RK ARCHIVE - A New Hope: Clark/Obama '08

I think Wes Clark and Barack Obama are the only two individuals in this country vying to run for presidency that can give us hope, and lead us out of despair to a new direction.

It is also a ticket that compliments each other. I think a winning Presidential ticket ought to be one that unify's the party, country, and people who share that ticket.

I think we do have a very diverse and talented field for the 2008 Presidential Election, but none of these candidates really stand out to me.

None but these two I mentioned before. Now, that's not saying I don't like any of the other candidates. I do. It's that I don't believe that they can be tough enough to win in heartland states we still are going to have an uphill battle in.

That exception is Evan Bayh. With Bayh though, he just doesn't have it for me. I know he was a governor of a red state, and a current Senator of that same red state. But, he doesn't inspire me or the likes of most nationwide voters.

The other two heavy hitters in this race are Hillary Clinton & John Edwards. I would say John Kerry if he decides to run again, but Kerry ended his own second bid by his words recently. Hillary Clinton is going to be very tough to beat, she does have decades of favors to call in. Also, she married to Bill.

John Edwards, is still a very popular guy. He has a great organization being bulit. I'd say second to only Hillary. I just don't think he can get over the hurdles he faced in 2004. He also has the least National Security/Foreign Policy Creds of the top tier candidates. He's great on Economics and Class Warfare, but he's not real well rounded. I think he would make a fine AG though. Sorry Edwards folks.

Tom Vilsack could be another sleeper candidate but I am just not sure he has the gravitas to win a general election. If Obama wasn't available I think he would make a great VP. Obama is avaliable and that's why Vilsack may find it the hardest that he can't be viable for the presidency.

To the ticket. Clark/Obama. Wes Clark has grown ten fold since his 2004 run for the White House. In a time and an election where I suspect that Iraq, National Security, & Foreign Policy will still be the primary issues in 2008 Clark is the only Democrat running that is a expert.

Clark is highly decorated not only in a military respect, but also in a diplomatic respect. Knighted in most countries because of his commmand at NATO Clark could be the bridge builder not only in our party & country but the world.

Clark lack though, charm and star power. Something that Edwards clearly has. One person that trumps Edwards star power is Barack Obama who I say to people Obama isn't just the flavor of the week. He's a person with enormous potential. Obama can draw crowds larger than when Bill Clinton was actually President. In so many ways Barack Obama reminds me of Bobby Kennedy.

Obama lacks experience, he's never really been tested in a serious election. That's why I think if nominated he will have a hard time winning in a General. But, If we combine our best candidates to a team. We have a winning ticket.

Comments

I'll go half way (vadem - 12/6/2006 6:54:33 PM)

Can't forecast a ticket yet because no one will have to select a partner until 2008 and it would be very helpful to see where everything sits at that time. The global and domestic status has to be considered in that decision, but who says that the VP must be one of the wannabe's. Unless two candidates do super well, with the winner taking it in a real squeaker, then maybe you want to choose #2. But that's like picking a loser. There are some other great choices out there and I think that Clark would do well to keep his eyes on all the field. Three interesting Democrats to consider are all successful, prominent Democratic Governors of Southwestern or Midwest or Western states: Sebilius, Napolitano and Sweitzer (I think that's spelled wrong). Let's let the ticket play out over the next two years while Wes shows everyone what he's all about.

Addressed the Arab summit in Dubai today, where he's been an honored guest for the past two days. He's been saying what the Iraq Study Group said today for 3 years. Talk to Iran, Syria, the players in the region (same thing Webb said). We can't win militarily, we must win diplomatically and politically. Too bad no one listened all these years.

Is America ready for a black pres/VP - or a female pres/VP? (relawson - 12/6/2006 7:17:34 PM)

I would like to think that we are beyond the race and gender issue, but honestly I think that Obama and Clinton will both lose votes because of their race/gender.

I am not pulling for Clinton because I don't feel warm about her politics - I feel a bit of elitism coming from that corner.

I like Obama. I hope he runs for President. I don't know if he is ready - he is a good orator but how will he do under pressure? How will he overcome inexperience?

I think he should serve a bit longer - or run as the VP. I'll definately support him if he wins the primaries though.

My "dream team" would be Edwards-Clark, or Edwards-Webb. Double trouble for the corporate controlled politicians ;-)

Good points, "relawson" (cycle12 - 12/6/2006 7:28:25 PM)

My assumption was that Jim Webb will serve a full term in the U. S. Senate before he considers anything else, as has been discussed here on RK at some length.

With that being said, there is no doubt in this Democrat's mind that Webb would be a viable candidate for either President or Vice-President.

Thanks!

Steve

A question (Kathy Gerber - 12/6/2006 8:56:41 PM)

I haven't given it all that much thought, but for a problem solving team, I have to go with Clinton/Clark and Edwards in the cabinet.

I really like Obama and Edwards, but given the enormity of the problems we're already facing, we need experience and mental toughness. Oratory skills really inspire people (self included), but they have next to nothing to do with good governance. Same with charisma, gravitas, etc.

Anyway, I see Clinton v. Edwards a little like Byrne v. Baskerville and have to go with perceived decisiveness in both cases.

And if things go well, for 2012: Webb/ Obama.

If things go well in 2008, Kathy... (cycle12 - 12/6/2006 11:58:01 PM)

...wouldn't your recommendation be Webb/Obama in 2016?

Unfortunately, as much as I like Clinton and Obama and a number of other possible Democratic candidates, I have serious doubts about their ability to win in a still very cautious and conservative United States of America. Yes, of course I would support and vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket...no, I don't believe that they can win.

Our local, state and national electoral gains this year have certainly brought the pendulum swinging back in the correct direction, finally, but how much further is it likely to travel within the next 18 months or so?

I think we should refer back to the advice of the Jarding/Saunders book; "Foxes in the Henhouse", and pick a team that can win, period.

That was the same philosophy employed to nominate - and elect - Jim Webb, and it worked.

Thanks again!

Steve

Whoa (DukieDem - 12/7/2006 1:44:51 AM)

Webb did not win because he was an 'electable' candidate. In fact, he won very much in spite of it. Candidate that doesn't like raising money? Candidate that doesn't love campaigning? Candidate that wrote negative (and in many ways) demeaning article? Party switcher? Accused hothead?

Do any of those traits scream electability? No. Those things made Webb much harder to elect. But he won because he inspired great enthusiasm, something unlike anything I'd seen in other candidates.

It's not as simple as getting the most electable candidate, it's about getting a candidate that speaks the truth and inspires passion. Don't be a pundit with your vote, support the candidate you beleive in and things will turn out alright.

Thanks, "DukieDem"; we are in agreement... (cycle12 - 12/7/2006 5:16:47 AM)

...because, even though our approaches to the subject matter may be somewhat different, in the end we define the term "electability" the same. From that perspective, I couldn't agree with you more about Jim Webb, and Wes Clark was the same way, initially.

Yes, Webb - and Clark - were inspirational, but not necesssarily "electable" at the beginning of each one's campaign. Jim Webb is a true quick study who continued to improve throughout his relatively brief campaign, and Clark has been getting better all the time since 2004.

However, I sincerely wish that your advice to "...support the candidate you believe in and things will turn out alright..." were correct but, in reality, I need only to list the names of recent former candidates Gore, Kerry, Deeds, Byrne, etc. to suggest otherwise.

It all gets down to content validity (or substance, as I explained it to state senator John Edwards last week), and Jim Webb has that quality in spades. The final step is delivery, and that's why Mudcat Saunders called Webb the "Secretariat" of candidates. Obviously, we had the best possible candidate, and our greatest challenge was getting that message out.

In Webb's case, thank heaven that there was just enough time, just enough money, and just enough intensely dedicated volunteer and paid people to get that message out to just enough voters...just in time.

This time around, starting earlier with Wes Clark should produce a much better end result. At 62% in RK's current unscientific but indicative poll, he certainly has strong support on this blog.

Isn't that how Jim Webb started out here less than a year ago?

Thanks again!

Steve

The Political Pragmatist in Me (Catzmaw - 12/7/2006 9:20:17 PM)

is saying Clark can't win because he lacks name recognition and experience in public office and gave away all his money to promote the campaigns of Webb and others and he doesn't have a large grassroots organization, etc., etc.

The Political Idealist in me is saying wouldn't it be great to have a man of character, brilliance, and a sophisticated understanding of the world in the Presidency? He's so very intelligent you just know he'd be a quick study when it came to the details of being President. He would have instant credibility with foreign nations, many of whom developed respect for him when he was Supreme Commander of NATO.

I listened to him on C-Span a few days ago and he had many call ins by people who were clearly impressed. I heard the time he called the Sean Hannity show. He's eloquent and articulate and does not talk down to people. Some of the other candidates may be good. I haven't seen the whole field (who has?), but right now they have to show me why they'd be a better choice than Clark.

The religious fervor is offputting. (Kathy Gerber - 12/7/2006 10:38:22 PM)

bias: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

I keep running into comments on Clark that have the feel of an advertisement. The fact is, I don't know that much about Clark. Your passion may be appreciated in some quarters, but I really fail to see how you make the leap to "just being biased." I don't see how it's a useful conclusion to make about those you wish to convince.

That's quite strange. (Kathy Gerber - 12/8/2006 12:41:29 AM)

Some user named jinny rated my comment as unproductive. Been here since Oct 13, never diaried, never commented, and never rated or recommended a thing. Just that one single rating.

Back to 2008. I saw a sign once on a mammogram machine: We press because we care. Hence the comment. We always pick the candidates we support under conditions of uncertainty, but right now their is more uncertainty than ever. As a matter of fact, I was just in Jerome a Paris' huge impeachment thread (last count 1174 comments and 477 in the tip jar). Fascinating read.

At least some of that uncertainty will be clarified well before the primary. There could be a variety of scenarios. I wonder if that explains why some people aren't really ready to make a commitment to 2008? If so, it's hardly indifference, more like a wait and see attitude.

The fervor is real (vadem - 12/7/2006 11:47:19 PM)

I wouldn't call it religious fervor, but an honest-to-goodness realization that this is a potential candidate who gets it, who can explain it so that you know he knows what he's talking about. I can only explain the "fervor" by saying that, once you read and listen to what Clark has said and done, you know that he's the best choice for what this country needs. It's quite a revelation and I can only liken it to what I also quickly realized about Jim Webb. These two men aren't clones, that's a fact. But there are many parallels and probably why Webb appealed so much to me once I began to hear whispers that he was thinking about a run.

He won't appeal to everyone, but you can only know that for certain after you have honestly given him a good hard look. It's worth the time to learn about him, then you can make your own determination.

Article on Virginia, Webb and Clark (vadem - 12/8/2006 9:48:42 AM)

If you read and appreciate Bernie Quigley, prize winning writer, you'll enjoy this timely article. It speaks to the discussion in this diary. Here's an excerpt with a link to the entire article (good reading, IMO)

Free Market News Network - Pompano Beach,FL,USA

HOW MANY ELECTORAL VOTES DOES OPRAH HAVE?

Thursday, December 07, 2006

I see the life force rising in Virginia with Jim Webb. And it was announced this week that Wes Clark will publish a book called America's Son in the fall of 2007. He asks not to make too much of it. The book announcement isn't evidence that he'll run for President in 2008.

''I just want to participate in the American dialogue about where we are as a nation,'' he said.

I am all but certain that he will run in '08. He is an American for all seasons, and his candidacy will appeal to red and blue states alike. He is the rare, truly federal candidate and federal as Jefferson intended it to be. He belongs to Arkansas first and last as its native son. Like Jefferson, he is not made provincial by his native place but deepened and wizened by it.

In a way, Jim Webb, who just won election to the Senate in Virginia, is prelude to Clark. What voters sought and found in Webb lives in Clark as well. In Virginia today they are wearing bumper stickers which read, "My Senator is Fearless." So is Wes Clark. And both are smart as paint. As an editor for the Fighting Dems News Service points out, "In opting for an all-encompassing "strategic" approach to Iraq and the Middle East, the Iraq Study Group (ISG) released recommendations that are far closer to those proposed by retired Gen. Wesley Clark than plans offered up by many other Democrats and Republicans."

Complete article at http://tinyurl.com/y...