Clark for VP

Matt Stoller makes the case for Wesley Clark as Vice President and it's a pretty good case. Indeed, it makes me wonder why I hadn't heard him randomly speculated about before since as far as speculation and case-making goes he's as good a choice as any. One idiosyncratic interest of mine in this would be that it would provide an opportunity for some discussion of how nutty the Kristol/McCain attack from the right on the Clinton administration's prosecution of the Kosovo War was.

Speaking personally, though, I think I may have already lost interest in VP speculation. I'm ready to move on to cabinet speculation, except I fear I'll jinx things. Plus at some point in the next couple of months someone needs to write the inevitable column calling on Obama and/or McCain to name a "shadow cabinet."

Comments

He blew his half-assed try at the nomination so egregiously that he's not credible as a possible president. I'd think that rules him out.

Posted by guyx | June 3, 2008 1:01 PM

". . . it makes me wonder why I hadn't heard him randomly speculated about before . . . ."

Well I sure have heard him speculated about before, and often, so my guess is that you just aren't paying much attention.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 1:05 PM

I think he trumps all but maybe Sebelius and Richardson, and I've been pushing his name for some time. I think he would be as good as any of the top tier candidates for the job.

Except for Clinton herself, who I think is the obvious choice at this point if we want to win.

If not her, it would be a very difficult pick for me between Clark, Sebelius and Richardson. Very difficult.

Posted by MichaelDH | June 3, 2008 1:07 PM

I've been saying this for a while. He really ought to be at the top of all lists. I think it's possible that Obama will decide he needs to pick Sebelius, Napolitano, or McCaskill to balance the ticket with regard to gender, but if he doesn't decide to do that it seems like Clark is the natural choice.

Posted by G C | June 3, 2008 1:08 PM

Wasn't Wes Clark a lobbyist?

Posted by Sam | June 3, 2008 1:08 PM

I've seen it before as a "compromise unity ticket" along with Rendell and Strickland. I agree it makes a far amount of sense and Clark has really been working hard for Dems these last few years so it seems he deserves some reward for that. Doubling down on wine-track and Iraq war opposition is kind of intriguing, though it does sort of look like you're giving into the "inexperience" meme which gives it validity as a criticism... but you still got the "judgment" to hammer with.

As far as the cabinet, the Globe has speculated that Kerry is a favorite for Secretary of State, which appeals to me but also scares me as a MA resident and Teddy ailing.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | June 3, 2008 1:09 PM

i dont understand why its obvious hillary needs to be vp for a win in november? please explain. thanks.

Posted by erg | June 3, 2008 1:14 PM

Well, it is just my view erg. It would be a difficult ticket, no doubt - but it is hard to argue that anyone in the party has more support outside of Obama himself.

She would bring loads of baggage, she has a very different approach, and she has turned off a lot of Obama partisans.

But she has a lot of fight in her, she has a lot of support, and an Obama-Clinton ticket could definitely galvanize the party in a way that an Obama-Sebelius, Obama-Richardson, and an Obama-Clark ticket just won't compare to.

I'm a pretty staunch Obama partisan, but thats how I see it. I think an Obama-Clinton ticket is winning, more than the "surrogate" substitutions.

Posted by MichaelDH | June 3, 2008 1:18 PM

Look up "smarmy" in the dictionary and you'll find a picture of this jackass.

Posted by Mort | June 3, 2008 1:19 PM

I have to think his (way, way misinterpreted and slimed) comments about "New York money men" influencing foreign policy are dampening the buzz.

Posted by David Weigel | June 3, 2008 1:20 PM

i dont understand why its obvious hillary needs to be vp for a win in november?

Because Obama needs to lose his credibility as a reformer in order to win?

Posted by calling all toasters | June 3, 2008 1:23 PM

Wouldn't Wes Clark's endorsement of Hillary probably delayed too many people interested in Obama to speak much about him yet?

Fortunately, things will likely change greatly over the next couple of weeks as Obama becomes seen as the Democratic candidate, and not as Obama-who-might-be-the-nominee.

Posted by El Cid | June 3, 2008 1:23 PM

I'm unconvinced of the wisdom of choosing Clark, on the grounds that it defines Obama's lack of foreign policy/defense background as a weakness.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 3, 2008 1:23 PM

1) I TOLD you guys back in Sept 2007 that Wes Clark was radioactive. That his endorsement could doom Hillary in the General Election if she got the nomination.

See http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/endorsement_call.php#comment-544186

2) Since Matthew wasn't listening, I'll repeat my point:

"This is actually bad news for the Democrats -- and could be extremely bad news for Hillary unless she steps well away from Wes.

As I've noted here before, Wesley Clark screwed up badly in Bosnia during Bill Clinton's administration. He lost a F117 stealth fighter and didn't bomb the wreckage before it could be hauled away. Plus, there was no need to even risk that fighter in that theater -- it was not needed.

God know who got pieces of that wreckage --Any college professor could analyze a piece of it and figure out the composition of its material. All we need is for one of our ships to be sunk by a stealth Iranian cruise missile for Wild Bill's legacy to loose a little glow. And there are far worse possibilities.

What's really bad is that some Republicans like Porter Goss (Chairman of HPSCI) know how Wes screwed the pooch and will probably sweetly leak it sometime --oh, in October 2008."

Believe me, George Bush would look like a military genius if Wesley Clark's command was examined closely.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 1:24 PM

"i dont understand why its obvious hillary needs to be vp for a win in november?

Because Obama needs to lose his credibility as a reformer in order to win?"

Because the first question that needs to be asked to every Vice Presidential nominee is whether she still thinks her running mate is not qualified to be President?

Posted by Dantheman | June 3, 2008 1:26 PM

The guy was an embarrassment on the campaign trail in 04. He may have been a decent General, but he turned out to be a crappy politician. Plus, one of the principle reasons he was forced out of NATO was a tendency to call press conferences and ramble off message whenever it suited his ego. Whether or not this is an admirable trait in the grand scheme of things is debatable- but in a VP candidate I consider it grounds for disqualification

Gore at State. Edwards at Justice.

Posted by mkd | June 3, 2008 1:28 PM

i feel if hillary just got out there and put her "fight still left inside her" towards campaigning for obama, it would achieve just as much without tying the baggage around obama's neck for the next 4 years.

i think he would do better with a person who has a longer resume and either has straight up governing experience or military experience, his two weakest areas for himself.

Posted by erg | June 3, 2008 1:29 PM

I'm going to make a push again for Joe Sestak. Retired three-star Navy admiral, one-term Congressman (so he's run for office, but isn't a career politician), big Hillary supporter, and from a swing state (although he won't help that much in PA, and if Obama needs him to help carry PA, the campaign's in big trouble).

Posted by Dave | June 3, 2008 1:30 PM

If you guys think I'm kidding about Wes Clark being a limpet mine that would sink Obama's campaign, try following the procedure I suggested last Sept 2007:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/endorsement_call.php#comment-544441

See also http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-6626358

You will notice that the latter discussion shut down abruptly and not a peep has been let out since 1999.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 1:34 PM

The Politico, 6/3: "Clark introduced Sebelius and, according to a regular correspondent and reliable source who was there, said: "The London odds-makers say that Kathleen Sebelius is the odds-on favorite to be the next vice-president. I can tell you, she'd make a great vice presidential choice. He then introduced her as "The next vice president of the United States...."

So...no.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 3, 2008 1:39 PM

The main deal is that the VP slot has to be a person who goes on the attack, the way Edwards never really did properly.

I like Clark, a lot - he is on my short list. Same with Richardson and Sebelius.

But attacking VPs?

I think Hillary Clinton would eat the Republican's throats out compared to these folks approaching attacks the same way Obama himself does.

I personally prefer Obama's way, a lot - but the VP slot on the ticket needs to be the strongest attacker we have to create real synergy on the campaign trail in my view.

And Hillary Clinton is nothing if not an aggressive candidate. Our own Vader.

Posted by MichaelDH | June 3, 2008 1:40 PM

Gots to get that military cred to shore up Matthews and Russert et al. Just how it is.

Hillary no can do for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that she got Iraq wrong. Loud wrong.

Posted by ed | June 3, 2008 1:43 PM

The blathasphere confuses me. Picking Webb was fanboy idolatry of transaction political nuts. But Wesley Clark, who has less appeal than Webb (less connection to Appalachia, democratic policies and economic issues, and arguably military culture)is some how a great choice.

Strange. But I think liberal politicos have certain favorites (Sebelius, Napalitano for example) that have little to no national appeal or recognition and cannot deliver their state's. I repeat, Kansas and Arizona (McCain country) will not go to Obama.

Maybe "liberal" bloggers more interested in the niceties of identity politics, whereby they think symbolic nominations, rather than concrete policies, are important. And, in this case, the symbolism does little electorally.

Note: I like Wes Clark, but I dont think he is much of a politician and is more cabinet worthy than VP material.

Posted by jeff | June 3, 2008 1:45 PM

1) Actually, it occurs to me that Wesley could sink Matthews' career as pundit as well.

If the story of how VP Wesley screwed the pooch come out in Oct 2008 --and it sinks Obama -- then Matthew will look kinda silly endorsing Wesley here today.

2) Especially since Matthew's own blog archives show that he's been warned for almost a year that Wesley as VP is a VERY bad idea. Warnings that will look extremely clear once the full story comes out.

3) I mean -- Matthew endorsing Wesley for VP goes WAY beyond even being a Charles Krauthammer jackass. Matthew's venturing into jackassery territory that until now has largely been the preserve of Robert Samuelson.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 1:47 PM

Jeff, who do you like for the slot?

Posted by MichaelDH | June 3, 2008 1:48 PM

I'm willing to posit that an Obama/Clark ticket would be the leanest (lowest combined body fat) ever, although I'm not sure who ran with Polk.

Posted by ed | June 3, 2008 1:48 PM

Don, you have jumped the shark. Matthew didn't endorse anyone, read the post.

Posted by MichaelDH | June 3, 2008 1:54 PM

Plus at some point in the next couple of months someone needs to write the inevitable column calling on Obama and/or McCain to name a "shadow cabinet."

No one needs to write it, because naming a "shadow cabinet" is clearly illegal:

18 U.S.C. § 599. Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Posted by alkali | June 3, 2008 1:58 PM

Whenever someone proposes either Clark or Edwards as vice-president, I immediately wonder if they were in a coma throughout late 2003 and 2004.

Posted by Philly | June 3, 2008 1:59 PM

MichaelDH:

I like, in no particular order:

Webb, Edwards (who will not accept), Strickland, Biden, and McCaskill. Richardson is a maybe--I think his politics are weak and dont find him particularly convincing, but he has a national profile and FP experience.

You see, I think the Democratic VP should be someone that is strong on economic issues (Webb, Edwards, McCaskill), can gain a particular constituency in which Obama is weak (Webb, Edwards, and McCaskill to a lesser extent), is tough-minded and unafraid to challenge and respond to McCain (All of them) and might help deliver a state (Strickland, McCaskill, and Webb).

So, yeah.

Posted by jeff | June 3, 2008 2:00 PM

Re MichaelDH's comment "Matthew didn't endorse anyone, read the post "
----------------
I did. Matthew said:

"Matt Stoller makes the case for Wesley Clark as Vice President and it's a pretty good case. Indeed, it makes me wonder why I hadn't heard him randomly speculated about before since as far as speculation and case-making goes he's as good a choice as any."

That's as close as Matthew can go else the guy he's endorsing will be destroyed by the infamous "Yglesias Jinx".

You're new here, aren't you?

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 2:00 PM

Webb just hasn't impressed me on the stump. I'll have a look at Strickland and McCaskill though.

Posted by MichaelDH | June 3, 2008 2:05 PM

"You're new here, aren't you?"

Hehehe, no. But its doubtful you recognize me, I haven't commented on his page since before he went pro.

I don't reckon it takes time in service on his comments though to see you simply ignored the second of two paragraphs of his story.

But please do rant on mate.

Posted by MichaelDH | June 3, 2008 2:24 PM

Re Don Williams

Gee Mr. Williams, don't be so hard on General Clark. After all, he's only 1/2 Jewish.

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 2:24 PM

Webb for VP. Covers all Clark's positives, but has also shown he can attract votes. Plus he looks like Teddy Roosevelt.

Gore at State. Edwards at Justice. Napolitano at Homeland Security.

Posted by veblen | June 3, 2008 2:33 PM

I also think Sestak is an intriguing possibility. I know people will think it is caving on the military experience meme, but he actually ran a great campaign to oust Curt Weldon in a traditionally-Republican suburban district. So I think Sestak understands how to appeal to disaffected moderate Republicans in these suburban areas, which is really going to be the key to Obama not just winning but actually wiping out McCain.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 2:36 PM

Re MichaelDH's comment " I don't reckon it takes time in service on his comments though to see you simply ignored the second of two paragraphs of his story."
--------------
But i did NOT ignore the Title of Matthews' post -- which was...wait for it ...

"Clark for VP"

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 2:41 PM

1. Obama's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want to make a gravitas pick that tacitly admits that he doesn't have enough foreign policy heft.

2. I also think that while the Obama camp has been mum on this, they DON'T want to make a pick that is an obvious sop to Clinton's camp. The fact is, Clinton's people are using a lot of bluster to try to bully Obama into picking one of their approved candidates, and giving in to this power play would be a dangerous precedent to set. It's not that Obama isn't thinking about Clinton VOTERS with the pick, but I suspect that he does not want to kowtow to Clinton OPERATIVES.

3. If the Wright/bitter mess taught him anything, it would be not to let mistakes get in the way. Obama doesn't want a pick that will make news with later verbal gaffe. Thus you can eliminate all the big mouths (Webb, Rendell, Biden).

4. He also want to use the Veep pick to inject a fresh narrative into the race. So why pick people that are well-known to the press and already have a big nasty page in the juvenile cable-pundit slambook? Think Edwards (haircut), Richardson (loose hands), Clark (unblinking robot)--no matter how unfair these reputations are, why spend the first week after the announcement on defense/rebranding, when a fresher (or less-scrutinized) face lets you shape the narrative better?

5. While Obama needs a fresh face, he also need a fresh face with a medium-long resume. So forget about Joe Sestak, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, and my personal favorite Amy Klobuchar. Great people, but it's too early for them.

6. Since 1960, no veep pick has won or lost an election. The main thing Obama needs is to do no further harm and reinforce his strengths. I think this leads us to a stable of somewhat boring but highly capable possible picks. I think that Mark Warner, Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh (yes, a Clinton flack, but not an odious one), and Chris Dodd are all on the short list. They are each solid and clean and on-message. Remember, Obama doesn't need an "exciting" pick (he's the exciting one, remember?), he needs a pick that is reliable, likable, and uncontroversial.

Posted by Philly | June 3, 2008 2:47 PM

Re Philly

Mark Warner would be an outstanding choice, except for the fact that he is a strong favorite to win the Senate seat in Virginia. Not a good idea to give that up.

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 2:56 PM

Re DTM's comment "but he[Sestek] actually ran a great campaign to oust Curt Weldon in a traditionally-Republican suburban district "
---------------
1) Actually, the person who blew a hole in the Weldon boat was whoever arranged for the FBI to RAID the house of Curt's daughter and major associates two weeks BEFORE the Nov 2006 election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weldon#Criminal_investigation_and_grand_jury_probe

hee hee hee

2) TWO other fascinating facts:
a) Almost two years later, Weldon has NOT been charged with anything -- which makes the raid look more like an exceptionally aggressive political attack than a criminal investigation

b) The FBI is under Justice which in turn is under the Republican White House. So who in the Republican leadership wanted Curt Weldon destroyed and why? Cheney?

c) I can think of one possible reason but I'm not positive. It's related to the Wesley pooch-screwing I mentioned above. Curt was my congressman back in 1999. He was also Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 3:01 PM

Obama should choose anyone he likes except Hillary "as far as I know" Clinton.

Hillary is a guttersniping, lying thug who lacks the character, integrity, and gravitas to be on the ticket.

Posted by jerry | June 3, 2008 3:03 PM

Nancy Pelosi herself has pointed out that it would be ..er.."awkward" .. for Obama to have Hillary as VP since Hillary has said that MCCAIN would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Obama.

Nancy remembers things like that.

AND she remembers to remind everyone else at opportune moments.

Kinda like a Mom sending out thank you notes.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 3:09 PM

SLC, right you are, but switching to another candidate (such as Tim Kaine, who can step in during the race rather than try to appoint himself) is better than yanking out Webb (another commenter favorite) and risking a special election. Winning that seat is important, but considering that Warner on the ticket will help Dem turnout in Va and that of the Democrat candidate can boast of his close ties to the Obama/Warner administration, the Dems can still keep their advantage in the race.

Posted by Philly | June 3, 2008 3:15 PM

Wexler for Veep - Florida, Jewish, balls ... yada, yada

Posted by doug | June 3, 2008 3:15 PM

Gore at State. Edwards at Justice.
Posted by mkd

Right, Gore dining on prime rib and Bordeaux every day flying everywhere in a jet making a colossus-sized carbon footprint telling everyone else they are morally obligated to live like Bangladeshis. Walk everywhere, one thin meal a day. No more diplomacy, just the Goracle informing each nation or village what they must give up doing in order to save the planet.

Edwards the sleazy trial lawyer in charge of Justice?

Better than Hillary, who would come behind Obama's promise to be a "new, reformist politician" with a pile of old politics baggage the size of Mt Rushmore.

Clarke? Loser. Napolitano? A soft on crime, big on spending bulldyke? The flummoxed, flopping around Richardson? The Hispanic testament to the Peter Principle?

Awww, please!!

Webb. Rendell. Admiral Sestek. Senator Salazar. Now, those are choices. Exec experience, fresh...

Posted by chris ford | June 3, 2008 3:26 PM

The argument that Hillary would be the best VP candidate because she would attack very aggressively is somewhat convincing. The problem is that she might aggressively attack Obama instead of McCain. So far, she has shown no willingness to attack McCain, but has attacked Obama ruthlessly. She wants to win the presidency in 2012 and sabotaging Obama in 2008 is her best way to achieve it. I'd go along with Hillary if I could trust her. But I can't.

Posted by fostert | June 3, 2008 3:31 PM

"Senator Salazar. Now, those are choices."

Salazar? Are you kidding? As a Coloradan, I'll be voting for his primary rival when he runs for the Senate again. And I'll vote for the Republican in the general if Salazar wins the primary. He has steadfastly supported war, torture and government spying. The few issues where he's a reliable Democrat are issues I don't really care about. He's a Lieberman Democrat, which is worse than most Republicans.

Posted by fostert | June 3, 2008 3:41 PM

"Except for Clinton herself, who I think is the obvious choice at this point if we want to win."

Obama won't pick Clinton as VP, no way no how. In addition to all the above reasons, throw in the fact that he knows it's not just about winning the election. The Clintons would be a constant threat to his governing authority once in the White House. Given that he already is favored by most legitimate analysts to become the 44th president, he has no reason whatsoever to willingly subject himself to the prospect of being upstaged and perhaps sabotaged by the 42nd president.

Posted by optimo | June 3, 2008 4:23 PM

"Except for Clinton herself, who I think is the obvious choice at this point if we want to win."

Obama won't pick Clinton as VP, no way no how. In addition to all the above reasons, throw in the fact that he knows it's not just about winning the election. The Clintons would be a constant threat to his governing authority once in the White House. Given that he already is favored by most legitimate analysts to become the 44th president, he has no reason whatsoever to willingly subject himself to the prospect of being upstaged and perhaps sabotaged by the 42nd president.

Posted by optimo | June 3, 2008 4:27 PM

How bout this?

President - Obama
VP - Biden or Dodd

Hillary gets to be in charge of Health Care again, as Senator from New York, and Obama should give in on mandates.

AG - Edwards (he could also be Poverty Czar if Obama does that, in which case, I'd put Napolitano at AG)
Defense - Jane Harman
NSA - Richard Clarke
State - Bill Richardson or Joe Biden
Labor - Elizabeth Warren
Homeland Security - Wesley Clark
HUD - Congressman Brad Miller
Treasury - who the hell knows?
SEC Commissioner - Former NC Treasurer Richard Moore

First Supreme Court Justice Nominee - Walter Dellinger

Posted by drfranklives | June 3, 2008 4:34 PM

He's got a Y chromosome and thus fails to ensure party unity.

Plus, you know, he's pretty crappy as a politician. I think he seems like a pretty formidable individual, with a resume that would do a lot of good for the ticket-- but everything I've seen suggests that he's a pretty terrible campaigner.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 3, 2008 4:40 PM

How bout this?

President - Obama
VP - Biden or Dodd

Hillary gets to be in charge of Health Care again, as Senator from New York, and Obama should give in on mandates.

AG - Edwards (he could also be Poverty Czar if Obama does that, in which case, I'd put Napolitano at AG)
Defense - Jane Harman
NSA - Richard Clarke
State - Bill Richardson or Joe Biden
Labor - Elizabeth Warren
Homeland Security - Wesley Clark
HUD - Congressman Brad Miller
Treasury - who the hell knows?
SEC Commissioner - Former NC Treasurer Richard Moore

First Supreme Court Justice Nominee - Walter Dellinger

Posted by drfranklives | June 3, 2008 4:40 PM

Jane Harmon for Defense? Where they hell does one get that idea. Never served in the military, supported the Iraq War, supported illegal wiretapping and is a aipac soldier.

Seriously, where does one come up with this stuff.

Posted by jeff | June 3, 2008 5:09 PM

Re DrFranklives " How about this? ...
Defense - Jane Harman "
--------------

Jesus Christ.

From http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html

"Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government. ...

...The case is a spin-off of a probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AIPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for former Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. Franklin. Franklin pleaded guilty a year ago to three felony counts involving improper disclosure and handling of classified information about the Middle East and terrorism to the two lobbyists, who in turn are accused of passing it on to a journalist and a foreign government, widely believed to be Israel. The two lobbyists, who have denied any wrongdoing but were dismissed by AIPAC in April of 2005, were indicted on felony counts of conspiring with government officials to receive classified information they were not authorized to have access to and providing national defense information to people not entitled to receive it.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 5:11 PM

Matt Stoller was on Clark's web team during the '03-'04 campaign. It's a bit odd. Whenever Obama inhales more air through his right nostril than his left, Stoller posts a 5,000 word screed blasting him as a crypto-Reaganite. But Clark, who voted for Reagan, went from the Pentagon into investment banking and corporate lobbying, who was flirting with joining the GOP at least as late as September, 2001 (Clark discussed this himself at the 2005 Aspen Ideas Festival), and whose platform was less progressive than the one Obama is putting forward now that Stoller hates so much? Great guy!

I don't know if Stoller got turned down for a job on the Obama campaign, or if Obama declined a contribution to BlogPAC, or what.

Posted by Another Chris | June 3, 2008 5:15 PM

PS From the above article:

"The sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context of the situation. But the sources caution that there has been no decision to charge anyone and that it is unclear whether Harman and AIPAC acted on the idea. "

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 5:17 PM

"Homeland Security - Wesley Clark "
----------
Since I think Wesley Clark has done more damage to Homeland Security than Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and the FEMA Brownie person COMBINED, I suggest you also drop this idea.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 5:26 PM

I've been mentioning Clark as a possible VP candidate. He's proven to be a good Democrat and, like any true soldier, he's not afraid to mix it up. I just wonder if he has any Webb-like, misogynistic skeletons in his closet.

Obama needs to reach out to women as much as he needs to counter McCain's military credentials. Many women, even those who like Obama, feel a crushing disappointment in seeing Clinton go down to defeat. Some believe it was their last chance to see a woman president in their lifetime. But I can't see him nominating her for veep. Too much downside.

So, it looks like you can get military creds into the VP slot and then have to look for a different way to empower women through an Obama campaign. Or you can name a woman for VP and then find another way to prove your national defense mettle.

Posted by Kevin | June 3, 2008 5:33 PM

Wasn't Dodd Ted Kennedy's running buddy for quite a while in the '80's? I admire his work on telecom immunity, but not sure you want those skeletons on the ticket.

Posted by stuck in 200 | June 3, 2008 5:41 PM

Re Don Williams

"Since I think Wesley Clark has done more damage to Homeland Security than Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and the FEMA Brownie person COMBINED,"

Gee, has he done more damage then Hiam Saban?

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 6:56 PM

Re SLC's question "Gee, has he [Wesley Clark] done more damage then Hiam Saban? "
---------------
IMO, yes.

Inadvertently --vice Haim's intentionally -- but yes.

Posted by Don Williams | June 3, 2008 7:22 PM

I like Clark more for SecDef than VP. Richardson for State.

The VP pick depends on which strategy Obama is going for in the general.
If its the Southern strategy ( pick off Virginia) then its Tim Kaine.
If its the Midwest strategy ( pick off Iowa and Ohio), he will go with Vilsack.
If its the Western strategy, then Schweitzer will be VP.
Tim Kaine is one of his earliest and strongest backers, so I think he has the inside track. In the end , a candidate most wants his VP to be loyal, and TK backed Obama long before it was politically advantageous.

Posted by stonetools | June 3, 2008 7:37 PM

If Obama picks Vilsack - he'll get his ass whupped. Vilsack is a dull, stupid, corpulent loser. Iowans are ashamed they ever voted for him in the first place. Vilsack is also a closet pedophile. Alright, maybe he isn't, but if I were running McCain's campaign i'd insinuate he was and watch the fat idiot sputter all over himself trying to deny it.

Posted by Trevor | June 3, 2008 7:51 PM

It looks as if Senator Clinton may be the VP choice, whether the Clinton haters like it or not. Following story from the AP.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton told colleagues Tuesday she would be consider joining Barack Obama as his running mate, and advisers said she was withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket.

On a conference call with other New York lawmakers, Clinton, a New York senator, said she was willing to become Obama's vice presidential nominee if it would help Democrats win the White House, according to a participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to speak for Clinton.

Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.

Clinton also told colleagues the delegate math was not there for her to overtake Obama, but that she wanted to take time to determine how to leave the race in a way that would best help Democrats.

"I deserve some time to get this right," she said, even as the other lawmakers forcefully argued for her to press Obama to choose her as his running mate."

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 7:56 PM

Clark is a likeable guy, but he would be a more plausible candidate for vice president if he had been elected to something. You have to go back to 1940 to find the last time Democrats nominated a vice presidential candidate who had not previously won public office -- and that was Henry A. Wallace, who had been secretary of agriculture.

Posted by TKD | June 3, 2008 8:38 PM

I for one don’t really follow the logic that Obama shouldn’t pick someone to shore up his perceived weak spots as it will bring attention to the fact that he is perceived as weak in that spot.

It’s not like the media or John McCain are going to stop talking about it if Obama doesn’t bring it up in any fashion. He might as well make an attempt to shore himself up with his VP nod, at least bring a positive aspect to the inevitable discussion. Just make sure that the person in question actually can help you, i.e. Jim Webb for military and national security issues and not John Kerry.

Posted by Raindog | June 4, 2008 4:13 AM

I'm unconvinced of the wisdom of choosing Clark, on the grounds that it defines Obama's lack of foreign policy/defense background as a weakness.

Posted by alex | June 4, 2008 8:19 AM

On a minor point:

Before the media reports of an investigation of Weldon and subsequent FBI raid in mid-October, Sestak had already outraised Weldon and taken the lead in polls.

Posted by DTM | June 4, 2008 8:52 AM

Don, the Weldon investigation is ongoing. One of his aides pleaded guilty a few months ago to some office-related shenanigans, the assumption being that he's going to rat out Curt. There's a lot of dicey stuff out there: his daughter's and his friend's (female, their relationship seems somewhat fishy) lobbying, ties to various Russian and Serbian mobsters, etc. Nothing definitive yet, but Feds obviously smell something.

The leak was the final nail in Curt's coffin, but Sestak was doing pretty well before that.

Posted by Dave | June 4, 2008 10:36 AM