Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

On Wolf Blitzer, moments ago. He will not accept Dean VP slot.

Sorry.

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  Well, that's one less endless debate to occupy our time...

  I'm not surprised. Something about the two men just trips my "not gonna happen" radar.

  by schwa on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:37:56 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    His response was, "No, I don't see that in the cards."  Perhaps that was his way of eliminating the idea that he's running for veep, while still keeping open the possibility.  He can always say later that all he said was that he didn't think a Dean/Clark ticket was "in the cards."

    by Michael D on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:39:15 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      That sounds to me a bit more like a hedge than a flat denial, but I'd want to see a little more context. Is there a transcript for this interview available yet?

      by kaley on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:54:54 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        Not yet.  When the transcript is posted, it should be available here.

        by Michael D on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:02:44 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        The transcript is now available:

        BLITZER: When I recently interviewed Howard Dean, he said he was still considering you, as one of his formidable candidates, to serve as his running mate. Would you agree to serve as Howard Dean's running mate?

        CLARK: No, I don't see that in the cards. I think the issue for this election is who should be the commander in chief and who is the right person to face George W. Bush. And that's what the Democratic electorate has to decide on. I like Howard Dean. I think he's done a fine job. I like his spirit. But, you know, Wolf, the days are passed when the Democratic Party can nominate a candidate in a time of war to go against a sitting president who is the commander in chief, who can say he's been there and done it.

        You can't put someone against the commander in chief and win who hasn't been there and done it, in terms of foreign affairs. So for me, it's about being the commander in chief, and that's why I'm running.

        There's a slight hedge on whether Clark would consider being Dean's VP, as well as a claim that the party can't nominate Dean because he hasn't "been there and done it, in terms of foreign affairs."

        by Michael D on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:33:22 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Exactly. It's not quite the put down it originally appeared to be. Blitzer was really trying to get him to slam Dean but Clark wouldn't take the bait.

      by Aexia on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:19:41 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    Something about the two men just trips my "not gonna happen" radar.

    My veepdar would have said the same about potential veeps Bentsen, Bush Sr., Qauyle, Cheney...

    You never know.

    by squiddy on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:35:45 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      "Qauyle" -- ya know, while typing that, I had a nagging feeling something wasn't quite right...

      I blame al-Qaeda.

      by squiddy on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:37:43 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  This is a great relief.  Clark would be a charismatic drag on the ticket.  We need energy and passion.  Not someone who looks and acts like a warmed-over Gray Davis.

  by katiebird on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:39:15 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    No, I'm sure getting another screaming mimi would do FAR more to assuage the idea that Dean is just another angry Democritic.

    Maybe Larouche or Perot?

    by blueinbrooklyn on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:43:53 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Have you seen Clark speak?  He's so dull people on the stage sleep through his speeches.  Who needs that?

      Are you equating charisma with anger?  

      by katiebird on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:20:26 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      screaming mimi? did you not see clark screaming on fox?

      .

      by niner on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 07:02:41 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  If George H. W. Bush had been asked in late 1979 whether he would agree to be Reagan's VP, I'm sure he would have said no, too. To say anything else would be to show weakness as a presidential candidate.

  by kaley on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:40:47 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    There are ways to answer that question without flatly ruling it out, however -- Bob Graham did that all the time. If Clark came out with a flat no, he almost certainly meant it.

    by schwa on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:42:17 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    The point is, Bush was not asked if he would accept VP under Reagan.

    Once you ARE asked and say no (without hedging, mind you), that's it. Full stop. End of story. You AND the guy who tried to pick you after you already said no would look idiotic. Talk about flip-flops!

    No, the Clark as VP for Dean thing is Officially Over, and not a moment too soon.

    Everyone can now breathe freely and refocus.
    

    by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:48:06 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Wait a minute J.

      McCain did say no to all those annoying questions 4 yrs ago.  Then he met with Bush, and prior to doing so, he went on TV saying he would do what is ever necessary for the party, back in July 2000...

      by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:53:04 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        Is he VP?

        by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:57:41 PM PDT

        •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

          Are you ready for tomorrow's Meet-Up?

          by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:12:41 PM PDT

          •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

            I am sick as a dog (sinuses, vertigo, etc.) still, so probably won't make it.

            I am encouraged that the meetup venue has been changed to the huge public library meeting room downtown rather than the smallish coffee shop it started in, though.

            by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:17:11 PM PDT

            •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

              That sounds like what I have been having for a couple of weeks Julia. The weather here in the South seems to be causing a lot of mine when it goes from 70s and 80s during the day to 20s at night.

              by Rob on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:24:01 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Hardly. If Dean wins the nomination and succeeds in convincing Clark to join the ticket, it would be a major PR coup showing the strength of the campaign's message, the unity of the party and all that. In fact, convincing someone who has flatly said no is a bigger coup than convincing someone who hedged.

      Mind you, I don't think this is likely, or even necessarily desirable. But it's absolutely not a scenario that can be ruled out entirely.

      by kaley on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:18:15 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        No, I think it can be ruled out.

        I also don't really understand why the Deanies are so anxious to keep working on this angle.

        There are other, less potentially dangerous ways to work on Dean's national security perception problem.

        You'd think you'd want to stop drawing attention to Clark's weight on that issue.

        by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:28:00 PM PDT

        •  National security

          There are other, less potentially dangerous ways to work on Dean's national security perception problem.

          As a committed Deaniac, I agree.  frankly, I don't want Clark anywhere near the ticket.

          You'd think you'd want to stop drawing attention to Clark's weight on that issue.

          I don't think Clark is any better positioned on the issue than the other leading candidates and he may be in worse shape.  Once the Mighty Wurlitzer cranks up with all his ex-colleauges pounding on the "doesn't play well with others", "ambitious". "ego driven", etc themes, that mothballed uniformed will be air-conditioned.

          Howard is fine on national security. He makes it appropriately an economic issue and ties it to his rollback of the Bush tax cuts and his public sector jobs program. All he has to say is that he will secure our ports of entry with adequate personnel and rigorous inspections and point to the fact that Dubya's homeland security expenditures have bought us a pretty, color-coded chart and cornered the market on duct tape.

          by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:36:33 PM PDT

          •  Re: National security

            as a deaniac who respects wesley clark and has been a tad bit impressed with him, i still think it would be a dynamite combination, for all of the good reasons expressed above.

            it probably wouldn't work, but the Wurlitzer is going to mash anyone, and Clark has already been gunning for it on a couple occasions. he can handle himself if he gets the nomination, veep or otherwise.

            who's gen. zinni? anyone have a link to stuff on him?

            by skaiserbrown on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:51:06 PM PDT

          •  Re: National security

            He makes it appropriately an economic issue and ties it to his rollback of the Bush tax cuts and his public sector jobs program.

            I wonder how "appropriate" it is to make national security into an economic issue?  There are economic dimensions to it that are being buried in current public discussions, but it is a mistake, I think, to reduce it to an economic issue.  The Democrats have tried this for too long (turning everything into an economic issue) and because their economic policies are so muddled and have no vision behind them other than fixing problems the Repubs create, I'm not so sure this is the greatest of strategies.  Not only is it ineffective, its also inaccurate: there are plenty of issues that need to be addressed that aren't economic -- criminalization of dissent, elimination of civil rights, dismantling of regulatory systems, destruction of international system, continued governmental secrecy.  None of these are economic in the first order, but the Democrats seem so afraid of taking a position that they hold on to the economy by pretending its a "pragmatic" rather than "ideological" issue.  

            This hasn't worked except for Clinton (and then it only worked short term).  The Democrats need a position, they need an ideology, they need something to stand for other than "being practical" and the implied understanding that being practical has no specific interests.  

            by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:46:43 PM PDT

            •  Re: National security

              I wonder how "appropriate" it is to make national security into an economic issue?

              To the extent that national security must be paid for, it's appropriate.  It helps diffuse the idea that one must have a warrior background to have credibility on the issue.  And it helps shine light on the Bush regime's weakness in national security.  

              To wit, he hasn't secured our ports and airports because he was too busy running up deficits to give hand-outs to his rich cronies.  Bush's economic policies are the foundation of why we aren't safer today than before 9/11 and remain vulnerable to attacks on American soil.  His Iraqi misadventures are just the recruitment ads for the army to carry out those attacks.

              Bush can stick out his lower lip and posture in his own inimitable macho shithead way, but it doesn't alter the fact that shipments by sea are still entering the country uninspected and that airport security is no better than before 9/11. Dean can certainly match Dubya for backbone plus advance a plan that improves our lot on three fronts - deficit reduction, jobs and security.

              While I don't think we should try to reduce everything to economics, where there's an economic factor to an issue and we have ideas that address that, we shouldn't be afraid to call the Bush regime on those economic failures.

              by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:12:10 PM PDT

              •  Re: National security

                I never said the economic issues shouldn't be addressed, only that the Dems lose big time when they avoid vision and stances (i.e. ideology) for economic issues.  Bush hasn't avoided securing ports and airports because he doesn't have the money to do it (he doesn't, but that isn't what's stopping him) its because he doesn't want to.  That's not an economic issue, that's an ideological one, (i.e. if he's "rewarding" rich cronies).  

                That's  where I'm differing with you.  Bush has no "economic" plan, only an ideological one; he sees the economy as an tool for an ideological plan, not the other way around.  The Dems need to counter his plan for what it is and present a different ideology.  By consistently talking about everything as an economic problem/issue, the Dems miss the opportunities that the Repubs are set up to exploit.

                Economy is important, but the Dems lose far, far too much ground concentrating only on that and letting the rest go as "inconsequential".  The "inconsequential" part is where the Dems lose every time.

                by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:23:19 PM PDT

                •  Points well taken...

                  I agree that the Dems should counter Bush's ideologically driven agenda with a different ideology based on Democratic ideals.  I think Dean does that.  Which is why I'm OK with treating national security as an issue where economics is as important as more ephemeral things like resolve.

                  by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:34:47 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  I like Clark, but isn't that just a little bit, uhh, snotty?

  by JS in TN on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:42:53 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  He has to say that.

  You'd think, if asked, the other candidates, including Dean would say yes?  

  This is especially true for someone who is behind the frontrunner.

  He doesn't want people, who are on the fence but not sure, to throw in with the frontrunner, content knowing that their other choice will likely end up on the ticket.

  Lastly,  you can't take want is said during the campaign literally.  Kennedy put aside the LBJ attacks, including that he revealed that JFK had Addisons Diesease;  Reagan put Bush Sr. on, even though he cut him with the "Voo Doo Economics" attack;  McCain was willing to accept the Veep with Shrub, dispite the uglyness of S.C.,  Etc.

  They will do what is in their best interests come August.

  by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:45:49 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    I agree. This is just a statement that Clark is in it for the big burrito, to quash the idea touted sometimes that he's running for VP. (Also quashes any attempt by the Dean people to marginalize him by implying as much.)

    -- Rick Robinson

    by al Fubar on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:54:10 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Right,

      how do you fully raise money, when the frontrunner, who that is, (in this case Dean) along with the press trying to marginalize you!

      Look at all the fundraising problems the also rans developed, once Dean surged ahead in July.

      by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:04:33 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  I think it cool that Bob Graham and Dick Lugar are both running with points Clark made.

  Even Lugar knows we're in a quaqmire.

  by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:50:32 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    Lugar is one of the most thoughtful Republicans out there, and my impression was that he was always uneasy about this thing.

    -- Rick Robinson

    by al Fubar on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:56:27 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  I don't think Dean would have asked him, anyway. He (Dean) has repeatedly said he's going to need someone with Washington (read Congressional) experience. The best VP candidate in my mind is Edwards. He fills the geographic and demographic gaps in Dean's establishment coverage, and while he doesn't have a ton of experience, he's well-respected and knows his way around the beltway.

  by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:53:53 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    Wrong,

    He's running against the roaches in Washington, as an outsider.

    Now he may say that Graham is Maverick enough, but Graham may not be a net plus to the ticket.

    Now how about this.

    What if he puts on Gen. Zinni on the ticket?

    That goes for both Dean and Clark.

    by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:59:35 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Gen. Zinni help Dean with the national security perception problem.

      Clark wouldn't need him -- it would be better for Clark to pick up someone to help him on the Congressional/domestic side (Gephardt?) -- but Zinni'd be great in a Clark cabinet.

      by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:04:12 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        I would favor Dean.  I love Dean.

        But, if he's not available, 2 four star generals would zip up OHio, and break open 2 to 3 southern states, because of intra-swing voters and pissed off conservatives would have their "trumped up" concerns placated.

        by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:08:22 PM PDT

        •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

          I'm all for it... but that being said, I think 2 four-star generals running for P and VP would smack of military coup to some people... and would certainly be portrayed as such by the GOP.

          by Incendi on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:40:20 PM PDT

          •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

            agreed.  It is silly to even create scenarios like that.  You will never have a ticket with two military men on it.  Both Dean and Clark will need a running mate from inside Washington, with some Congressional insight/contacts if not actual experience.  For them to do anything else would be a disaster in terms of trying to actually govern.  

            You may like the idea of a completely outsider ticket, but such an animal does not exist. (Remember who GWB chose: the ultimate "insider").  And for a Dem President, the most dangerous man in the US today is not GWB or even Dick C. or Don R., its Tom DeLay.  Anyone who is going to be a Democratic president has GOT to find a way to deal with that guy. A DC outsider will need major help in that department.  While GWB, Dick, Condi, Don, Perle, Ashcroft leave if defeated in a presidential campaign, DeLay remains behind, and poses a much more serious problem.    

            by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:56:49 PM PDT

            •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

              Woah...Zinni as a Democrat?  When did this happen?  He's been out of the spotlight for months (if not over a year: I try to suppress all the times that Bush does something horrible as his Israel/Palestine policies...of course, that implies that he HAS policies for the Israel-Palestinian question).  When/how did he suddenly come in the running for the Democratic nomination for Veep?

              by Kaushansky on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:46:19 PM PDT

              •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

                i was disappointed to read this:

                Other lobbying firms are scrambling to compete for business in Iraq. General Anthony C. Zinni, who headed the Pentagon's Central Command during the Clinton administration, has signed up as an adviser at the firm Akin Gump.  
                

                where is the consistency? how can somebody who railed against the war now seek to make money off of it?

                by niner on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 07:20:41 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Sure, he's running against the Washington insiders... for President.  But he HAS said repeatedly that for VP he'd want someone who knows their way around Washington.

      And he has mentioned Graham as a possibility.  (It was in a Florida paper, so maybe it was just to get Florida votes, but he did say something about Graham being on the short list.)

      by rfunk on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:04:45 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        think bill richardson. he could be our first latino vp. something that groundbreaking would create excitment.

        by niner on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 07:25:22 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    I agree with you.  Dean needs a Washington guy to get anything passed once he is elected.   He has stated that himself several times.  

    That's why I see see Graham, Landrieu, and Richardson as having the highest chances.   Southern Washington insiders, each with their own kick.  

    Graham's-- Florida on and on the intellegence
               committee
    Landrieu-- strong woman VP that has  
                already "beaten" Bush and used to be
                on the armed service committee
    Richardson-- Hispanic with a lot of foreign
                  policy/ diplomatic experience.

    Zinni or Clark might have a place as Sec'D, but thats only because I don't know of any innovative civilians or representatives for the spot.  Does anyone else?

    by PragIdealist on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:03:18 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      As primary author of the PATRIOT act, I personally don't want Graham anywhere near real executive power.

      by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:19:03 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        amen.  (the secular version).

        Progressives looking to Graham is like progressives seeing McCain as a "good" candidate.

        by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:59:14 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Richardson's continually said he doesn't want to be anywhere on the ticket this time around or in 2008...but who knows.

      by Kaushansky on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:47:06 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        Who are some other southern insiders with any type of foreign policy expereince?

        I think people need to be a bit more open about the progressive issue.  There is a very strong chance that whoever gets the nomination will choose a more moderte VP.  By winning the nomination, he or she has already leaned as far left as they wish to go.  It will then be time to get competitive with Bush in the middle.  The one who gets to the middle first and stakes the largest ground will have the best position.  

        One reason I like Dean so much is he is the only candidate that I know that can appeal both to liberals with issues of health care, environmnet, energy, coroporate re-regulation, Anti-Iraq war, etc and will still be able to attack Bush on the RIGHT with any credibility on such issues as smaller government, fiscal responsibility, a stronger military, states rights, and AMERICAN VAlUES.  

        So there is a good chance that whoever gets the nomination will have a much more moderate VP than most liberals would like, and that if its Dean that VP will also be chosen to help attack Bush on many of these issues where he is definitely weak.   As is, Bush is only strong in rhetoric.  He is weak from both the left and the right every where else.  As long as the Democratic candidate can wage a strong and well funded and idealigical centered campaign, Bush should be toast.

        my .02 cents plus a little

        But who are some other southern democrats with insider and foreign policy expereiece?  

        by PragIdealist on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 07:24:27 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  I repeat, if it is still a possibility, you HEDGE.

  Clark said the word NO.

  "Snotty"? Come on, people. He doesn't want the VP job. He's allowed to not want it. I think he'd be far happier AND more useful to the nation as Secretary of State or Defense.

  You need someone with Congressional savvy at VP. The top slot SHOULD be more national security oriented, but if not, get your solid national security into the cabinet, not at VP. VPs are going to be presiding over the Senate, doing Congressional donkey work and riding herd on the executive bureaucracy. Clark, if he isn't the President, should be doing intensive, full time diplomacy or cleaning out the Pentagon.

   

  by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:57:05 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    I was the one that said "snotty", but I was more asking than anything. I thought it would seem presumptious to answer a proposition not yet made - in much the same way that it's presumptious for a candidate to announce his choice for VP - especially from among the other candidates running.

    by JS in TN on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:00:57 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    But J. didn't McCain say the same thing, and then reverse at the last moment, only to rejected because he would overshadow the Chimp?

    This that the same thing.

    And I love you J.

    by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:01:09 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      didn't McCain say the same thing, and then reverse at the last moment, only to rejected because he would overshadow the Chimp?

      I don't remember that. I remember McCain being apopleptic about Bush after South Carolina.

      In any case, it doesn't go against my thesis, which is that anyone who publicly refuses a job up front and in no uncertain terms would look like a "flip-flopping" idiot to turn around and take it later.

      It's also just not the sort of thing I see CLARK likely to do, no matter what someone else might have done in the past.

      (But I do agree that there should be a tiny bit of realistic concern in the Dean camp about the Bentsen Effect, and I think on sober reflection this will be a welcome development for them. Takes everybody off the hook in a variety of ways.)
      

      by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:15:40 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        Actually, McCain and Bush appeared together at a joint press conference in early May of 2000. McCain pledged his "whole-hearted support" to Bush, but he asked that he not be considered for the vice presidency.

        by kaley on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:30:45 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  The other interesting (non-) news from this interview: no mention of skiing. I thought Wolf might hit Clark with that, but he didn't.

  Wolf did try - repeatedly - to try and get him to bash Dean's qualifications, but Clark did not bite. He touted his own, and said the votors could decide. He said that it is clear that Bush is going to campaign on terra terra terra - and he is ready to go toe to toe with Bush on that issue.

  Oh, yeah - he did take one sideswipe at Dean and Edwards, in a way that's as fair as this stuff gets. He said, "if you want a lawyer, or a doctor, fine, but ..."

  -- Rick Robinson

  by al Fubar on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:03:33 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  Awesome.

  by Ray in TX on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:05:20 PM PDT

•  Two Outsiders Don't Make Sense

  I think the points about legislative experience are the most important. Joe Trippi repeatedly says we're styling ourselves after the Jimmy Carter campaign. And it is THE lesson of the Jimmy Carter administration that to be a full on outsider against a corrupt Washington establishment can win you the White House, but it will NOT get anything done.

  I think compatibility with Graham is great. On the campaign trail Dean had nothing but respect and admiration for Graham. I hate the idea, since Graham has a charisma deficit.

  I actually  like the idea of Dick Gephardt as VP. Talk about wonkish and knowing the ropes, there's a Washington deal-maker for you!

  Lyndon Johnson, master of the Senate, rammed through so much far-sighted legislation that it led to the high-water mark of the middle class in this country. Legislators can't win the White House, but they can get the job done in Washington.

  I like Dick Gephardt for VP, or Tom Daschle. They are horrible as dem leaders, but they would be a helluva asset to any Administration.

  by Bob in MN on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:16:34 PM PDT

  •  Re: Two Outsiders Don't Make Sense

    If Gephardt or Daschle were the masters of their houses the way Johnson was of the Senate, I'd go for either of them in a flash as choices for VP.

    But, they are NOT the masters of anything.  We've lost ground under them.  

    There may be other reasons for those men to be considered, but not because they are master legislators.

    by katiebird on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:22:48 PM PDT

  •  Re: Two Outsiders Don't Make Sense

    I am rooting for Gephardt as VP on the Clark ticket. I, too, think it would be an awesome combination of charismatic, hopeful leadership plus national security/international diplomacy wallop (Clark) and thoughtful domestic experience plus determined, head-down, nose-to-the-grindstone Congressional chops (Gephardt).

    Unstoppable, baby.

    by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:24:49 PM PDT

  •  Re: Two Outsiders Don't Make Sense

    Here, on the Dean Blog, wherever, people tend to look at the other candidates as potential VPs or cabinet picks, when in real life this very rarely happens. If Dean or Clark get the nom, they'll want a Washington insider (probably a senator), but anyone who's already been campaigning has had a lot of warts exposed. Instead, you want someone who hasn't had time to develop negatives, so there's a good chance it's someone not on the radar yet. By the way, isn't it interesting how Gore's VP choice and VP runner ups (Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards--was Graham one?) decided to run for president? Like interviewing for the VP job put them in the big leagues or something.

    by JMS on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:27:06 PM PDT

    •  Re: Two Outsiders Don't Make Sense

      It is rare that it happens, but the last two times it did (Reagan/Bush in 1980 and Kennedy/Johnson in 1960) it was considered a bold move to unite a divided party and both times, it worked.

      by kaley on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:47:34 PM PDT

  •  Re: Two Outsiders Don't Make Sense

    And Dick Gephardt would take on Cheney to no end in the Veep debates, too.  Furthermore, it'd have an effect beyond just the assaults on pResident (oopsie ;-)Bush: it would re-unify the Democratic party.  I'm not talking about a centrist-left split that we need to heal: I'm talking about a sectional divide.  With Dean and Gephardt, we'd heal up the blue-collar/white-collar divide that's been supporting Gephardt and Dean, respectively.  We need BOTH groups to kick Bush's elephant ass out of the white house, and pulling Dean and Gephardt together would soothe those wounds that they're inflicting on each other in Iowa.

    by Kaushansky on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:51:34 PM PDT

•  This is a surprise?

  What else would you expect from a new convert who wants to be Pope out of the gate?  Clark's ego won't let him take a subordinate position. Not enough limelight. Like the Empress of the Blues sang,"I don't want no second fiddle. I'm used to playin' lead."

  Frankly, as a Dean supporter, I welcome this news. The Wurlitzer would chew Clark up and spit him out.

  by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:17:12 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  Clark is not my favorite in the primary race, but this seems like a perfectly reasonable remark to me.  He has to appear 100% serious to his potential voters.

  by Aaron Gillies on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:20:21 PM PDT

•  It is exceedingly rare...

  for the nominee to chose a primary opponent for the second spot - particularly the guy who seems to be shaping up as his main competition (if he can win a state Feb 3). I seriously doubt whether any of the current candidates is under serious consideration for Dean's running mate.

  I certainly don't know what names are on Dean's wish list but I would bet the names of Bob Graham and Bill Richardson are there.  And I don't think there are any other generals on the list.

  by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:26:53 PM PDT

  •  Re: It is exceedingly rare...

    How about Dean and Gen. Boykin

    They're both zealots.

    by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:55:04 PM PDT

    •  Re: It is exceedingly rare...

      how about you learn the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

      if you can't play nice, go back to your mom and ask what respect is again.

      by skaiserbrown on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:05:35 PM PDT

      •  Excuse me...

        What the Hell are you talking about?

        by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:08:32 PM PDT

      •  Re: It is exceedingly rare...

        This is too funny.  LOLROTF.

        Gen.Boykin would help Dean break through in Alabama and Mississippi.

        Boykin would also balance the civil union attack ButchCo is planning.

        by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:15:06 PM PDT

  •  USMarine70

    Got a burr up your arse?  Troll ratings are for posts devoid of content or deliberate flames. It's not for opinion with which you disagree.  This isn't the first time you've done this. Quit abusing the rating system.

    by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:06:16 PM PDT

    •  Re: USMarine70

      I think you are off-base on your call-out to USM70.  He's got a pretty solid record of being reasonable.  Your post was enough to anger some folks, so you should expect those ratings rather than call people out on them.  It was pretty catty, agree or disagree with the content.  I suspect that's what many folks are reacting to.

      by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:10:40 PM PDT

      •  Catty?

        This post?  I'll concede the one above this one is a little catty, but what's catty about this one?  USMarine70 has gotten in a habit of rating anything I post that he disagrees with a "1". That's not what the system is for. I don't troll here and have offered many substantive posts.  He still rates those a "1" if he disagrees.  You think that's reasonable?

        And if he's so reasonable, why doesn't he speak up about it?

        by Phil S on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:17:22 PM PDT

        •  Re: Catty?

          The one above is the one I was speaking of; its the one I rated marginal.

          As for why he doesn't speak up, I don't know.  I'm just offering my observations from 14+ months reading posts as a counterpoint to your rather quick off the trigger assessment based on one rating.  

          That was all.

          by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:25:27 PM PDT

  •  Re: It is exceedingly rare...

    FWIW, hasn't Richardson stated repeatedly that he does not want to be considered as a VP candidate?  He has a job he's dedicated to keeping and hasn't accomplished what he wants to do in NM yet.  I'm sure he's available to support the ticket in all sorts of ways, but he needs to stay where he is for a bit, as does Landrieu.  

    You need to be careful not to remove any Dems from congress at the moment, all the ones who are there need to stay where they are.  

    by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:07:55 PM PDT

    •  Re: It is exceedingly rare...

      I completely agree, gilas girl.  For everyone suggesting Blue Dogs for the Veep seats, remember this: putting them in the Veep slot would take them OUT of their Rep. or Sen. seats, both of which they're holding onto more because of their personality than their party.  Now, I'm all for doing what's needed to take out Bush, and losing a Blue Dog Rep. or Sen. is worth gaining a VP, but is there any other way to help break open the South without a sitting Blue Dog?

      by Kaushansky on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:56:13 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  Sorry?

  Julia, you completely misunderstand. I'm absolutely delighted. I couldn't see Dean doing something as foolish as picking Clark for the VP slot, anyway. Perhaps some cabinet position he would be better suited for but not VP.

  by colleen on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:32:03 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    I'm thinking Secretary of Defense.  Help clean out the Pentagon...maybe he can find where they left that $1.1 TRILLION they 'mislaid'.

    Now THAT, my friends, is fiscal sanity.

    by Kaushansky on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:57:13 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  I'm delighted that you're delighted, Colleen.

  At last, everybody who's Anybody is happy about SOMETHING.

  (Heh.)

  by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:35:36 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  Thank God. I dont think I could support Dean with Clark as Veep.

  by Eidolon on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:40:05 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  How about Robert Rubin?

  by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:41:08 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    Nah...he should be appointed back to his old post in the SEC.  He's done some great work there, and he can do yet more with the full support of a Dem administration.

    by Kaushansky on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 06:57:59 PM PDT

•  It's the wrong answer, regardless

  Regardless of whether you support Clark or Dean (or someone else), this is the wrong answer to the question, no matter what.

  The right answer is "I will serve in whatever capacity my country and the Democratic party needs in order to remove the right wing ideologues from power".

  This statement is yet another "I'll take my ball and go home" message from Clark. He doesn't want to beat Bush, or to take back the country from the wingnuts, he wants to be President.

  If I had any doubts about General Clark's commitment to the party, they're now gone. General Clark's commitment is to General Clark. If he can't get what he wants, he's not interested in participating.

  Am I the only one that sees that in this comment?

  by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:41:19 PM PDT

  •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

    No, you're not the only one.  Clark's primary commitment appears to be making sure his ego is stroked in the largest possible way.   His air of entitlement is a huge turn-off.  They guy just doesn't get it.

    by lightiris on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:45:28 PM PDT

  •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

     "I will serve in whatever capacity my country and the Democratic party needs in order to remove the right wing ideologues from power" may indeed by the right answer. But I'd be surprised to hear any presidential candidate with an active campaign saying that at this point in the race. I really don't think it's fair to single out Clark on that particular point.

    by kaley on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:50:01 PM PDT

    •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

      But I'd be surprised to hear any presidential candidate with an active campaign saying that at this point in the race. I really don't think it's fair to single out Clark on that particular point.

      I'd bet you $1k that if you asked Kerry, Dean, Edwards, or Gephardt this question, their answer would not be "no". Sure, they all want to be president, but they want to beat Bush most of all (well, Kerry may be an outlier there, I'm not sure).

      I'd point you at Dean's statments that he'd work his tail off for anybody running if they get the nomination, for example. The hubris exhibited in this answer is astounding, and doesn't speak well for General Clark.

      He's demonstrably not interested in helping the party, unless that also means helping Wesley Clark. I can do without that kind of attitude.

      by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:58:25 PM PDT

      •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

        I'd bet you $1k that if you asked Kerry, Dean, Edwards, or Gephardt this question, their answer would not be "no".

        I'll take that bet on Dean. He would most certainly answer no if asked whether he would run as VP on Clark's ticket.

        But notice that no one is asking him that question. Why do you suppose that is?

        The day someone DOES ask him is the day that the media signals their doubt that he is going to get the nomination.

        You don't want them to ask.

        by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:03:44 PM PDT

        •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

          I'll take that bet on Dean. He would most certainly answer no if asked whether he would run as VP on Clark's ticket.

          Okay, you're on. Hopefully, we can get someone to ask him.

          You don't want them to ask.

          That's a good point.

          by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:13:19 PM PDT

  •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

    Notice that no one has asked Dean whether he would be willing to serve as CLARK'S Vice President.

    I would expect him to answer exactly the same way and would find that answer perfectly legitimate and understandable.

    What the hell is the matter with you people?

    by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:52:57 PM PDT

    •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

      Notice that no one has asked Dean whether he would be willing to serve as CLARK'S Vice President.

      I would expect him to answer exactly the same way and would find that answer perfectly legitimate and understandable.

      Actually, Julia, Dean has said a hundred times that if he loses the nomination he would serve in whatever capacity was needed in order to get the nominee elected. Look it up. No "I don't want to be VP", or "I won't serve with [...]", just "I am the best candidate, but if you pick someone else, I will work my ass off for them".  

      What the hell is the matter with you people?

      I'd prefer that candidates at least believeably pretend to have interests other than their own.

      by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:01:13 PM PDT

      •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

        When they ask him if he will be VP on CLARK'S ticket, you will have a comparable question.

        Until then, no.

        by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:07:18 PM PDT

        •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

          When they ask him if he will be VP on CLARK'S ticket, you will have a comparable question.

          Pedant. Dean has already answered the question with a blanket statement, showing commitment to the party and to removing Bush. Clark has shown just the opposite.

          by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:14:05 PM PDT

          •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

            Pedant. Dean has already answered the question with a blanket statement, showing commitment to the party and to removing Bush. Clark has shown just the opposite.

            You interpret things differently than I do.

            One thing I'd like you to note is that Wolf Blitzer practically BADGERED Clark to say something negative about Dean this morning, and Clark continually dodged. He only reiterated his own qualifications, refusing to denigrate Dean's.

            He's not your man's ENEMY, and he's not a dishonorable asshole or a rotten human being for merely daring to think his talents wouldn't serve his country best as Dean's VP.

            Many sensible Deanies agree.

            by Julia Grey on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:52:35 PM PDT

            •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

              One thing I'd like you to note is that Wolf Blitzer practically BADGERED Clark to say something negative about Dean this morning, and Clark continually dodged. He only reiterated his own qualifications, refusing to denigrate Dean's.

              I do appreciate this about Clark. By and large, he's not hit the other candidates below the belt. I'm not sure why that is, but it's certainly a mark in his favor.

              He's not your man's ENEMY, and he's not a dishonorable asshole or a rotten human being for merely daring to think his talents wouldn't serve his country best as Dean's VP.

              I certainly don't think I ever said he was a dishonorable a*hole or a rotten human being. I said that his comments made me wonder if he's as  commited to the process as he is to his own ambition.

              by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:25:15 PM PDT

              •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

                I do appreciate this about Clark. By and large, he's not hit the other candidates below the belt. I'm not sure why that is, but it's certainly a mark in his favor.

                 It's pretty damn simple.  Clark actually has respect for America's institutions.

                I certainly don't think I ever said he was a dishonorable a*hole or a rotten human being. I said that his comments made me wonder if he's as  commited to the process as he is to his own ambition.

                Using Republican tactics to denigrate your opponent doesn't sit well with this Democrat.

                by sodablue on Mon Dec 01, 2003 at 02:53:41 AM PDT

          •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

            Pedant. Dean has already answered the question with a blanket statement, showing commitment to the party and to removing Bush. Clark has shown just the opposite.

            No, no no.  You are way off-base here.  Julia's point is NOT pedantic at all.  Your expectation is based on a scenario that doesn't exist and your reading is way off base.  He had to put that to rest, precisely because there IS so much buzz, it is nothing to do with hubris, but reading the press/the buzz.  If you can't be flexible enough to understand that, there are NO generic answers for any candidate, those that choose them are just responding in a knee-jerk fashion.  The answers are different for each of them, and for each combination and to expect the kind of unthinking response you are looking for is a case of seeing the picture through the eyes of a Dean supporter rather than seeing it from somebody's else's shoes.  

            by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:32:00 PM PDT

      •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

        Dean is committed to the party... but Clark?
        Not even managing to re register til sometime in October when, in McAuliffe's own words, "he would take care of it".

        This is so inappropriate to running on the Dem ticket for the top job.  Had he cleaned up his party affiliation --at the latest in 02, preferably earlier frankly-- made booster speeches in 01 an d 02 to both R and D groups, cooled on the heavy continuing adulation for Reagan (gee) declared for pres earlier, arrived with some domestic training (summer tutorials anyone) and policy ready to go (a medical coverage policy would have mattered a lot with the unions) and so on and on and on and on.

        It is a long list.

        by Marisacat on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:13:39 PM PDT

  •  this rates as a troll?

    Seriously, folks - can we reserve the troll ratings for postings that actually fit the criteria? The rating system only works if we follow the rules. If you think my comments suck, fine, don't rate them, or rate them as marginal. Troll ratings are for postings that are devoid of content, which this one certainly was not.

    by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:17:14 PM PDT

    •  Re: this rates as a troll?

      Perhaps you don't know what troll means.
      From the alt.folklore FAQ...

      Trolls are recognizable by
      the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic
      at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
      creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
      characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
      life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

      Your post struck me as nothing more than flame bait.

      There is a difference between honestly reflecting upon something, and posting something for the sole reason that it reinforces your preconceived notions about a subject and then not spending the time to reflect that you might be wrong in the replies.

      Your initial post was quite clearly flame bait, and instead of admitting that in the replies you continued to defend a stupid position.  I think you were trying to pick a fight, nothing more.

      Frankly your post was devoid of any real content.

      Therefore I marked you as a troll.

      by sodablue on Mon Dec 01, 2003 at 03:11:46 AM PDT

  •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

    Am I the only one that sees that in this comment?

    Yes, I think you are.  Your interpretation of the statement is a little "off-center" to say the least.  Several people have said they won't be candidates for VP and this is an appropriate thing to do, especially for Clark because there is so much back chat about it.  It needs to be put to rest.  

    Its not a slam to anyone, and its not a petulant comment.  Its a responsible one.  You may not like the general, but that's quite a bit of over-reading, if you ask me.

    by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:15:12 PM PDT

    •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

      Its not a slam to anyone, and its not a petulant comment.  Its a responsible one.  You may not like the general, but that's quite a bit of over-reading, if you ask me.

      Fair enough - that's why I asked. I admit to having a dislike for Clark, and I know that my perceptions may not be the most objective. It just struck me that a flat "no" is an answer I would not have expected anyone to give (see above). I could be wrong (it happens all the time) ;)

      by justinb on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:23:20 PM PDT

  •  Re: It's the wrong answer, regardless

    I'm curious, why hasn't Howard Dean come out with such a statement in regards to being a potential VP on a Clark ticket?

    Am I the only one that sees that in this comment?

    No, I'm not surprised anymore to see people trying to smear Clark on this blog.

    by sodablue on Mon Dec 01, 2003 at 02:45:22 AM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  Why on earth would Dean pick Clark for a VP?  The idea is nonsense as Clark 1) offers nothing to the ticket 2) has none of the practical experience (ability to work with Congress) VP selections usually bring to the table, and 3)  represents the war-mongering establishment much of the core Dean supporter resents.  

  Add to this mix the fact that Clark's disorganization, lack of vision, and propensity to offer--albeit loudly and forcefully--nothing but vague generalities or waffling mixed messages when pressed on his agenda, and there should be no doubt that Clark is a no-go for Dean.

  The idea is proposterous.

  by lightiris on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:42:28 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    Indeed. Preposterous.  Who the hell does that Clark think he is anyway?  What's he ever done with regard to national defense and foreign policy?

    by Armando on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:12:23 PM PDT

    •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

      Who cares.

      by lightiris on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 08:24:50 PM PDT

      •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

        Uh, the American people?

        by Armando on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 10:47:29 PM PDT

        •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

          Indeed. Preposterous.  Who the hell does that Clark think he is anyway?  What's he ever done with regard to national defense and foreign policy?

          It remains to be seen whether the majority of American people believe it takes a retired general to safeguard our national defense and effectively manage our foreign policy.  So far, there's no evidence to suggest they believe any such thing.  Time will tell.  

          by lightiris on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 11:46:43 PM PDT

          •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

            Meant to put your statement above in italics.  Sorry.

            by lightiris on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 11:47:27 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  What else could he say?  I would go for Richardson or Joe Biden for Dean, possibly Edwards, but its really all speculation.  Is Sam Nunn too old?

  by Mimikatz on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:46:50 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    How can Dean have someone like Biden who was so pro war?  Uber War?

    Hey I know, how about an Anti-Hero:

    Hank, The Angry Drunken Dwarf

    by Al Rodgers on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:53:16 PM PDT

  •  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

    Edwards is too green himself to really offer Dean any Congressional lift.  He's not enough of an insider to help Dean, except of course in questioning judicial nominees (which is where he should have stayed).  And Biden would lose power stepping down from his seat on foreign relations cmte. to be VP candidate.  (He's also a disaster in other ways given that he's a notorious hawk who has very little interest in reshaping US foreign policy.)

    by a gilas girl on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 05:37:55 PM PDT

  •  Sam Nunn age

    born in 1938

    see http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=N000171

    by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 01, 2003 at 12:48:42 AM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  Yes, those of us longest and, dare I say, hanging toughest for Dean, never saw Clark as VP.  Less so now than ever.

  I much more see a selection from the house (and not Gep.. geez loueez) as fitting the signals.

  The hard core reality is the nominee and certainly the election of a Dem president means that individual is the leader fo the party.  Gore never could eclipse the Clintons, Dean in every aspect of his campaign has and will.  Hence the frantic scramble agaisnt him.
  And, there is the reason Clark is so  UNacceptable to many dems.  9/19, 20 and 21, a feather could have blown me over.  No one vetted Clark.  At all.  So revealing.
  First words out of his mounth on Inside Politics on 9/5 to haltingly declare (but not reregister) as a Dem were:
  "the party is for internationalism"... Spare me.  Not the first words I'd apply to the party. And so it has been ever since.

  by Marisacat on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 03:49:28 PM PDT

•  Re: Clark Just Said He Will NOT Be Dean's VP

  How much does this statement mean?

  Clark probably should have evaded the question, but whatever....

  by Carl Nyberg on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:38:27 PM PDT

•  Not the time to pick running mates

  The candidates really ought to ignore these types of questions.  It is not the time in the campaign to choose who will be Pres. X's VP, Sec. of State, cook, or shoe shine boy.  Carol Mosely Braun was right to ignore this question when it was asked in the last debate.  I wish that Dean and Clark would ignore them as well.  They are unnecessarily divisive questions.

  by Bad Thoughts on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:59:56 PM PDT

  •  Re: Not the time to pick running mates

    Frankly I'm getting tired of Republican tactics being used by Democrats.

    Trippi started this VP talk back in August, and apparently must have decided to bring it back out and dust it off now that Dean isn't doing quite as well.  It's part of the Karl Rove inevitabililty marketing campaign used in 2000 against Gore.
    

    by sodablue on Mon Dec 01, 2003 at 02:49:19 AM PDT