Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

I so want to see a debate between Vice-President Dick Cheney and Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Wesley Clark. Oh please please please.

Just to get this out in the open first: I worry that Dean won't have enough appeal to moderate voters who don't literally hate George Bush. I think Clark might have that appeal. If his campaign ever gets off the ground.

Who would make the best Dean VP runningmate? I, though I love Al Franken, say Clark. Because his presence would actually help the ticket. Even if he wouldn't be as funny.

I think Clark has too many ties to the military and elitist interests that have always controlled politics in this country. I don't see Wesley Clark taking a strong stance against things like the Patriot Act for example, and other oppressive measures that seem to continue getting snuck into legislation regardless of who is in the office.

I like Al Franken, but his reputation would probably cost Dean the ticket. My fantasy person doesn't exist, but the closest person who would represent my no non-sense political interests and have a chance of galvanizing the populace into a democratic victory would be Jesse Ventura.

All of this of course hinges on whether we actually have a democratic election or a fixed one courtesy of corrupt e-voting machines.

Putting aside political realities, I keep wondering if the endorsement of Jesse Jackson Jr. wasn't partially an attempt to position himself onto the possible VP list.

I can't help fearing that Clark is not a real Democrat...so, maybe Lieberman would be his best running mate.

As for Dr. Dean's running mate...if Martin Sheen is too busy...how about Molly Ivins? She could show Joe Lieberman what a VP's job is during a political campaign. She also is quite experienced in getting under shrub's skin.

Dear David, I am awed by your endorsement--tho I plan to run as "Betsy" rather than "Detsy." If elected, I will require war profiteers to wear silly clown noses until they return their loot. After Dean and I serve two full terms, I will of course run for President myself--it can hardly escape your notice that Devine and Weinberger sounds pretty darn good.

Detsy: Please notice that I've corrected the typo in your name. I'm bo borry!

Aw, no need to adologize, Bavid.

BTW, I just blogged about your kind nomination--tho for some reason it didn't ping your trackback.

No matter who wins the primary, my money is on Bill Richardson. He's a great choice, and could lock up NM as well as putting AZ and maybe NC and FL in play.

I still think the best Dem ticket is Clark/Dean, but you didn't ask about that.

Paul, allow me to correct your comment regarding Wes Clark and the Patriot Act:

Clark on the Patriot Act:

Rolling Stone interivew - with Wesley Clark

Q: The president is urging Congress to grant him wider powers to wage war on terrorism at home.

Clark - A:"Come on, give us a break. The Patriot Act, all 1,200 pages of it, was passed without any serious congressional discussion. There was no public accountability, and now he wants more? What does he think this country is? We shouldn't do anything with the Patriot Act until it's unwrapped. I'd like to see what violations of privacy it entails, and whether those violations are in any way justified by their preventing terrorism in this country. And we need to do it now before we take another step forward and pay for that."
--------

The PATRIOT Act ought to be pulled out and given a full sunshine review… You’re not going to win the war on terrorism if you destroy who we are as Americans and take away our rights and liberties. source - 10/10/2002 WBUR Radio, Boston, Interview

-----

One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period.

When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done. Law enforcement agencies will always chafe at any restriction whatsoever when they're in the business of trying to get their job done. But in practice we've always balanced the need for law enforcement with our own protection of our constitutional rights and that's a balance that will need to be reviewed.

source - http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index_np.html

----

We have to be very careful of the PATRIOT Act. It was passed at a time of enormous perception of threat in this country. It was passed without full legislative analysis and review. It’s been in place, a number of people have been arrested, a number of people have been deported. I think the PATRIOT Act needs a good, open air, public review, in the sunshine, before we retain it or modify it, or add to it.
source - NDN Speech, June 17, 2003
http://www.women4clark.com/transcripts/ndnspeech.htm

----

[I would not support an expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act] without a thorough review of where we are right now with the current PATRIOT Act. I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at. - Meet The Press
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

Thanks, Linda. Gotta love the generosity of the Web.

Absolutely, Mr. Weinberger! Thanks so much for providing this forum, and for your kind comment.

I'm guessing you're a Deaniac, but I have to say "My name is Linda, and I'm a Clarkaholic."

I do believe his military background is needed today, and he has progressive democratic values. A great combination. Also, I want to defeat GWB, and Clark, to me, is the only one who can.

Someone said, and I agree, "the time and person have come together in Wesley Clark." I truly believe he is the man we need, and yes, I am a true believer.

Thank you again for this forum, and if there are any questions I can answer for you regarding Clark, please post them.

I may make it my personal goal to convert you. Do I have a chance?

Linda, if WC wins the nomination, you'll have no trouble converting me. I'll back him 100%. But it'd be hard (not impossible) to move me from Dean at this point. Clark hasn't won my trust yet. Dean has, in part because I think I know Dean's flaws by now. Also, I love the nature of Dean's campaign; Clark's campaign seems to me to be too old-style, starting with the influence of the Clintons. (I loved Clinton as president, but I don't like him as a power broker.)

I don't mean to be negative about Clark. He's wicked smart, is on my side of most of the issues, and would be a strong candidate against Bush. I would have no compunction about voting for him for president, just as I'll happily vote for Gephart, Edwards or Kerry. (I'd be happy to vote for Mosley Braun, but who are we kidding?) But I believe that Dean has a better chance of beating Bush and I believe we'll get more and better change if he does.

(The Omissions: I think Kucinich would make a lousy president no matter how good he is on the issues, I haven't forgiven Sharpton's history of playing the race card, and I don't like Lieberman's policies. I would still vote for any one of them over W.)

Well, you would have to love the style of Dean's campaign! Did they get the ideas from your books? :-)

The Deanies think Dean is the only one electible, and the Clarkies think Clark is the only one electible. I guess that would have to be how it is.

Clark will be on Meet The Press tomorrow morning, Sunday, Nov. 16. He is the only guest for the full hour. I hope you have a chance to see it.

I don't think Dean is the only one electable. I think he's the most electable, but I certainly think that Clark has a chance at toppling King George. Under the right circumstances, even Edwards, Kerry and, ulp, Gephardt might have a chance. Unfortunately, for Kerry or Gephardt to have a chance, I think the circumstances include discovering the smoking cod piece from W's flight suit.

David - smoking cod piece... :-)

I see I have been spelling electable wrong. It did look funny. I should have checked.

To me, to steal a comment someone else made somewhere, but rang so true to me is "the time and person have come together in Wes Clark."

I see electability in him where I don't in others, because he has/is the total package.

Progressive democratic values, /and/ experience necessary to lead us during this time of war and terrorism. He is strong on national security so should get the votes of many who worry about that, and might be inclined to vote Republican, believing that the dems are not strong on that subject. People are nervous now, and are looking for someone with a solid background in foreign policy.

Clark is strong on domestic policy, too. He and his wife always worked to improve the quality of life for the military families, and that experience and understanding will translate to America.

That is why I think he has a better chance of convincing the majority of voters he is the right one than the others have.

David, thanks again for the forum. I am pretty closed minded - Clark, Clark, Clark. So, I know I would hate to have someone trying to change my mind, or push me. You happend to say it would be pretty hard to change you from Dean to Clark - but "not impossible." :), So, I can't resist getting my plugs in. I do want him to get the nomination. Dean did get a head start on us, and does (temporarily, I hope) have more supporters and more money. We are playing catch up, and I'd love to have your support. But, just tell me to Shut Up! if necessary.

Adamsj - "Barring a real disaster or stunning stupidity on the part of Bush"

Well, personally I think his whole Administration has been a real disaster and stunning display of stupidity since day one. :-)

I also am reading Clark's first book, Waging Modern War, Adamsj. You've got to admit, the guy has vast experience with diplomacy, dealing with leaders of other countries, and tremendous knowledge of the world. Skills and background that I think we need. Well, there I go again.

Also, I love the nature of Dean's campaign; Clark's campaign seems to me to be too old- style, starting with the influence of the Clintons. (I loved Clinton as president, but I don't like him as a power broker.)

At the risk of piling on with the pro-Clark comments too much, I must take some exception to this. First of all, the Clinton story regarding Clark is a fabrication of the Karl Rove machine, to scare moderate Republicans away from a military man they might otherwise support.

Secondly, to describe the Clark campaign as "old-style", by which I suppose you mean, in the vein of the Gephardt/Kerry Democratic party machine, just indicates you haven't worked with the campaign. Consider a few facts: Clark was the only candidate with a grassroots movement BEFORE he entered the race - there were literally thousands of volunteers lined up for Clark before he made his decision; This early grassroots support has grown (underneath the media radar which is still focused almost exclusively on Howard Dean) to create large volunteer forces on the ground in many many states. (I don't know about all the state organizations, so I won't claim all)

For example, the ballot signature drive in Virginia (10,000 signatures) has been conducted without any paid staff in the state until a week ago. The "old style" campaigns, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, have relied almost exclusively on paid petitioners. I'll admit we're behind Dean on the signatures, but the Dean campaign has been doing this since the summer, and they still haven't filed.

Okay, that's all I'll go on about. Just don't underestimate the large grassroots groundswell for Clark. We're there, and we're working.

Phil Riley - thanks for those comments. The Draft Clark movement was really something!

Adding to that - Clark was begged to join the race by thousands of people across America who wrote him letters, and bugged him silly. Sure he has talked to Clinton - both of them, and others in the Democratic party to get advice while trying to decide if he should accept the call. This is why he was late entering the race. He had never planned to run; he accepted a call from the Draft Clark movement.

Adamsj "It's entirely wrong to think of Bush and his administration as stupid. Foolish, arrogant, misguided, all that, but not stupid. There's a great deal of intelligence behind those mistakes."

I used to agree with that. I do agree, yes, foolish and arrogant. But, to continue to be that foolish and arrogant, in your adult years, you pretty much have to be stupid in my book.

Adamsj- "...entire career in one profession."

Yes, but look at the profession. He took care of people - his troops, led, (and led and led), concerned himself with their families, improved the troops' quality of life - learned first hand how it is to struggle and live on a small salary, (first his own early salary, then all of his troops' and their families) dealt with world leaders, dictators, negotiated, wrote plans, strategies, has seen war, suffering, atrocities, and grown and become deep and wiser than many from all of his experiences, got to know people from all around the world, and all walks of life in America, taught at West Point, got a masters in economics, philosophy, and politics, oh man I could go on and on. The guy is a complex individual. He has seen more and done more than most. To say he is not well-rounded or something because he has been in one profession all his life ignores what he has done with it, and what he saw, experienced, and learned.

Adamsj - "Mark me down as a firm supporter of the Dean campaign who is still thinking about Dean."

Kind of hoping that's a mis-type and you meant to say Clark at the end. ? :-)

I respect everyone's opinion here. If you are for Dean, you are for Dean. Good luck, but I hope we win.