One need not look too hard to find speculation about who Barack Obama might pick as a running mate, but Matt Stoller makes a compelling case for retired Gen. Wesley Clark, whom Matt describes as a “unifying choice.”
Contrast that to Wes Clark. Clark, though not in elected office, has a better sense of what it’s like to run for President. He has after all done it before, and for a neophyte, he did very well. More importantly, he has excelled at the real job of a VP candidate, which is not getting votes for the top of the ticket, but being a surrogate for the campaign and for lower ticket races. In 2006, Jon Soltz of Votevets tells me, Clark was the single most requested surrogate in the country, with the possible exceptions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clark is heavily involved in both his own PAC and Votevets, raising money and supporting Democrats up and down the ticket. He has huge credibility with officials all over the country because he was reliable and helpful to groups, candidates, and activists. There is simply no one else who comes close to his ability and track record of delivering a persuasive and progressive argument on national security on behalf of Democrats.
On the other political point, Clark is a Clintonista through and through, and so putting him on the ticket would be a key signal to the Clinton world that they will have influence in an Obama administration. You may not like that, but the Clinton people need an incentive to work aggressively for the ticket, and Clark is that incentive. While Obama backers may not like a Clinton person having such an important seat that the table, Clark is actually a supremely progressive advocate, and probably the best Clinton loyalist on national security issues that progressives have.
Matt touches all the bases. Clark opposed the war, is unambiguous in his support for progressive values, has credibility and relationships with foreign leaders, and has “won a war using multi-lateral strategies with zero American casualties.” (I’d certainly like to hear some exploration this fall of the differences in the military’s planning and execution in Kosovo vs. Iraq.)
I’d just add that Clark does not have any obvious personal baggage — folks went looking for dirt in ’04 and didn’t come up with anything. And, obviously, he comes with the kind of national security bona fides that are unrivaled by any political figure in the country.
As for the “unifying” factor, I think it’s also fair to say that Clark is definitely considered a Clinton loyalist. If the Obama campaign wanted to send a signal about bringing the camps together, Clark would appear to largely fit the bill.
But as long as we’re engaging in speculation, let’s also take a look at the downsides.
First, for Clinton’s most ardent supporters, there is no substitute for Clinton herself. It’s likely they want her on the ticket, not someone closely associated with her. In this sense, Clark may not be “unifying” enough.
Second, and on a related note, for those Clinton supporters for whom gender is a key priority, Clark obviously doesn’t fit the bill. (I’m curious whether these Clinton supporters would prefer a Clinton loyalist who’s a man, like Clark, or an Obama loyalist who’s a woman, like Sebelius or Napolitano, on the ticket. Does gender trump loyalties? I’m not sure.)
Third, pundits and talking heads will probably dismiss Clark as someone who sought national office once, and wasn’t an especially impressive candidate. (I’d respond, though, that Clark never really got his due as a candidate. The perceptions about him are largely wrong, and if you look at the details, he did a lot better than most political observers remember.)
And fourth — and this is a big one — Clark hasn’t been especially complimentary to Barack Obama. I’m reminded of this report, for example:
Barack Obama’s foreign policy aide Samantha Power got the candidate in some more hot water Friday when Hillary Clinton’s team targeted her recent comments that Obama’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq in 16 months was a “best case scenario.” […]
Former NATO commander Wesley Clark, a Clinton supporter, called the comments “disturbing,” and he accused Obama of not being prepared enough to be commander in chief and properly oversee an end to the Iraq war.
“That means knowing where you’re headed before you start down the path,” Clark said.
Now, I suppose there are some rhetorical acrobatics that might help the campaign spin this, but as a rule, a party nominee wouldn’t pick a running mate who has said publicly he’s unprepared for the presidency.
I like Clark a lot, and believe the positives easily outweigh the negatives. But given some of the comments Clark has made about Obama, it might be a tough sell.