Lists of the potential vice president picks for Barack Obama are all over the web. Lots of folks guessing about who will Obama pick; will it be political, based on geography, or to strengthen the new politics narrative? The latest strategy for narrowing the list of likely choices involves idenitying who's already been given a speaking gig at the Party Convention later this month, and then ruling them out as potential VP's.
One of the Democrats who's, invariably, been on the list of potential VP's is retired General Wesley Clark. And General Clark has not been identified as a speaker at the convention. Voila. A potential vice presidential match for Barack Obama, right?
No, unfortunately.
General Wesley Clark is not attending the Democratic National Convention. I was told by General Clark's personal office in Little Rock that he would not be attending.
Clark was informed by Barack Obama's people that there was no reason to come.
General Clark has been given no role of any kind at the convention. (Link)
I think this is a shame. Wesley Clark has shown no reluctance about going toe to toe with John McCain and would provide some national security gravitas to the Obama campaign. I contend Clark would have been a good choice and certainly better than some of the other names being thrown about.
Comments
This is how much talent is at the Democrats' disposal. I'm going to place a position next to a name. This list is in no particular order, so if you have any nastygrams you want to shoot my way, please save them. The point I'm trying to make is that the Dems have so much talent on hand that the names are interchangeable, and if that doesn't make the GOP nervous, then maybe it should.
Clark - VP
Powell - Defense
Gates - NSA/CIA
H. Clinton - AG
Biden - State
B. Clinton - Supreme Court
Gore - UN
Richardson - Chief of Staff
C. Kennedy - Health and Human Services
I think Clark would have been a good choice as VP given his national security experience however even though security is slightly less than important these days, I think the Obama campaign is going to take that hit in an effort to shore up support with Sebelius or Kaine?
This is a sham. None of this sounds like something Obama or Clark would do. My bet is they want to keep his speaking roll at the convention a secret...until Wednesday night.
I don't put any stock on what's being bandied about the internet. Do you honestly think the Obama campaign would tell Clark's Little Rock staff anything?
Any secret worth keeping is known by very few and this secret must be kept. Here's why...
The VP selection will be sent out to Obama's supporters via text message - they will be the first to know. It's a fantastic way to tell us little people we're important. If word gets out before they send the text, then the whole things goes up in smoke.
No one will know, including bloggers, journalists and even Wes Clark Jr. until that text message goes out.
Thanks goodness lightweight Clark is now history
Pete, you're very forward-thinking. I enjoyed your comment.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/16/18237/6344/513/569001
I'm perplexed by your assertion that Clark has foreign policy "gravitas" (whatever that means - do you know what it means?). He was a general in a very circumscribed war (unauthorized by the UN I might add) and has never made foreign policy decisions.
In his numerous TV appearances he does not come across as a very intelligent guy, he has in fact a spotty past, and has a problem of chronic personality conflicts.
I think its fine if you like him, but on what grounds can you claim the guy has foreign policy experience of any kind>?
Allan,
I didn't write Clark provides "foreign policy" gravitas. I wrote Clark provides "national security gravitas"
If the intense media chatter is anything to go by, it might be safe to say that Sen. Obama is less than 72 hours away from announcing his running mate. That being said, I'd like to go on record and get my own "armchair quarterback" comment in before it's too late: IT'S WESLEY CLARK. I'll tell you why Here's a NYT article from Aug. 16:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/politics/16arkansas.html
The media's willing to play fetch with whatever "stick" Sen. Obama throws; thing is, that stick never left his hand. Biden to Georgia? Fetch, boy, fetch! Mentioning Sam Nunn at Saddleback? Fetch, boy, fetch! Indiana rally with Bayh twice in 3 weeks? You guessed it: fetch, boy, fetch. I'll make 4 quick points about Wes Clark and then I'll be done: 1) Effortless national security credentials; 2) Never been part of the DC monster; 3) Electoral clout (Oklahoma primary in '04); 4) Supported Hillary before it became cool to pick sides.
Which brings me back to the Times article. I'll bet the Dems aren't that reckless to just give up Arkansas. They've already shown to fond of their native sons, and I challenge anyone reading this to think they won't do the same again if Clark's on the ticket.
"They've already shown to fond of their native sons"
I apologize, I meant "They've already shown to BE fond of their native sons (Clinton, Huckabee)"
General Clark will be at the Convention on Thursday. :)
http://www.youtube.com/wkcmedia
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!