Perfect VP for Obama? | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
Maybe a thoughtful general instead (none / 0)

I know he's supporting Hillary Clinton now, but General Wesley Clark would be an outstanding choice. If a candidate can pick the rival candidate when the campaign is done, there's nothing that stops him from picking a surrogate.

Obama could try to unite Democrats by choosing Clinton, but I don't think she wants it (even though she would make history as the first female VP and would be better poised to make history as president in 2012 or 2016). Clark would help draw disappointed Clinton backers.

He's smart and experience, with an impeccable military record and foreign policy experience, and would ease worries about Obama's experience deficits. Having led the military in our previous war (the one without a single US fatality), Obama could let VP Clark manage the war while he focuses on the shambles Bush has made of the economy.

And he's southern, with strong support in the South, where he could help Obama in Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and maybe even Florida. To win, Clinton or Obama will need to carry at least one more state than the Dems carried in 2000 and 2004. And Wesley Clark Sr. apprears to be the best person to do that.

by Dogger on 02/17/2008 05:04:50 AM EST

Obviously (none / 0)
The general has to have a message from God (or something) that tells him he was wrong to support Hillary.

And yes, right or wrong, an old, southern white guy (you know, the type that has normally become president in our modern history for some ridiculous reason)&nbs p;with great military experience/credibility probably *is* the perfect person to help Obama win the general.

I mean, isn't Obama's biggest General Election weakness that he's inexperienced?  Specifically inexperienced WRT foreign policy? 

by Tom Hanc on 02/17/2008 11:30:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I disagree, respectifully (none / 0)
Dogger, I must respectfully disagree most vociferously.

Clark may be a good choice in the military experience aspect of the race, but I fear that many female Clinton supporters may be so pissed if Obama gets the nomination, that they may stay home.

After all, if McCain wins in 08, Clinton is the presmptive nominee in 08, since Obama would have lost and thus been proven a loser. She would remain in the Senate and in the limelight for 4 years, critizing McCain and claiming, "I would have beaten the guy."

This is not only  a reason to try to appease female identity voters, (those who want to see the first female president) but also prevent Clinon from sabatoging the campaign from the inside, if she was the VP nominee.

If Napalitano was his VP nominee, then any female identity voter who stayed home or voted for McCain would be forced to consider this choice:

I can vote for Obama to lose and hope that Clinton can come back in 4 years against an incumbant McCain and win, or I vote for Obama/Napalitano and have a larger chance of seeing a female president after 8 years of an Obama president.

Now, since we are talking about democratic identity voters, they automatically lean away from McCain and don't want to see him win.

I am confident that Napalitano would push them over the edge and into the voting booth in Novemeber.

Besides that, on the policy front, as someone pointed out, Napalitano is a very competant govenor, well liked, and would add experience to the ticket, as well as potentially winning a swing state and voters from the south.

Dogger claimed that Clark would appease Clinton supporters, but I ask "why?"

How many loyal Clinton supporters are on that bandwagon because they actually love Clinton? How many are identity voters who see a rare chance to make history with the first female president?

I think there are more of the latter than the former, and even if there were many Clinton supporters who love the Clinton brand, why would Clark appease them?

Because he's from Arkansas? I just don't see him healing the divides that are being caused by this long primary season.

Also, one more thing to consider. I am not 100% sure on this, because the Republicans will try anything to win in 08, but I think a Napalitano VP would help insulate the ticket from McCain a bit, since he might not be able to go after the popular govenor of his own homestate.

Thoughts?

by adamg on 02/17/2008 12:42:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I disagree but not vociferously (none / 0)

Clinton as VP would better serve the interests of party unity, in my opinion, but I was operating on the assumption she did not want it. The VP job is powerful when a boob holds the top job, but not worth much otherwise, except as a steppingstone to President.

Do any of the female governors even want the VP job? Being Governor is a better steppingstone to President than VP. And Governors have a lot of power.

Do female identity voters want to lose a female Governor (or Senator, for that matter)? It's likely anyone chosen for VP would turn her current job over to a man.

I too am worried that female Clinton supporters may stay home if Obama gets the nomination, but so far he is polling well in that demographic. Obama is hurting in the demos where Clark has appeal. And surely female identity voters don't want McCain judges deciding Roe v. Wade, or McCain keeping their children in Iraq for 100 years.


by Dogger on 02/17/2008 07:44:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Perfect VP for Obama? | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)