Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Sounds like a winning ticket- except flip them around and maybe drop Hillary and trade her for Richardson or even Obama.

When I saw your appearance on C-span a few months back my first thought was "that's the guy that ought to be Sec of Def in Clark's administration."

I know Tom doesn't think Clark has much of a chance getting elected but wouldn't it be nice to have someone who doesn't need to read up on Diplomacy for Dummies before getting into the Oval Office?

I thought we were going to see this ticket last time. I blogged it. I think the Ds need a general as the VP. I thought it would be Zinni. But, maybe Clark can be the guy.

It will be very difficult for the GOP to beat that ticket.

Impossible, actually.

Clark just won't excite enough to head a ticket. To me, Richardson and Obama both smack of VP material more than presidential (although Obama continues to intrigue in that shiny, Kennedy way).

Frankly, I've always heard that Clark is the auto SECDEF for Clinton, but I do believe he has slightly higher ambitions, and who wouldn't after Cheney's time?

Lex: I am stunned by your certitude!

While this idea maybe similar to what your promoting Wesley Clark was/is a terrible General. I had someone who knows him tell me: "I would follow him into a bathroom". If you think that Powell was about careerism Clark is the ultimate careerist. He has made a habit of stepping on people to get promoted.

Seth,
oh yes, please go on how Clark is a power-hunger ego manic. For good measure don't forget the old yarn he nearly started WWIII and personally drove one of the tanks in Waco.

By definition anyone who considers running for President ought think highly of themselves.

abburdlen:
Talk about putting words in a person mouth. All I'm saying is that those that know or have served under Clark don't think much of him. He was brought home early from his position with NATO, the reasons are bit vague. He says routine personnel action but commanders usually are relieved early without a reason. Personally I don't mind if a General is confrontational.
Zinni, while I disagree with him politically, does have a good reputation as a leader.

Well, maybe not as certain as that. Almost impossible. I don't think Rudy can get it, the pictures of him in drag won't fly in South Carolina, his position on guns, etc. McCain is old and shoots his mouth off and he's a Senator and Senators run rotten campaigns (Dole, Kerry). A McCain campaign will be a trainwreck. Mitt might somehow pull it off, and I like him, but I think we'll have McCain, so I think we'll lose. Hillary will be a centrist and she'll have an appealing VP, a general, or Obama, maybe Mark Warner. I just don't see the scenario where the GOP pulls it off in '08. And I am lifelong, WFBuckley, RWReagan, card-carrying Conservative Republican. If I see it breaking some way I like, I'll be happy. But it looks dire for my team right now.

The real key to a winning Presidential ticket is projecting optimism about the future. I'm amazed that so many political "strategists" don't get this. Reagan obviously figured it out, and so did Clinton, big time - remember his bio, "The Man From Hope" and his selection of Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" as his theme song. Voters invariably pick the Presidential ticket that projects the greatest optimism about the future. In a way, it makes perfect sense. We're picking somebody to be President for the next 4 years, not the last 4 years -- doesn't it make sense to want somebody who seems to believe that things will be better in the next 4 years? Right now, Obama seems to be the guy who has figured this out -- look at the title of his best-seller: "The Audacity of Hope." Hillary hasn't upped her "optimism meter" enough yet.

Seth, you finally mentioned "leader". If the SysAdmin is to start and flourish it needs someone to lead the American people kicking and screaming to shrink the gap. Right now the American political system looks like a beauty pageant and the American people want to build a fence around the hole in the ground they are going to stick their head in. I believe the reason more troops weren't sent to Iraq is that it was politically untenable. So, the SysAdmin was DOA. Still is. (depends what the meaning of "is" is.)

The country needs a flat out charasmatic leader with extraordinary common sense (business) who brings on the cabinet level subject matter experts and coordinates their activities.

Americans are fatigued from the national divisiveness of the 06 elections and tired of the finger pointing. Americans wants to be proud of its leadership again. New blood, new ideas - recycling is good for the environment but not necessarily a good approach in the national political arena.

It is time for a Department of Everything Else headed by a expansive idea generator with the people in place to pull it off. Can we add some names here. Americans want to be inspired again.

I don't write either side off. There are so many unknown factors that could sink a political team. Surprise events (Foley) or bad campaigning (Dole 1996). A candidate like Obama or Romney may look good now but put them on a national stage and they may fall flat on their faces or just now gain any traction. Not to mention that after two years of Pelosi and Reid the country may be worn out on Democrats. Mark Warner or Bill Richardson are the two that should worry Republicans the most. Look at the map, what states could Hillary pull from Red to Blue? I think that she may even loose a state like Michigan. Although the terrible defeats in Ohio mean trouble for the GOP in 2008.
On the R side McCain and Guiliani are going to have a hard time winning the primary, I think that Romney has the best chance at this point. Tom has written positively about Gingrich before, and I think that he is probably one of the smartest candidates, but he really doesn't connect well with people. If it is Romney he will need someone with some foreign policy experiences and a little more moderate to be the VP. It will be hard to find a Republican that would play second fiddle to fit that bill. I'm looking forward to the next two years, it will be interesting.

stuart abrams: I agree. We need someone with a positive vision that can express that vision.

Dole's bad campaigning was not a surprise. Everyone knew the guy could not manage a popsicle stand, and everyboyd was right. The guy could not say eight words in a row without using the word "cloture". The country barely notices someone was trying to get Clinton's job. Obama is relatively unseasoned having been anointed the Black Jesus Christ by the media unduly early in his career. He has never had handfuls of crap thrown at him yet all day long yet. We'll see how he does when he steps into the squared circle, where men are men, even Hillary. Romney has been through the meatgrinder, GOP governor in the Bay State. Expect few surprises there. Bet you a nickel that Pelosi and Reid pass a new minimum wage law, a few other easy and popular items, then lie low for two years. That would be both smart and easy, and not expose their centrist freshmen to any hard scrutiny going into '08 when they are looking to take back all the elected branches at once. Mark Warner said he's not running. No one wants to go up against Hillary's cash pile. Not surprising. He'd be a good VP for Hillary and he could take VA away from the GOP. A general railing against Bush's war could swing a bunch of voters and take a lot of otherwise red states. A strong sell of some further Federal feedbag for "our seniors" from the Ds could take Florida. Ohio was close in 2004 and a blowout in '06. The Ds will take it in '08 barring some miracle. The real question is what does the GOP do without Ohio? Answer: Lose. Colorado is turning blue, too. If Bush spends the next to years saying "don't cut and run!" and does not take some radical new steps to show some rationale for the whole thing, while a few thousand more brave American men and women die or have limbs shot off or eyes blown out our or otherwise maimed for life, count on a further defection of genuine conservatives from the GOP and its experiment in nation building in the sandbox. Guess what? I expect two more years of exactly the same from W. We'll bleed all over Iraq for two more years and Bush will fly away in his helicopter and the next president will get to deal with mess that W does not know how to wind down. 2008 will be interesting indeed. It will be like 1952 -- a bloody, endless, unpopular war going on while two candidates slug it out. The GOP will be stuck with being the "party that got us into this mess" no matter who is nominated. Ds win in a walk, barring something miraculous. Too bad none of them are Eisenhower.

Hillary couldn't win with an official endorsement from Jesus Christ himself. Even the moderate born-agains would pull a "yeah, but". KKK-types would choose Obama over her.

Believe it. Her negatives start in the mid-40s and only go up from here, folks.

And expect the GOP to pigeonhole Bush for the next two years. They ain't going down with his ship. The myth of the "core vote" (evangelicals and values voters) has been dispelled.

Losing the 2006 election cycle was the best thing to ever happen to the GOP.

yikes, Lex. you needed a proof-reader in that one. i'm available, for a small fee ;-)

Lex Green. Lex Luthor. coincidence? i think not ;-)

anyway, i basically agree with you and predicted something similar on election day. the Dems wont get much done between now and 2008, they'll blame it on Bush, and try to take the legislative and executive that way.

of course, Seth is right. any thing can happen. all bets are off if the unexpected (the smart bet) occurs.

As for Clark as VP -- NO WAY. Clark at the head of the ticket IMHO. As for boring -- NO WAY either -- I have seen this man speak several times and he knows how to whoop up a crowd -- And as a veteran myself, I know several people that served directly under him and they thought he was fantastic leader!!! And that is what we need right now.

Clark was on NPR's Washington Journal this morning --

below is the link to audio:

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=WJE&ShowVidNum=9&Rot_Cat_CD=WJ&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30

Wes Clark whooping up a crowd here:

http://securingamerica.com/node/1083

I am telling you -- go see him in person!! :)

Lex,

Welcome to the RRWHW (Rockbound Republicans Who Hate "W"). I gave up on ChicagoBoyz, and had no idea you were this pessimistic on the GOP prospects. This White House crowd can't keep Iraq cobbled together for two years - they always surpass any stupidity you can imagine. Events may easily overtake them before they get to '08.

Tom, Clark can't serve as SECDEF. I believe he will not have been retired long enough to qualify to serve in that position.

Can't wait--I really think Clark is working behind the scenes like no other to keep Democrats on target, and he's the only guy with the brains to get our country out safely.

Tom and others who think that General Clark is not exciting enough to run for President are seriously mistaken. I suggest that you check up on his speeches and his recent presentations on behalf of Dem. candidates.

And the negative tales are just that, fairytales. 'True facts' are available at securingamerica.com.

I don’t think Mark Warner pulled out because of Hillary’s money, he has too much of his won and could raise at ton. I think that he saw the rise of the radical left wing in the Democratic circle and figured this would sink his chances of winning a primary unless he went along with the screeching. Hillary thinks that she can play a bit of Bill’s game and swing to the middle now and run as a leftist in the primary and then go back right in the general election. I don’t think she has the talent to pull it off and she has the reputation as an extreme leftist that will be hard to overcome.
I don’t know if Pelosi and Reid have the self-control to lay low for two years, it would be the smart move though. They may be too tempted to run the investigation gambit and if they don’t do anything then people will wondering why they changed parties.
The Ohio situation is scary, mostly caused by a corrupt ineffective governor, Bob Taft. He really screwed the other Republicans in that state. Two years could give the party enough time to rebuild. Here in PA two of the Congressional seats we lost will go back to the Republicans in 2008. That may go for other places in the country too where the seats were lost because of scandal and corruption. Overall I think that this election has given the Republicans their best chance to win in 2008. They can blame any wrongs for the next two years on the Democrats, distance themselves from the President (unless he pulls off a happy ending in Iraq) and they lost some dead weight in officials that were embroiled in scandal. Remember the 6th year of any presidency is a slaughter and usually they lose 50 rather than the approximately 30 seats that the Republicans lost this time (depends on the outcome of the 4 still undecided races).
If the Republicans have a candidate with a positive vision and run a more national campaign, Bush lost CA by only 10% without ever going there and every other Republican President since Nixon won the state, then they have a just as much a chance as the Dems best candidate. Then again Bush could keep alienating the base by doing things like appointing Mel Martinez as the Chairmen and then the Republicans will need a complete rebuilding.

The "investigation gambit" cannot hurt the Democrats. Read "Imperial Life In The Emerald City." The Bush Administration has a lot to account for.