see here.  For more on Clark's positions on the issues, see here.

I got involved after seeing Clark on Meet the Press in June 2003.  I joined the Draft Wesley Clark movement, eventually leading up Environmentalists for Clark and running the Hispanics for Clark website (along with my friend Eric, of RK fame). :)  I devote an entire chapter of my book, "Netroots Rising" (being published by Praeger, probably in July but maybe sooner) to the Clark campaign.  One of the coolest days of my political life was watching Wes Clark endorse Jim Webb for U.S. Senate in the spring of 2006.  Clark also campaigned for Tim Kaine in October 2005.

Look forward to it's arrival on book stands, but especially my favorite online book-seller.  We could get a bit of a pre-order thing going.

But that's subject to change.  As it gets closer, I'll definitely let everyone know!

He is by far the best choice for VP for any of the candidates. He is southern, articulate, intelligent and has major credentials in International relations as well as defense!!!
We need webb in VA! We need Clark as VP!!!

He'd bring a great balance to these tickets (esp. Barack and Hillary) given his military experience, netroots support, and Southern roots.  Oh, and it would be nice to have someone in the White House that knows a thing or two about winning a war.

But I doubt any of the candidates would make any announcements about who is on the short list right now.  It wouldn't help them that much in the primary race..

But I fear that the current frontrunner is too traditional and will select one of her DLC buddies, such as Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack.  But selecting Clark would be a bold -- and perfect -- move.

Click here.

General marches through town

AT EASE: After a failed White House run four years ago, the retired general is now an ally (running mate?) for Hillary Clinton.

By Tina Daunt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 16, 2007

RETIRED Gen. Wesley K. Clark, highly decorated and a Democrat, took Hollywood by storm four years ago when he ran for president. Now he's back, this time rallying the troops for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clark has spent so much time on the Westside in recent weeks, between trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, that industry politicos (the few who aren't on the picket lines or worrying about them) have started rumors: Clark could be Clinton's running mate. Or maybe secretary of state.

There's more.

Now, don't hate me for this, because last time I went after Clark on this blog I was practically accussed of being the anti-christ.  But I don't think Clark is the best choice.  Let me till you why:

1.  Clark has never been elected - He has never held elective office.  Sure, you can run for Congress or even Senate without having office.  But President?  That's really risky.  It's hard to know how voters will react to you, what pros and cons you bring to the table.  The same goes for VP; how can either Hillary or Obama be certain that Clark will be well received OUTSIDE the netroots?  Remember, we're a tiny percentage of the voting electorate, especially in a national election.

2.  What State Does He Pull? - Every VP Candidate is supposed to help pull a state.  Strickland pulls Ohio, Webb pulls Virginia, Bayh pulls Ohio and maybe Indiana, Richardson pulls some 4-corner states.  Where does Clark help?  You made the point that his homestate is Arkansas, but that state will most likely go strong for any of the Democratic Candidates this year (according to recent polls).  Same with Missouri.  Is there any ither specific battleground state that we know Clark can help with?

3.  He's NOT Ike - Some people try to tell me that Clark is like Eisenhower, who also had never run for public office before stepping into the executive branch.  First of all, Eisenhower was a hero-beyond-heroes at that point.  Both parties were actively courting him.  Every person in America adored him.  Is Clark at that level?  No, he's not even close.  So please, stop comparing Clark to Ike.  The situation isn't even close to being similar.

4.  He's unknown - If Clark wanted to be VP, he has to stay more in the news.  He's not.  He's been in one major newspaper (the LA Times) since he endorsed Clinton.  We tend to forget out here in the blogosphere that most people aren't like us.  They don't follow these things everyday, they don't study issues in depth.  Now, my current prediction, Evan Bayh has this same problem, but to a lesser extant.  If he's picked, it's to win votes in the midwest, where he is already well known after over a decade of prominent service.  Other VP hopefuls, like Webb and Richardson, have been able to stay in the limelight due to major legislation (Webb) or their own Presidential Campaign (Richardson).

5. Sec State or Sec Defense - Another thing hurting Clark is the fact that most political analysts are already viewing him as the SecDef or SecState if a Democrat wins.  He'd certainly be wonderful in either position, and this view-point may already be stuck in many of our candidates' heads. 

6. Individual Candidate Problems:

Clinton - He doesn't really seem to add to her benefits.  Yes, he's military.  But he doesn't seem to come off as a "man's man", or a "red meat and potatoes mother f*cker", even though he's a soldier.  He's soft-spoken and calm.  If Hillary is going to choose a white male, it has to be somebody like Webb.  Problem is, I highly doubt Webb could work with Clinton, as she would likely not delegate much power to him.  Still, Clinton is Clark's only real chance, but it's a slim one at best.  She doesn't need help in Arkansas or Missouri, and the fact that he's never been elected will hurt when people are already nervous about Clinton's electability.  Expect Clinton to go with somebody she is sure is electable in or near a battleground state.

Obama - Not happening.  Just not happening.  Obama's people in Iowa say that they want Jim Webb, but I highly doubt it happens.  Obama needs somebody with years upon years of ELECTED Government Service.  I really don't think Clark helps there.  Again, he's the ideal SecState for Obama, but not VP.

Edwards - Nuh-uh.  The two don't mesh at all.  Honestly, though, I can't see anybody who would fit in with Edwards at VP anyways.  It won't be Webb, it won't be Bayh.  Maybe Richardson.  Definitely somebody not in Washington.  Plus, Clark's endorsement of Clinton certainly won't help him in the vindicative Edwards camp.

7.  Better choices (strategically) -  I'm not going to say they're better than Clark on the issues.  I'll just say that they're better strategically, which is ultimately what it's all about in terms of VP.  I think Webb is the best strategic choice for any candidate, but Bayh would be solid as well.

You ask, Lowell, why Webb should be taken out of the Senate if he's doing a great job?  Well, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd are all doing great jobs in the Senate. And because of that, they feel they could also do a great job in the executive branch, where they have more authority.  So I really don't think that argument holds too well, especially if Webb's replacement would be appointed by Tim Kaine.  The real argument about Webb is if he even wants to.  Webb doesn't seem to me like he wants to be anybody's "Errand Boy."  If he was nominated for VP, he'd have to have some sort of agreement to me at least close to an equal partner.  But Webb has a super-star status, and brings a fiery populism that would help in the South, Midwest, and Western states.  And Virginia could truly be battleground this year; 13 votes are nothing to snear at.  Bayh could help in Ohio, which is a virtual tie between the GOP and Dems right now.

In conclusion (sorry this was so long), I really think that your admiration for Clark in 2004 is clouding your judgment here.  Seriously, I'd be willing to bet you $100 dollars cash that Clark won't be the nominee, I'm so certain of what I just said.  He just is not the right compliment for any of them.  This is a serious race, and I would prefer to rely on battle-tested soldiers (politically speaking).  Even if they've been in an one election, that's more than Clark.  Clark may sound nice, but there is no way to tell how people will react to him, and that's what VP is all about.  In my mind, why go with Clark when there are other candidates who at least give you some idea of what the reaction will be?  Bayh and Webb appear to be the top two candidate right now in the minds of most analysists because of either long-term support of an explosive first term.

(On a side note, I agree with you about Kaine.)

to all of this, I'll just say for now:

1. I don't buy the geographic ticket balancing argument at all. Maybe 20, 30 years ago, but not anymore.  I mean, what did Cheney do for Bush, help carry Wyoming for him?  Ha.  Also, I'd point out that the last winning Dem. ticket was Arkansas/Tennessee, two neighboring southern states.  Definitely not "ticket balancing" there geographically - or ideologically, for that matter, given that Clinton and Gore were very similar on most issues.

2. I don't believe that my judgment about Clark is clouded in a positive direction by 2003.  If anything, given the experience I had with the Clark campaign, it should be the exact opposite, actually.  Also, Clark demonstrated in 2003 that he did NOT have political experience...a big part of the reason why he didn't win. Now, however, he DOES have political experience, having been through the 2003/2004 campaign.  Regardless, lack of elective political experience is not exactly the worst fault of I can think of.  Can we say "Jim Webb?"

3. Clark may never have been elected to anything, but he ran NATO and also a war.  That's nothing to sneeze at, frankly a hell of a lot more experience than being governor of Arkansas...or even Texas, for that matter.  I'd also note that Ike didn't have elected experience either, nor did George Washington for that matter.  Lincoln had almost none.  In contrast, Cheney had TONS of elected experience.  Hmmmm.

4. If Clinton is the nominee, my guess is that Clark has a VERY good chance of being her running mate.  If Obama's the nominee, I also think Clark's very much in the mix.  I agree that Edwards-Clark would not "mesh."

5.  Webb would be a fine VP, but would he like RUNNING for VP?  Also, with all due respect to the other Senators, I believe that Webb's role is far more crucial.

I really think you're missing the point of my post, Lowell.  I'm sure Clark would be an able and fine administrater.  I'm talking about actually getting elected.

To be a great leader, you have be elected leader first.  All Clark could do is pointless unless he can help get the Pres elected.  And what does he add? 

And I do believe I went specifically out of they to make a difference between Webb and Clark.  Running on no elected experience to Senate or Congress is one thing.  Running for the number two spot in the nation?  Not the same thing.  I'd prefer somebody who has at least one "win" under his belt.  And I bet both Clinton and Obama are thinking the same. 

Clark will be in Clinton's Top 5, but will not be at the top of that list.  Webb, Bayh, and Vilsack will all most likely be ahead of him.  And while Webb might say no, Bayh and Vilsack definitely will not.  He won't be on Obama's list at all.  Nor Edwards.  By endorsing Clinton, Clark put all his money behind one horse.  If that horse loses, he's out.  That's usually how politics go.  Bayh might have a chance with Obama even though he endorsed Hillary, but only because of his strength in the Midwest.  Generally, if Clark wants a shot at number 2, Hillary MUST win.

I'm not doubting Clark war experience at all.  Served his country ablely.  But it doesn't change the fact that he's 0-1 when it comes to politics, and it's impossible to tell what kind of effect he would have on the race.

Again, I think Clark is a fine guy.  I was caught between him and Edwards in 2004 (I was naive, and wanted somebody to "move me" more than win).  But he won't be the nominee, even if Clinton wins.

Care for a friendly wager, Lowell? ;)

...because the media never reported it.

In the eight states following Iowa in 2004 -- NH, ND, DE, SC, OK, NM, MO, and AZ (a good cross-section of the country)-- Clak beat Edwards five times:  NH, ND, OK (Clark was first), NM, and AZ.  If Clark wasn't a good campaigner, why did he beat Edwards -- whose campaigning was much admired, especially by those who didn't pay close attention to him -- more often than not in those five states?

And he's much better now than he was then.

And you're right, Clark is MUCH better now than he was in 2003.  I personally can't wait to see him on the campaign trail next year! :)

The minds and views and prognostications of the analysts have brought us a lot of grief these last 7 years with their self-fulfilling prophesies.

I love Jim Webb but I strongly believe he is a strong, dynamic voice in the Senate right now for change. We need his leadership and courage in the Senate on issues like economic justice and sane foreign policy.

Evan Bayh? Evan Bahy does not seem to understand how pro corporate decision making on every issue has undermined our long term viability. On key issues like global warming, alternative energy, fairness and equity in the workplace and a  respect for  other countries and cultures.

I believe Clark would be a wonderful choice for the benefit of our country.
We have to fight for that and not allow prognosticators to make wrong choices for us.

You can find little fault with Webb, save that he's not Wes Clark.  So the response ends up being "He's too important in the Senate."  He'd be even more important in the VP seat, and everybody knows it.  But he's not Wes Clark, so he simply won't do for Clarkies.

But Webb has one thing Clark doesn't; something that automatically puts him ahead of Clark in the minds of other politicians: he's an elected official.  Not only that, he toppled a giant in the state where he was elected.  Trust me, Clark may be the frontrunner in the minds of his supporters.  But in DC, he's a tiny blip on the radar screen.  Webb is the one people need to pay attention to.

Dan, you're wrong here.  There are plenty of Clark supporters who also worked for and highly value Jim Webb.  After all, even with the differences between these two men, there are far more leadership and integrity similarities.  I'd agree that either man of this high caliber would only bring good things to a ticket.  You have no idea how many Clarkies all over this country worked for and contributed money to Jim Webb.  We know great men and great leaders when we see them, and we go the extra mile and support them fully.  That's for our country.

I volunteered for Jim Webb, making calls for his candidacy from Texas.

He's a courageous person who thinks for himself. I've admired him since he was in the Reagan administration.

This country needs Wes Clark in a leadership position in this country. President Clark would have been wonderful. VP Clark would be second best.

If you read or listen to his speeches on legitimacy or the real state of our democracy, you'll have a chance to see that Clark understands that living up to our own principles of justice and fairness must be the foundation we rely on if we are to have a chance on issues like peace, sustainability, and energy independence.

I've had enough of this race to the bottom. I want enlightened leadership and that's why I think we owe it to ourselves to fight for Wes Clark for VP. He'll fight for what's right on both domestic and foreign policy.

I wish I could say that's true for Bayh...but I don't think he really understands why we've lost our way, our self-respect and the respect of the world.

Enough is enough.

Cheers,
Eve

1.  Of course you can run for office without having been previously elected.  Nothing at all in our constitution that says otherwise.  Besides, the VP is on a ticket, and, the VP is generally chosen for what he/she adds to complement the top of the ticket.  The fact that Clark was SACEUR and coordinated a hugely successful coalition of NATO (not unpolitical at all) after his involvement with the Dayton Peace Accord tells me that he knows his way around the political aspect of dealing with people. Besides, if you don't think that rising in the ranks of the military to achieve 4 star status is not political...well, it is.  He also was the #1 requested Democratic surrogate during the 2006 elections, campaigning all over the country for Democrats, fundraising for Democratic committees and candidates, and going into states where no other Democratic surrogate was invited.  Ask Jon Tester.  You mention "risky".  Hmmm.  Don't get that so you'll have to explain what would be risky. As for how Clark will be received outside of the netroots, well, go outside of the netroots to one of his events, speeches, forums, recent book signings, testimony before Congress and see how he's received.  If you've never looked, then you wouldn't know.  He's received extremely positively and with great admiration.  But you have to look to know that.  Many of his events are taped and can be found (if you really want to know) on his website www.securingamerica.com.

2.  What State Does He Pull? - Clark could pull Arkansas, he pulled Oklahoma last time, he came in second behind Kerry in more states than Edwards did before he dropped out.  With the two year stint on Faux News trying to educate the disbelievers, he has much exposure and would most likely go a long way to pulling some of those crimson southern states back in.  If you check his travels on his website, you'd see how popular he is in Alabama and how often he's been there, including an upcoming high profile event.  Clark did a lot for candidates in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Colorado, among others last year.  Those candidates and local parties are no doubt very familiar with Wes Clark and would crank it up for him.  As for Arkansas being a shoe in for the Dems, remember, Huckabee is also from Arkansas and if he is put on a GOP ticket, Arkansas could be a struggle.  Hillary has strong ties there, but with Clark on the ticket too, its in the bag.  He is VERY popular in Democratic circles in AR.

3.  Clark is like Ike in that they were both 4 stars, SACEURS and directed successful military campaigns.  Of course, WWII gets lot more notice than Bosnia/Kosovo.  He's unlike Ike in the sense that he's a Democrat and a progressive one at that. However, both parties did actively court Clark after he retired.  I lived in Arkansas at that time and would often read in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette about Wes Clark coming back home, being called by the Republicans as well as the Democrats to take on Huckabee, or run for one of the open Senate seats.  He chose the Democrats. 

4.  Would you say that Evan Bayh, or Tom Vilsak, or Ted Strickland is more well known on a national level?  I wouldn't.  You say he has only been in one major newspaper recently (the one just mentioned by Stan Davis).  There are more major op-eds than I can recall, so check the website.  He's often in the NYT, the Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly, and on and on.  He is a FP analyst on MSNBC, and, as mentioned above, spent two years on Fox.  That's not bad for the GE.  Of course, prior to that, he spent quite a bit of time as Aaron Brown's sidekick on CNN. You haven't noted the involvement with VoteVets, and the ads during the 2006 campaigns?  Clark is way outside the blogosphere, but the great thing is that he's also very involved in the netroots, too. 

5. Sec State or Sec Defense - Clark cannot be SecDef and I have not heard one single informed analyst view him in this role.  You must be retired 10 years from the military to be placed in this role.  He retired in 2000.  As for Sec of State, I'd agree that's another position for which he'd be absolutely perfect. Many of the candidates have been using Clark's analysis and words for a long time. 

As for who would choose him?  A smart one.  Of course, he endorsed Hillary because he says he believes we need someone ready to hit the ground on day 1, and after looking closely at all of them, and in fact, advising more than one of them, he felt she would make the best president of those currently running.  For that reason, I can't see that Obama would choose him.  And I'm quite sure that Edwards wouldn't consider it.  After all, it was an Edward's spokesman in 2003, Gen. Hugh Shelton, that made the very snarky and totally unsubstantiated comments about Wes and why he retired.  Edwards refused to correct that smear, though other generals did.  Probably no love lost there. 

Dan, the one thing I don't get is your fixation on Bayh -- I just don't see it. Indiana is unlikely to flip Blue in a Presidential race, much less likely than Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado or, IMO, North Carolina, Arizona or even Kentucky.

I don't see how a generally mediocre Senator from Indiana somehow puts Ohio more into play. My understanding is that Bayh is nowhere near as popular as his father in his home state. I do think Strickland makes a lot of sense, as he would balance out Hillary's free-tradeism with a more populist voice (assuming he would accept a position); plus he's very popular in Ohio, and there's almost no way the Republicans can hold the Presidency without holding Ohio.

Hillary has three weak points that she needs to address to win both the nomination and the Presidency -- she is not trusted by progressives/liberals/the netroots; she is not trusted by labor/populists; she has a weakness in terms of national security issues. No one VP pick can solidify all three areas, but I'd argue Clark could solidify her standing in areas (1) and (3). I think Webb would do so in (2) and (3), and somewhat (1) (although I'm not sure Webb would actually bring Virginia any more into play than it already is due to hostility towards the Clintons in the deep red parts of the state). I think Strickland addresses (2) and probably (1). Strickland as VP, Clark as SoS may make the most sense.

I tend to think Clark would actually be a good match with Obama, as Obama's main problem is lack of experience in security issues and foreign policy. Obama is much more trusted by progressives and economic populists, because he's more authentic in those areas. Plus, Obama doesn't strike me as vindictive in terms of holding grudges b/c Clark endorsed Hillary.

I still think the best overall ticket would have been Clark/Sebelius if Clark had been able to line up support and avoid the Clinton machine. But I am beginning more and more to like what I am seeing from Obama.

I saw a poll (sorry lost link) that said Ohio Democrats didn't think Strickland would add anything to the ticket.

AS a Clarkie and Webb contributor, I think if it came down to the two of them Wes would say "Jim you take it" and Jim would say "hell no."  Just a guess.

I think HRC  would want him as a gurantee, if there can be such a thing, of a win in Ohio.
I also did a lot of work for Jim Webb.  I think he is key in the Seante, for the numbers, if nothing else.  (And he does have a lot more to offer, imo.) With Mark Warner committed to John Warner's seat, what Dem could win if Webb resigned? 
If there were a way to keep Webb's seat Democratic, it might be good to have him be SOD, with WKC as SOS.

successor if he left the Senate for any reason.

How long would that appointment last; to the end of Web's term or until the next general election?

n/t

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

There are actually two Senate seats up in Wyoming this year -- the one that is actually up for election held by Michael Enzi, and the one that was held by Craig Thomas until he died this Summer. The Democratic Gov of Wyoming appointed Republican Michael Barrasso to the seat for the remainder of this year and all of next year, but the seat is up for election for the final 4 years of the term next November, as well (Thomas was re-elected last year).

When Mel Carnahan died right before the 2000 election but was still elected post-humously, his wife Jean was appointed to fill the seat until 2003, but the seat went back up for election in '02 -- and Jim Talent beat Jean Carnahan narrowly; this was the seat that Claire McCaskill then won last year.

So, I'm fairly sure the appointment would last only approximately 2 years until the next fed election.

An earlier comment intimated that the only media exposure that Clark has had since endorsing Hillary Clinton is the LA Times story posted in this diary.  I believe the comment was: "He's unknown - If Clark wanted to be VP, he has to stay more in the news.  He's not.  He's been in one major newspaper (the LA Times) since he endorsed Clinton".  To illustrate the energy and involvement of the man since his endorsement of Clinton, I've posted what I've been able to find of his schedule since 9-15.  I frankly don't see how he could have been a whole lot busier.

Op-Ed:  Invasion is Wrong Answer to Turkey's Problems by W. Clark, Financial Times 11-15-07
http://securingameri...

CSpan 2 Wes Clark (Book TV 11-10-07)
http://securingameri...

The Power of Persuasion by W. Clark (Fortune Magazine, 11-08-07)
http://securingameri...

and to round out the month of November,

Currently (11-17-07), Wes Clark is in China at a conference on US-China relations organized by McKinsey & Company. Just a few other participants include Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Vice President Chen Jiagui, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of American Studies Director Huang Ping, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Elizabeth Economy, former National Security Council East Asia Director and University of Michigan professor Kenneth Lieberthal, National University of Defense/Institute for Strrategic Studies Director Yang Yi, GE Energy Group China President Jack Wen, Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner, Senator Maria Cantwell Chief of Staff Maura O'Neill, former Asia Society President Nicholas Platt, Goldman Sachs Chief US Investment Strategist Abby Joseph Cohen (and that's only a partial list).

General Clark will speak to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on Tuesday, November 20
http://securingameri...

General Wesley Clark will headline the Alabama Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner at the BJCC/Sheraton in Birmingham on November 30.

October appearances are too numerous to post here, but include multiple radio appearances in Seattle, San Fransisco, Oregon, Wisconsin, Phoenix, Denver, Miami, and Thom Hartman and Ed Schultz on Air America.  Television appearances on October include The Today Show on NBC, Tavis Smiley on PBS, Bill Maher on HBO, Colbert on Comedy Centry, multiple appearances on MSNBC; also campaigned in New Hampshire with several Veterans groups and in Iowa. Oh yes, he also Live Blogged on Daily Kos on October 30. The entire month of public events can be seen at http://securingameri...

And, going back to September, the day after Clark endorsed Sen. Clinton:
Op-Ed:  "The Next War" (Washington Post September 16, 2007)
http://securingameri...

A sampling of television appearances post-endorsement included, Late Edition on CNN, Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Hardball, Countdown, O'Reilly Factor...you get the picture. 

I believe Clark has put all his eggs in Hilary's basket. If he doesn't become her V.P., then he'll have some position in her adminstration (should it come to pass.) I can't see any of the other candidates taking him since he's already declared his loyalty for someone else.

Of course, I think he would be a fine V.P.--both as a campaigner AND the person doing the actual work. He has a resume that nicely balances hers; is strong where she is weak. He's learned a lot about campaigning since 2003, that's for sure. And if we have one Senator/Washington-insider, we don't want another on the ticket. That's more important than geographical balance--I agree that this is pretty much an obsolete idea nowadays.

As for Webb, I just do not see him as V.P., even if he is the flavor of the month. One of the main functions of the V.P. is to be the presidential candidate's cheerleader. Seriously, can you see Webb as anybody's cheerleader? He would HATE it. He wouldn't be particularly good at it, either. And, God bless him, he's still kind of considered a loose cannon, an unknown quantity (that's one of the reasons we love him so much) and none of the top contenders are going to be comfortable with that. That goes doubly for Hillary; she probably wouldn't think she could "count on" Jim Webb like she could Clark.

Well, that's what I think. YMMV and probably does. 

so I love your post, Lowell.  I tend to believe that WKC would most likely be SOS in a Clinton administration.  I think that might play more to his strengths.  Don't get me wrong--I'd love to see him in any post--I just think VP is kind of an insider thing, working with the Congress and all.  JMHO.  C. Matthews has suggested Ed Rendell.  That would be interesting.

He was my prez. primary pick in 2004..and have been keeping an eye on him hoping he would get back into the "ring".

His performance on Real Time (Bill Maher) and even on Comedy Central sounded very "vice presidential". He's working on it..just wondering where he will land.

Especially on the last part regarding Kaine, Warner, and Webb.  Leave them be!  I am quite happy to have them doing the fine jobs they are doing.  Removing any of them from there current positions would create prblems.

for many months this year was

Warner- Clark "08

I thought that was an unbeatable ticket. Alas, I had to remove it when the Governor announced he would not run.

Lowell has made a good case for Clark as Hillary's VP pick much better and more eloquently than I ever could, so my thoughts and my perspective are not nearly as well organized. But I believe my reasoning will be logical and clear.

When I thought Mark Warner might be on the VP short list, it was partly because I didn't see any negative baggage he would have brought to the ticket and I saw a ton of positives even though he'd never been elected to Federal office.

I feel the same about Clark. I can't think of anything about Clark that would be a problem with voters in the general election. And, as others have noted, he brings great intellect, and tremendously important experience and knowledge. We do all know that Va. will be a battlegound state and Clark will have a big advantage with the military and veteran vote -- just like Jim Webb did. Who else would have the credibility to deliver half as many veteran and active duty military votes as Clark when speaks to them ?

Another point, already mentioned by several others, is that Clark is a terrific campaigner and is clearly comfortable in that role. There are obvious reasons that he is so comfortable with campaigning, and seems to actually enjoy it. His broad spectrum of knowledge and experience that I've already mentioned, and his articulate and reasoned responses to the hardest questions make him nearly invulnerable to stumbling or struggling to answer hard or trick questions. The Rove playbook wouldn't be an option for the GOP attack dogs.

Another important aspect of what Clark brings to the ticket: The media and the analysts (self-appointed experts ?) are almost totally ignoring the fact that a large percentage of voters still remember that the reason the Constitution provides for a VP is to replace the President in case of resignation, incapacity, death or impeachment. It seems to me that voters would feel comfortable with Clark as VP knowing that he could step in and provide seamless continuity with no disruption at all in the functioning of the government. I myself would not feel at all comfortable with the others being discussed, with the obvious exception of Jim Webb whose selection as VP is, IMHO, not a realistic possibility.

Sorry this reply ended up being much longer than I'd intended. Once I got started I realized that there was more I wanted to say about Clark.

  T.C.