th of Cindy McCain’s stuff

    That’s just for starters. I’m just really tired of singling out the Obama’s lifestyle and giving McSame a pass on the same thing. If nothing else, at the very least, Senator Obama at least pays his tax bills. We already have proven that McSame doesn’t and didn’t.

    So if I was going to pick one of the two candidates to represent the Average Joe’s side of the argument, I believe a better case could be made for Obama than could be made for McSame.

    I’m just really sick and tired of the duplicitous hypocritical dual set of standards…one for the Genuises of Propaganda (GOP) and one for everyone else. That is something that must stop.

    We can not have one set of rules for the rich and those in power and another set of rules for everyone else. I believe this is the “different type of government” that Hal was quoting in case for Clarke as VP.

  10. sherry

    July 31, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Poll, BHO is hardly without his dirty laundry. My point is one is just as dirty as the other. Who cares which wife dresses from which designer or what the budget is for Pete sakes.
    I want to know who actually has a PLAN for this country and quite honestly, neither seems to have one. It’s all so much BS.
    Poll, you are lucky. At least you believe in one of these dogs.

  11. Hal Brown

    July 31, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    Everyone posting please stay on the topic of the column.

    More on that. How does Obama deal with the dirty campaign tactics of McCain? The latest is claiming that Obama is playing the race card.

    Obama said McCain would try to scare people by pointing out that the Democratic candidate “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

    The Obama camp was quick to say that they weren’t suggesting McCain was injecting race into the contest.

    However, as several writers have pointed out, there is an underlying racist message in the Britney Spears Paris Hilton ad. Here’s what Seth Greenland has to say:

    Let’s put the virile black guy, the good looking slick talker who can drain three point shots in front of a crowd of soldiers in Kuwait, next to a couple of blondes known for flashing their honey pots in public. Then let the masses draw their own subconscious conclusion. Can you say Mandingo? Karl Rove can! Read article

    …and here’s what Bill Press had to say:

    Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?

    Only one reason. It’s a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully. Read article

    The Obama side now essentially defending McCain in their denials that Obama played the race card in the above statement. In fact in this case Obama wasn’t correct because the truth as that this ad does send an unconscious message to those predisposed to bigotry.

    I rather doubt that those who created the ad were unaware of what they were doing even if McCain had no idea of the subliminal message when he supposedly viewed and approved it.

    Karl Rove used to be in advertising and this is classic Karl Rove.

    I’d like to see Obama respond by saying “you’re damn right I’m going to draw the race card out of the Republican deck if it’s there and I am going to call them on it.” But then Obama won’t say “damn”. But Gen. Clark would.

  12. griff

    July 31, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Just playing their roles.

    I’ve stated before that I don’t really waste time on McCain because he is too easy and everyone else does such a fine job of it that I really have nothing to contribute. He also doesn’t have the fanatical blind following that Obama does, outside of the neocon crowd.

    Frankly the suits and the shoes are nothing more than distraction. They’re all the Ruling Class, The Elites, and have nothing but contempt for the average joe as they beg for our support. Political stagecraft and I haven’t the desire to perpetuate it or discuss it.

    From everything I’ve seen and heard from Obama, the federal bureaucracy will grow even more than under Bush. So if that’s the change you speak of, then surely you’ll get it. Bush is merely passing the baton of the unitary executive on to Obama, and he will have the Congress and the Courts at his disposal.

    The continued insistence that Obama is somehow interested in adhering to the constitution is laughable and an insult to anyone with at least two simultaneously functioning brain cells. FISA anyone?

    So yes, there will be a major difference between our two illustrious candidates. Do you want a tired old white man or an energetic young black one raping and robbing you daily? Because when it comes to this government, rape and pillage is the one enduring constant, regardless of the tag on the White House door.

  13. Hal Brown

    August 1, 2008 at 6:56 am

    Editorialize all you like. But I want to keep the comments section a discussion or debate on the subject of each column, and not a conversation diverging from the topic onto peripheral areas.

  14. sherry

    August 1, 2008 at 8:31 am

    Hal, sure BHO is playing the race card. He is controlling the message. Rather than having it as a dangerous undercurrent, he puts it out there.
    Not a BHO fan as you well know, but in doing this, he has taken the issue pretty much off the table.
    Therefore he doesn’t need anyone to perfect his message, or a VP to be his pit bull. BHO seems to do that pretty well on his own.

  15. Sandra Price

    August 1, 2008 at 9:15 am

    Hal, I happen to agree with you that Clark would bring in the missing link to fill in what Obama needs. Clark is an American hero along with being a pretty good politician. We need more respect and support for our service men especially when they sacrified their lives and limbs for a damn lie! I think Obama needs a pit bull in his corner.

  16. Hal Brown

    August 1, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Using BHO: something to consider by no means suggesting this applies to you! I googled BHO Obama and most of the websites which used these initials were anti-Obama and some rather vicious. Consider this about how Fox News uses it.

    Just as the Britney-Paris ad subliminally sends a racist message to those so inclined to bigotry, so does repeated use of initials that remind people of Obama’s middle name. It is shorthand for saying Barack Hussein Obama.

    While Hillary Clinton previously used her middle name and HRC had no negative connotations, Obama never used his middle name or initial.

    This is from The New York Times:

    Aides to both senators say hard feelings between the two camps are dissipating by the week — many people from both sides, in fact, were friends before and remain close — but some habits remain. In the primary, aides to Mrs. Clinton referred to their rival as B.H.O. — initials of Barack Hussein Obama, including his middle name, which has been a politically sensitive issue — while Mr. Obama’s team simply referred to him as B.O. The B.H.O. shorthand is frowned upon inside Mr. Obama’s campaign headquarters, a warning for any Clinton staff members coming aboard. LINK

  17. sherry

    August 1, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Hal, I admit it. I am lazy. I do BHO and I do JSM, I used to do HRC.
    Sorry if that implies anti anything. Actually the anti part is correct. I am pretty anti American politicians, but I never discriminate. I detest them all equally.
    That said, there is a history. JFK, JFK, JR, LBJ.
    Barack Obama has a different name, easy to misspell. BO sounds like somebody’s dog. (My brothers dog is named Bo.)
    And Hal. Where are your standards? Why are you watching Faux News anyway? :)
    Gotcha!
    Sherry

  18. Hal Brown

    August 1, 2008 at 11:21 am

    BHO is a unique case. I don’t watch Fox – or read it unless it is referenced as it was in this case.

  19. woody188

    August 1, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    I don’t see Clark as viable.

    1. At least this time around he’s been a Democrat for more than three months. Four years though still makes him more an outsider from their party than many of the long time supporters also being considered.

    2. He was labeled flip-flopper before. Remember how he said he would have voted for war in Iraq, but then back tracked and said he really meant he was against it.

    3. There is that video tape of Clark lavishing praise on the “leadership” of President Bush in May 2001.

    4. He supports a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

    Just some food for thought. It seemed you were concentrating more on his appeal to the center and right, and his ability to counter the opposing parties attack ads. But he has to win his parties approval first. That seems highly unlikely.

  20. Hal Brown

    August 2, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Gaining traction –

    This idea is getting some attention, including an Associated Press story about a new website, ObamaClark.com which was posted on Huffington Post:

    Web site pulls for Clark as Obama running mate

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark is getting an online push for presidential running mate.

    Excerpt:

    A new Web site, http://www.obamaclark.com, offers readers a chance to sign a petition supporting Clark’s placement on the ticket with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

    Clark, a Vietnam veteran and former supreme commander of NATO under President Clinton, had been serving as a national security surrogate for Obama until he belittled McCain’s qualifications to be president during an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” last month.

    McCain, a former Navy fighter pilot, was shot down over Hanoi and held prisoner during the Vietnam War.

    “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.
    LINK

    and on the blogs, notably the high readership Daily Kos (here) and here for example

  21. pollchecker

    July 30, 2008 at 9:34 am

    Does Obama need an attack dog like Wesley Clark for Vice President?

    Yes, Obama needs an attack dog type candidate for Vice President!

  22. sherry

    July 30, 2008 at 9:58 am

    So much for Obama and the brand of politics.

  23. Hal Brown

    July 30, 2008 at 11:08 am

    What kind of response would you suggest to the McCain Swift Boating?

  24. psyopswatcher

    July 30, 2008 at 10:11 am

    Obama needs a Rocky Anderson who isn’t afraid to pull any punches.

    http://mayor-rocky-anderson.dailykos.com/

    “…to ascertain and disclose to the American people the nature and scope of illegal conduct and other egregious abuses of power by the administration. Ascertaining and disclosing the truth about these matters is vital in order to restore our constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the crucial role Congress plays in a system of checks and balances that has been utterly emasculated by members of the administration.”

  25. pollchecker

    July 30, 2008 at 11:14 am

    Rocky Anderson would be a great idea. I’ll second that!

  26. pollchecker

    July 30, 2008 at 11:25 am

    Hal, I think regardless of who the VP nominee is, all these very experienced, very eloquent guys needs to come together and stand up to these lie, cheat, and steal clowns. Why they haven’t, I don’t know…perhaps it has to do with leadership in the DNC which is a whole other can of worms.

    Personally, I believe that Bill Richardson is the best choice for reasons I’ve stated before. He has experience as a National Security Advisor to Clinton another POTUS who was labeled in much the same way that Obama is being labeled. And he was Secretary of Energy…which in case anyone hasn’t noticed just happens to be a key issue. Plus he doesn’t take away any seats in Congress from the Dems which they need to overcome the GOP blockades.

    And he was the only candidate on the Dem side that called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq which would make a great attack dog against McSame’s “the surge is working” rhetoric especially at a time when more American troops died in Afghanistan this month than in Iraq!.

  27. Charlie Couser

    July 30, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Hal;

    Wesley Clark an attack dog? Come on! He’s more the cuddly, lap dog type, isn’t he?

    How about Barney Franks? Now, there’s an attack dog! Sic’um, Barney, Sic’um!!

    :)

    Charlie Couser

  28. Hal Brown

    July 30, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    I have nothing but admiration for Barney Frank. He’s the representative for the Massachusetts district we live in.

    He is regarded by insiders as one of the most brilliant minds in Congress and also as having the quickest wit.

  29. Flapsaddle

    July 30, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Clark would be a good choice. It would add that perceived comfort of a military dimension that Obama lacks. But I’d agree with Pollchecker that Richardson might be the better choice.

    Most sincerely,

    T. J. Flapsaddle

  30. Hal Brown

    July 30, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I agree that Richardson is a good choice; however of all those I can think of who have been considered I consider Clark the best able to take on the role of countering the negative (Rovian, Swift Boating, whatever you want to call it) tact described in the New York Times editorial.

  31. ekaton

    July 30, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    “Maybe West Point valedictorian, Rhodes Scholar and wounded combat veteran General Wesley Clark would be the perfect person to return fire for Obama.”

    Don’t forget “butcher of Kosovo”.

    — Kent Shaw

  32. Hal Brown

    July 30, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Clark led the bombing of Kosovo until Milošević complied with conditions the United nations had set and withdrew his forces from Kosovo.

    There was obviously considerable loss of life.

    Michael Moore on the left and others on the right have been critical of Clark calling him the “butcher of Kosovo”. It’s also been claimed by some on both the left and right that he was in part responsible for Waco.

    How these and other controversies in Clark’s career would effect the election if he ran on the Obama ticket is debatable.

    So perhaps we could debate it.

  33. sherry

    July 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    I don’t see that McCain is Swift Boating. He doesn’t need to. Obama gives him plenty of material.
    That said, how about just speaking truth to power. It has been my experience if one answers in kind, that puts on on the level of the opponent on wishes to avoid.
    Perhaps, Obama could say something like, “Forget McCain’s rants. We are the change we have been waiting for! Hope!
    Change!”
    I have no clue what Obama means by we are the hope we have been waiting for, but hey people like it.

  34. Hal Brown

    July 30, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Swift Boating or using Karl Rove-like tactics or whatever you call it, it seems to me that after vowing to “run a respectful campaign focused on the issues” McCain’s campaign is taking the lowest possible road.

    This is how Sam Stein puts it:

    “On a day when major news organizations across the country are taking Senator McCain to task for a steady stream of false, negative attacks, his campaign has launched yet another,” read a statement from (Obama) spokesman Tommy Vietor. “Or, as some might say, ‘Oops! He did it again.'”

    In the end, the ad may tell voters as much about McCain as it does the Illinois Democrat. It was not too long ago that McCain’s campaign released a memo — authored by Rick Davis — saying it was “critical” to “run a respectful campaign focused on the issues,” no matter which the Democratic nominee emerged. Since then, the presumptive Republican nominee has launched attacks on Obama’s patriotism, has blamed his opponent for high gas prices, and has accused him of willfully snubbing the troops. Read Stein’s article and see McCain’s latest video ad here.

  35. ekaton

    July 30, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    The 99% always asleep are not interested in debating anything. They are only interested in the most effective MSM PR jingo. Vote for your favorite fascist, whether it be Obama or McCain.

    — Kent Shaw

  36. ekaton

    July 30, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    Hal, don’t get me wrong, you are a brilliant columnist. I love your writings, and I wish you were even more prolific. Its just that I’ve given up on “the two party system”. The founders knew the dangers of political parties. And today we reap the “rewards” of the two party system.

    — Kent Shaw

  37. pollchecker

    July 31, 2008 at 9:22 am

    I consider Clark the best able to take on the role of countering the negative

    Why Hal? What does he have that Richardson doesn’t? Yes he was a General. SO? Richardson was National Security Advisor. I would think that would count more since Security is an issue.

    Clark is undoubtedly a smart man but he has no experience in politics. So he would be attacked for that. In fact that would not be an asset for a candidate who is attacked for not having experience.

    Also, the energy issue is HUGE! Having been Secretary of Energy, Richardson understands this issue and the players very well.

    And having worked with the Clintons, he undoubtedly has experience with this swiftboating garbage because remember the Clintons were under constant attack even before they moved into the WH.

  38. Hal Brown

    July 31, 2008 at 11:44 am

    He was a general, so?

    Maybe it would help to have a military man offset McCain’s claim to Vietnam War heroic stature. If Obama decides it would be helpful to have someone running with him who could play bad cop to his good cop in dealing with the septegenarian juvenile delinquent McCain I think Clark would be right for the role.

    If would be risky for McCain to attack Clark for not having experience. For one thing, it would be pointed out that he was being dismissive of his military career and for another Eisenhower could be thrown up as an example.

    Richardson might better to be able to serve as Secretary of Energy again, or National Security Advisor (he served as UN Ambassador under Clinton, Anthony Lake and Sandy Berger were the NSA’s under Clinton), or Secretary of State.

    I am not favoring anyone as a VP choice right now. Clinton, who I wrote about last week, and Clark are no longer being considered by the MSM as likely choices. Neither is Richardson.

    Any of the three could be a surprise choice. If this happens, it would be gratifying to watch the media pundits eat crow on their smug confidence.

  39. pollchecker

    July 31, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    I am not favoring anyone as a VP choice right now. Clinton, who I wrote about last week, and Clark are no longer being considered by the MSM as likely choices. Neither is Richardson.

    Well, if you wanted to throw the media off track about your VP choice, the best way to do it is to say they are no longer under consideration, right?

    Isn’t that a fair political tactic?

    I understand your point about Clarke’s military experience but that can work both ways. It can be an asset and a debit depending on the message you are attempting to convey.

    What I would like to see is Clarke address the Dem convention about Iraq, and the so-called war on terror with all these retired Generals standing behind him in a sign of unity. That would be a great political moment with a powerful message for a change.

  40. Hal Brown

    July 31, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Fair tactic and probably a good one…

    Here are the hints Obama has given so far:

    Attributes

    …. “shares a vision of the country, where we need to go…”

    … values “integrity” and “independence”

    … “willing to tell me where he thinks or she thinks I’m wrong.”

    Compatibility would be key as would the ability to be an active partner in government.

    “I’m not interested in a vice president who I just send off to go to funerals.”

    Here’s the kicker, which the media is focusing on:

    … “we’ve got to fundamentally change not only our policies, but how our politics works, how business is done in Washington.Reference

    Does this rule out anybody perceived as a DC insider and would Richardson’s serving on the Clinton Cabinet count?

  41. pollchecker

    July 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    how business is done in Washington.” Reference

    Does this rule out anybody perceived as a DC insider and would Richardson’s serving on the Clinton Cabinet count?

    It depends on what your definition of the word “is”, is….(har, har).

    which the media is focusing on

    well, if the media is focusing on it, then there is a probable chance to be just the opposite of what the pundits think. Let’s face it, they haven’t been right much this election season. Richardson’s leadership in New Mexico could be seen as filling that as well.

    However, it’s all political posturing right now. Nothing more. That’s why these ads and this disinformation is not as important as the pundits make us think. By the time we have the conventions, the debates, etc….all of this will be irrellevant.