A Clinton-Clark ticket?

by markjay, Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:40:57 PM EDT

I supported Clark in 2004, and I support Clinton now, but I never thought much about a Clinton-Clark ticket. I've always assumed that Clinton would always go for someone who could help deliver a key state (e.g., Ted Strickland, Mark Warner, Jim Webb) or could help provide an historic multi-ethnic, multi-gender ticket (e.g., Barack Obama, Bill Richardson). But now, having just reviewed Wesley Clark's incredible impressive biography, I'm wondering if Clinton-Clark could be a good possibility. Follow more beneath the fold.

First, any Democratic ticket is going to attacked for being soft on terror and anti-military. Having a well-known military leader like Clark could help offset that.

Second, since the Democratic party is very broad, Hillary wants to reach out to the center, but also appeal to the left. Clark's background will make him non-threatening, and indeed, attractive, to moderate voters. But he also has a great deal of support among the netroots.

He doesn't have any background as an elected official, but since Hillary is the consumate political insider, that shouldn't be much of a concern.

Clark would be the age of 64 at the inauguration, but that's a non-factor for now due to his excellent health and vitality. If Hillary won two terms, it may or may not make him too old to run after her, which could be an advantage of disadvantage in Hillary's eyes.

What do you think? If Hillary wins the nomination, is a Hillary-Clark ticket likely? Would you support it?

Tags: 2008 elections, Hillary Clinton, Wes Clark, Wesley Clark (all tags)

Comments

34 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

The idea that the VP can deliver a state is vastly overrated. When did this last happen? Lyndon Johnson in 1960 maybe?

by conspiracy 2007-09-16 01:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

Wesley Clark lost all of his credibility when he endorsed Hillary.

by allmiview 2007-09-16 01:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

BS

Clark is still Clark. He is not a patsy, push over or puppet.

I will vote for ANY Democrat in the General election. In the primaries... not sure yet.

by kevin22262 2007-09-16 02:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: BS

Didn't Bill Clinton fire him? He was fired by her husband, now he supports his ex-boss' wife....what a surprise?

by allmiview 2007-09-16 05:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: BS

Clinton's Republican Secretary of Defense fired him.

by parahammer 2007-09-17 12:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: BS

fired? No. It was politics and it was not Clinton who did it.

by kevin22262 2007-09-17 06:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: BS

I still like Clark, even though I think he sold out his values a bit in his Hillary endorsement. I'd vote for the ticket, but nothing about Hillary inspires me to give up my own valuable time to work for her or donate to her unless Obama is her VP. I'd rather spend my time and money in getting a filibuster proof senate majority so we can actually pass Universal Healthcare coverage.

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-16 10:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

well, he didn't suddenly un-campaign for Lamont against Lieberman, when hardly any other Democrats would.

by justinh 2007-09-17 06:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

Love this ticket, but it's too early to speculate such things. Let's keep our eyes on the ball and help Hillary get the nomination first.

by areyouready 2007-09-16 01:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Bad idea

It would look like she thought she needed a military VP to counter balance the fact that she is a woman. It would immediately weaken her and it would be an insult to women. It plays into the false idea that democrats are weak on security. Kerry didn't counter that in 2004 and Clark won't in 2008. Better to just ignore what the republicans are going to do. We are a civilian government not a military one.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-16 01:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Bad idea

Clark is not "just military," he is extremely articulate and telegenic--he'll play well with Reagan Democrats and independents.

The word inside DC is that he's on everyone's short list for VP.

by justinh 2007-09-17 06:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

I don't think Clinton made a deal with Vilsack, Bayh and Clark at the same time... if you know what I mean.

by RJEvans 2007-09-16 01:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

I HIGHLY doubt Clark as VP

If you knew more about him then you would know that SOS is the BEST fit for him outside of President.

by kevin22262 2007-09-16 02:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I HIGHLY doubt Clark as VP

Yeah but you can't FIRE a VP.

by TxKat 2007-09-16 09:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I HIGHLY doubt Clark as VP

Sec of Defense, Sec of Homeland Security and SOS would all be great positions for Clark. I'd personally like to see him in Homeland Security.

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-16 10:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

first off

change the name of HS to Domestic Security. Get rid of the homeland/fatherland/motherland feel.

Clark is not only great domestically and with security, he is great internationally and diplomatically.

He needs to do good, everywhere.

by kevin22262 2007-09-17 06:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: first off

Well, I agree that the name Homeland Security is a bit on the Nazi Party Line side, but that IS the name of the Department. I would welcome a change though to Domestic Security.

Regardless, he would be my top choice for that Department and that would be my top choice for him overall.

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-17 09:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

I don't think the two of them are very compatible.

1. Hillary can deliver Arkansas without Clark.

2. While Clark has an impressive record and would be a strong, experienced leader, Hillary is viewed as a strong, experienced leader in her own right, so she doesn't need Clark in that regard.

3. As an older, prominent figure in Washington, Hillary needs a newer, younger, fresher face to help drive the issue of "change". Clark is too closely linked to the Clinton's and the 90's to help out in that area. Plus, like you mentioned before, he isn't particularly young anymore.

I think right now, with Mark Warner out of consideration, Evan Bayh and Barack Obama are her best picks. I'd still vote for Clinton-Clark if I had to, but I think Hillary has better running mate options.

Clark would be a better choice for Obama.

by Namtrix 2007-09-16 02:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

I love this ticket.

I think Clark is the most forward thinking in terms of security and I think he would be an agent of change in terms of the military industrial complex. I guess I understand some peoples angst about a military man on the ticket, but remember Eisenhower. There are instances where this can help. I just hope that this is an indication that Clark will be a prominent part of her administration. Secretary of State, VP, where ever he can be most effective. On a completely superficial note, it sounds great..Clinton/Clark. It's crisp.

by bookgrl 2007-09-16 02:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

Hillary Clinton will need someone who will express change, and that does not mean she will choose Obama. Someone like Bayh, Warner (out of contention), Bredesen, or even Easley are likely choices.

by RJEvans 2007-09-16 02:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Clinton already owns change

according the polls people already believe she is the person best able to bring change to DC. There is no bigger change to our government than to join the rest of the civilized world and elect a woman leader.
You know what I would love to see? I would love to see a woman VP, perhaps a certain governor from the midwest? = )

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-16 02:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clinton already owns change

You know what I would love to see? I would love to see a woman VP, perhaps a certain governor from the midwest? = )

Me too. For Barack Obama...

by Will Graham 2007-09-16 02:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

let's see

he is using the same lame attack on Clinton that has not worked for two months. He is dropping in the polls. He is running on being the change candidate. But polls show Hillary owns the idea of change. He is running on ethics reform, but we discover he has some ethics issues of his own. He is running on being inspiring, but he's really a one speech wonder.
I said months ago he was a flavor of the months candidate and I am pretty sure that is about to be proven true. His campaign doesn't seem to be capable of changing course. Get back to me in six months and I am pretty sure he will be totally off the radar.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-16 03:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: let's see

That's very presumptuous of you. Six months is a long time in poltiics -- very often, even a week is a long time in politics.

A lot can change in that time.

by Namtrix 2007-09-16 03:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: let's see

I don't know where you get six months from, Namtrix. It looks like the Iowa caucus is early January, perhaps even late December. We are now heading towards the latter part of September. So, coming up on 3 months left here in a couple of weeks. Plus, don't forget that the month of December usually is "frozen" as for poll movement, as people are in vacation mode, are thinking gifts, holiday preparation, etc. and aren't really focusing on the race enough to move poll numbers dramatically. So, realistically, things have to start moving pretty soon.

by georgep 2007-09-16 06:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: let's see

I see that Teresa referenced 6 months, which is well after March's Super-Tuesday. But, with Iowa coming up in just a bit over 3 months, the time to really make a major move is tighter than many believe. It has crept up on us rather rapidly.

by georgep 2007-09-16 06:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: let's see

Yeah, I didn't bother checking how many months were actually left, I was just referencing what Teresa had said. Still, even with the primaries creeping up on us much faster than usual, 3 months is a lot of time for things to change. In politics, you never know what's going to happen day-by-day. Just look at Larry Craig and how fast his career crashed and burned. >_>

by Namtrix 2007-09-16 08:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: let's see

LOL. Well, there were Craig rumors well before this episode that got him in trouble. I doubt we'll see anything dramatic like that, but there is always a chance of a major slipup. I read this interesting article penned by David Shribman earlier:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucds/20070915/cm _ucds/hillaryclintonisnowtheonetobeat

which discusses the state of the race and makes an interesting observation as for the dynamics.

In some ways this presidential campaign, so different from its predecessors in so many ways, is nevertheless so much the same as some of the ones that preceded it. In 1984, for example, former Vice President Walter F. Mondale was the front-runner, followed by Sen. John H. Glenn Jr. and Sen. Gary W. Hart. Senators Glenn and Hart sought to diminish their rival by declaring him the tool of the special interests and unions that bankrolled him. Hart, who had more of an insurgent's profile than Glenn, sought to stay close to Mondale in the polls so as to be well-positioned if he stumbled.

Those are the relative positions Sen. Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have fallen into in recent weeks.

by georgep 2007-09-16 09:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Why do you hate Obama so much?

Because he was right on the most important issue of the last 30 years? Sounds reasonable...

by Will Graham 2007-09-16 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clinton already owns change

Yes, true, but Republicans are going to try and paint her as the incumbent.

You will only get a female VP with Edwards. Right now, the best candidate will be Kathleen Sebelius.

by RJEvans 2007-09-16 03:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clinton already owns change

Yep, she owns the low info voters too.

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-16 10:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

Yeah, Bayh, the poster boy of the DLC SCREAMS change...

Please. That ticket just makes me sick. Whomever the nominee is, they need a strong choice who can not only help in the current elections but can win 8 years from know. Bayh, who has the personality of dry wood, is not that guy.

by yitbos96bb 2007-09-17 09:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

I will support Hillary regardless of who is also on the ticket. But Wes Clarke would be an excellent choice for Vice President.

by DoIT 2007-09-16 04:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: A Clinton-Clark ticket?

I apologize for spelling Wesley's last name incorrectly.

by DoIT 2007-09-16 04:30PM | 0 recs