The last two Vice Presidents have been the most powerful in history. The office has taken on more and more importance in recent years and it seems that we are going to have to pick a darn good one to either calm some of the anti-Hillaryism or negate some of the Barack’s-not-experienced-ism if we are going to win. Wesley Clark does both.
I don’t mean to bash John Edwards because I know he has a lot of admirers here, but his presence on the 2004 ticket didn’t help one little bit. Being from the south, he was there to put Kerry in play in winnable southern states.
We lost Arkansas by 9%
We lost Florida by 5%
We lost Virginia by 8%
We lost Missouri by 7%
And we lost Edwards’ home state of North Carolina by 12%!
Let’s assume that either Hillary or Barack wins. I know Edwards has a chance in Iowa but let’s face it, his campaign is struggling these days. He is taking public funding and claims that he’s doing it on principle. Obviously it has to do with the fact that Hillary and Obama are dominating him in fundraising and he’s got to take the public money in order to have any kind of chance. I’m not saying it’s wrong but it’s a sign of where his campaign is at.
So consider situation A. Hillary wins a tough battle in Iowa in January. The primary then comes down to Hillary vs. Obama because Edwards is struggling in New Hampshire and he falls flat without any kind of early momentum. Hillary eventually wins the nomination but comes out with a lot of scars as the two are forced to take shots at each other to get an edge. What qualities does Hillary need to have in her VP that will compliment her own and lead to a winning ticket? She has several problems. First of all, many don’t buy Hillary as commander of the armed forces. She has to appear tough because she is a woman, and has to show that she can handle the job. Finally and most importantly, she must appeal to the south (without changing her accent). The only way we are going to win this election and guarantee future victories is if we start digging into the republicans’ southern monopoly.
General Clark compliments her in her two weakest areas. First of all, he will give her military credibility. It’s hard to argue with a 4 Star General and former Supreme Allied Commander on the topic of who is fit to handle the military. Clark is also a southerner. That’s going to be important. He not only gives her southern appeal but he gives her a southerner who is tough and is a soldier. If your strategy is to appeal to the south, better to have a southern boy who also spent his entire life in the army. So I think a Clinton/Clark ticket would be very tough. You get the north south balance, you get the political experience and the military experience, you get extensive diplomatic experience on both sides of the ticket, and you bring on somebody whose would probably make Hillary’s nomination a lot easier to swallow for us DailyKos types.
Consider situation B. Iowa caucus goers decide that they want to surprise us again and pick Obama. His momentum translates in states like South Carolina, and eventually he goes on to win the nomination. Barack’s biggest problem in a general election is trying to appear experienced. He has only been in the Senate for a couple years and only just recently burst onto the national stage. He also needs military credibility. He looked way out of his league questioning General Patreus when he went before Congress.
Clark is the perfect running mate for Obama. Clark brings, again, the military credibility and the toughness. Clark brings years of experience on the diplomatic front and also a lot of respect from many foreign leaders. Clark/Obama can truly run as a ticket of change, while still appearing to have some valuable experience. Both men are new to Washington (Clark has never held office, Obama’s the new kid on the block), and Americans would be very receptive to the message of turning Washington on its head. Obama is a tough sell in the south right now and Clark covers this area as well.
So with all of the political considerations taken into account, let’s not forget the practical: General Clark would make a damn good Vice President.
I asked DKos readers in a poll recently who they want to see as Vice President and here are the results I got...
38% Clark
15% Webb
13% Richardson
13% Feingold
1% Vilsak
1% Biden
16% Other
Others have argued that Richardson should be the nominee in an attempt to bring in the Hispanic voters, but I think democrats are going to carry those voters easily without him on the ticket. Tom Vilsak has been mentioned, but it doesn’t seem to me he has many qualities that are going to be essential in creating a balanced, strong ticket. Clark brings the southern appeal and military toughness that are assets for any campaign. Partially because of his extensive work stumping for democrats in 2006, he’s become much more fluid and powerful while giving speeches. His time on Fox news and MSNBC has translated into a very strong and comfortable television persona. He’s learned a lot, he’s got what it takes; he’s just what we need. If I can’t have General Clark for President, I would sure take him as Vice President. It makes perfect sense.