« They Shall Fight Us On The Radio, They Shall Fight Us On TV, They Shall Fight Us In Every Newspaper | Main | Clinton/Clark »
September 15, 2007
A Clinton/Clark Deal?
Wesley Clark has endorsed the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, which isn't that much of a surprise given their common Arkansas roots. What's interesting is that this comes a couple days after Mark Warner, often mentioned as a possible Clinton VP pick, announced that he'll run for the open Senate seat in Virginia. It'd be pretty nice if these phenomena are connected, and Warner's decision to pursue the Senate caused the Clinton campaign to put Clark on the VP list. I was worrying that Clinton might offer the vice presidency to one of our red-state Senators -- Warner or perhaps Evan Bayh -- who aren't easy to replace. If there's some kind of Clinton/Clark deal going on, that problem is eliminated.
September 15, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I know a lot can happen between now and next summer, but I personally think if Clinton takes the nomination, Senator Obama would be the natural choice, if he wants the job. I also frankly think that if he does fairly well, but can't quite overcome Clinton, it might actually be a bit difficult for her not to ask him to be her running mate.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 15, 2007 2:15:20 PM
Are we trying to lose the election next year? Seriously but for the GOP being in a bad spot, I don't get the logic. I was a Clarkie. Still kind of am. However, its crazy to stick him on as VP. We should be looking to places where we can actually build a solid new majority rather than replicating an approach which hasn't worked.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 15, 2007 2:22:25 PM
I'm more woried about Clinton as the nominee, and even more so as a President, than I am about her nominating a red stater to a position that won't mean shit in her Administration.
I would also suggest that this isn't 2004, and running on the same ticket as a General would actually be a fairly bad idea.
Posted by: soullite | Sep 15, 2007 2:28:46 PM
Are you suggesting she made a deal with Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, and Wesley Clark at the same time? I don't think so. Either way, she is not going to choose him as VP and she is not going to choose Obama as VP. She will either choose a Governor or former Governor.
Posted by: Rick | Sep 15, 2007 3:12:21 PM
I personally think if Clinton takes the nomination, Senator Obama would be the natural choice
I think that would not be a good idea. We still don't really know whether a woman can be elected president; do we really want to double down and see if Americans will cast their first vote for a woman and for an African-American at the same time?
Edwards would be a natural VP pick for Hillary, if he hadn't already been Kerry's running mate last time around.
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 15, 2007 3:26:35 PM
By 2008, I think there will be enough harsh words and public disagreements between the candidates that Clinton/Obama or Clinton/Edwards won't be possible.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 15, 2007 3:37:49 PM
I doubt it matters all that much who Hillary, if nominated, picks for VP. Can anyone point to the last time a running mate really seemed to make much of a difference? Maybe Al Gore. Certainly not: G.H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, etc.
This will be especially true if the nominee is Hillary, who is a larger-than-life candidate. Win or lose, the campaign will be about Hillary. People will barely notice who she picks as her running mate.
Unless it's Oprah, which looks unlikely now that she's endorsed Obama.
Posted by: Jason G. | Sep 15, 2007 4:07:35 PM
I'm one of the people who finds the speculation about Warner fascinating; it's been a pretty open secret that he sropped out of the Prez race to wait for the other Warner to retire; Lo and behold, he did just that. There's no way any senior Dem is going to give up the sure thing of winning that seat in VA for the prospect of Warner was window dressing on any ticket... and there never was. If that's the basis for the Clark speculation, it seems similarly misplaced. Getting Clark to endorse her - in this week when Giuliani's been trying a "she's bad on the Defense Dept" tactic - seems like a genius enough move, and Clark seems like an interesting move for SecDef, not VP (no legislative experience, no elective office... not a good sign). I can buy the Midwestern Senator thing (I actually think she'd be even better off picking a Western Senator - anyone know a reason not to pick Salazar?), but I think it's a ways off and really, I thought we were all still waiting to see if she actually wins the primaries. She's still as flawed as she ever was; playing the party game of picking her VP lends her yet more cred that I'm not sure she's really entitled to.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 15, 2007 5:01:03 PM
I hope that Hillary picks John Edwards as her running mate. His populism, charisma, and southern charm resonates well with suburban and rural swing voters.
Posted by: Jim Webb | Sep 15, 2007 5:56:55 PM
By the way, I hear that Republican Senator Lindsay Graham is gay. I heard that there's been rumors since the 1980's that he's gay. But he consistantly votes against gay rights. Hopefully, Republican collegues will treat him the same way they treated Larry Craig.
Posted by: Jim Webb | Sep 15, 2007 6:30:01 PM
Uhm - what has lindsay graham got to do with this?
Posted by: akaison | Sep 15, 2007 7:13:38 PM
Jeff, er, Jim, or whatever you want to call yourself - while I don't think Neil's right about negative energy derailing Clinton from running either of her current opponents as her running mate (it seems to me politics is the art of not taking it personally, at their level), I think Edwards would probably say "thanks but no thanks" to an offer of yet again being the bridesmaid, not the bride. A girl can get a reputation, always running for Vice President. ;) I don't think Clinton/Obama is out of the question, but you could spend years trying to figure out if the bottom line is a net plus or a net minus, between her baggage and their race/gender combination. In some ways, I find it absolutely tantalizing, in others a recipe for total disaster. But again, all of this seems like way too soon; can't we see if she actually wins anything first?
And, as akaison says, what's Lindsay Graham (or his sexuality, mystifying though it might be) got to do with any of this?
Posted by: weboy | Sep 15, 2007 7:53:32 PM
If Hilary wins and Obama is a close second it would be crazy for her NOT to pick Obama, given the huge following and momentum he has. Those who are wondering if America is "ready" for a woman or a black need to check themselves and drop that low-expectations nonsense.
And here's the bumper sticker:
"Clinton-Obama: Make History"
And for the record, I want Obama to win and choose Jim Webb for VP.
Posted by: Jason Scorse | Sep 15, 2007 10:54:52 PM
If Hilary wins and Obama is a close second it would be crazy for her NOT to pick Obama, given the huge following and momentum he has. Those who are wondering if America is "ready" for a woman or a black need to check themselves and drop that low-expectations nonsense.
And here's the bumper sticker:
"Clinton-Obama: Make History"
And for the record, I want Obama to win and choose Jim Webb for VP.
Posted by: j.s. | Sep 15, 2007 10:55:27 PM
I doubt it matters all that much who Hillary, if nominated, picks for VP. Can anyone point to the last time a running mate really seemed to make much of a difference? Maybe Al Gore. Certainly not: G.H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, etc.Picking Lieberman *now* would make a huge difference (mostly negative). But he didn't really matter *then*.
I do think that a general would be a bad choice for VP, though. Turning the country into a military dictatorship is a *bad* trend that we expect a Democratic nominee to *reverse*. With all due respect to the military, they don't run this country and they shouldn't run this country. Clark might be a great choice for SecDef but nominating him for VP would send a very bad message, IMO.
P.S. I'm from Virginia, and I think we need Warner and Webb in the Senate. Congress has to stop being a sideshow soon - or we're all doomed regardless of who the next President is - and when that day comes we need some good people in the Senate. Don't draft our Senators, they're not so easy to replace down here.
Posted by: Chris | Sep 16, 2007 12:55:38 PM
Lieberman did make a difference in the negative sense, I think him being a Jew cost him votes in the south.
Posted by: will | Sep 23, 2007 5:54:35 PM
Clinton/Clark, I've been saying it for months!
Best combination to run the United States of America.
Posted by: Truth789 | Nov 16, 2007 6:12:17 PM
Don't underestimate General Wesley Clark. He has huge clout in the United States and in the World. Many republicans respect him as well as Democrats. He is universal Vice President material. We are in a foreign relations mess with the world and he wants to use diplomacy.
Posted by: Truth789 | Nov 16, 2007 6:22:48 PM
