Thursday, January 3, 2008

General Wesley Clark for Vice President - You heard it here.

Anyway, minor setback. Mike Huckabee did, in fact, win in Iowa. And since he is probably the only Republican that has any chance of beating the Democrats, this could represent a major setback in winning national elections come November.

But there is hope - a way that the Democrats can sweep the elections single handedly. That hope is choosing General Wesley Clark as the Vice Presidential running mate. Of all the possible flaws that the Republicans can try to exploit, all of them are addressed with Wesley Clark.

Soft on Terrorism? GENERAL Wesley Clark says hello.
Upset about a female/Black/Hispanic president? Caucasian male Wesley Clark say hi.
Want someone with Experience dealing with the White House?
Want someone with war experience trying to get us out of Iraq?
Want a good public speaker who is likable, not ugly, and has charisma?

The Democratic presidential candidates have a leg up this election. Most likely they will win, regardless of who is running. But "most likely" isn't good enough. With Wesley Clark as their running mate, they'll win. Someone buy "" and get on it.


freelasabird said...

I'm with you on Huckabee. I watched the entire hour of Meet the Press when he announced his presidency about a year ago. I immediately figured he'd win the nomination. He is smart, articulate and charming.

I'd describe myself as a left-leaning independent and even I came away liking the guy.

I would never vote for him, but damn he's going to be a formidable candidate.

I'm totally on board the Edwards train! Toot! Toot!

Who is Librocrats preferred candidate? Or is it just whoever the Dems nominate?

Librocrat said...

It is whoever the Dems nominate, and I'll tell you why:

Each of them has their strong points, each their failures.

Barack Obama - charismatic, good values, unapologetically liberal, struggles with political skills.

Hillary Clinton - a little moderate, charismatic but far less so than Obama, but absolutely excels politically (something I've come to appreciate since writing this blog - it's very hard to be as good at politics as she is).

John Edwards - a little bit of everything, except recently losing as Kerry's running mate stands against him, and he struggles to stand out despite being both charismatic, liberal, and good politically.

Bill Richardson - Amazing experience, amazing history of solving problems, absolutely abysmal when it comes to politics and public speaking.

Chris Dodd - Really nice guy, great speaker, awful hairpiece.

Joe Biden - Awesome guy. Would probably be a great president. Talks too much.

See? Each of them has their skills, each their flaws. Because of this, I've decided it's up to others who have more passionate opinions about the specific candidates to make the decision on who should run, and I'll support the candidate regardless.

Faux said...

You probably don't know me (LL bretheren), but here goes.

One problem Re: Clark.

You'd think that Kerry being a bonafide war hero would have made him immune to such things too, but do you really think that the Repubs give half a shit about anything good the person has done?

I guarantee you that the first words out of the talk radio circuit will be "traitor" or "doesn't support the troops". They have made a cottage industry out of demonizing people using their "stregnths" as focus points.

But I do think that you're mostly right, they need a fighter to say the things that the nominee him(her)self can't say. If Edwards doesn't make it, I'd say him, but as a close second, I'd choose Clark. All you have to do is see what they say and how they say it when most politicians go on the defensive and get all quiet and contemplative.

Look up Clark on FNC and Edwards on the campaign trail, and I think you'd agree with me that a more realistic way of looking at it is to VP who fights back.

Also, alot of this depends on who gets the nom. I can see Clinton doing what Kerry did and muzzling the VP nom if he gets too loud. I can see Obama letting that type loose to wreak havoc on the talk show circuit. Which is I'm pulling for Obama or Edwards to get the nom.You know Edwards would fight himself, and I think Obama would let his VP do quite a bit of dirty work that didn't happen in 04.

Librocrat said...

RE: Republicans

Do not disagree at all. But my thought on Clark has to do with Independents. If you manage to take away a lot of Republican talking points, Independents will be more likely to sway to the Democrats this year. I agree 100% that Republicans try to use candidate's strengths against them, but in this case I think Republicans attacking Clark would be largely ignored.

As per Kerry, however - Kerry was slow, boring, and not charismatic - so deflecting those criticisms proved to be more difficult. Similarly, he did not try to argue much against the Swiftboat attacks, which I could almost guarantee is not a mistake any other candidate will make ever again. Also, as the VICE presidential candidate, if the Republicans want to waste their effort attacking Clark rather than the Democratic nominee, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Finally, I personally don't think you should underestimate Clinton's abilities. Though I'm by no means a supporter of hers, I strongly believe that she knows what she's doing. So I don't think she'd muzzle the VP nominee. Don't forget, her strength is her knowledge of politics, and it is well known that when you're a presidential candidate, having your running mate attack the other side is a smart move.

Again, not that I really care either way, but I think all three (in fact, all 4) of the top Dem nominees will probably go about their campaigns correctly. That's another reason I'll defend all of them but don't care who is running :).

The Day Trader said...

Man that would be the sh*t. No lie I thought and would vote for Huckabee because I consider myself an American and could vote whoever that is the way the constitution reads but serious man Clark on anybodies ticket has me. Please don't pull Jim Webb and Warner isn't going for it either. Therefore the most qualified in 2004 for should at least get a chance at VP in 2008.

Frank Hope said...

I'm totally with you. I've started a blog on called "Draft Clark for VP!"
Check it out. I give exactly the same reasons you enumerated plus a few more. The main objection I've been getting is that Clark is in the Clinton camp, but I have searched for and not found any attacks on Obama by Clark. So this is not a dream, this is the future President and Vice President of the United States. Vote Obama/Clark in 2008!

Anonymous said...

Obama/Clark '08!

This, I think, is the best case scenario. I think this would be stronger than any Hillary combination.

Roni said...

OBAMA CLARK 08 works for me. LOVE That idea bigtime!