Eric Alterman's comments on the Demos

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

And he goes on to say that yeah, this pretty much gives up on the Deep South and how most tickets can beat bush save for Dean/Anything.
However, the thing that kinda wierds me out is this whole “Shadow Secretary of so and so”. That may be a term familiar to the parliamentary systems, but I can’t really think of any recent election where the SecDef and SecState were actually mentioned as part of campaign strategy.

The Republicans are going to run on the “Bush keeps the country safe” platform very heavily, so perhaps putting a Kerry (war hero)/someone with Clark (war hero) and Zinni (war hero) as a whole package from the get go is the best way to point out that, hey!, Democrats aren’t pussies!

That wouldn’t be bad. Especially since Clark’s main problem is that Kerry is doing so well. Clark was positioning himself as the perfect anti-Dean. If Dean had cleaned up in Iowa and humiliated Kerry and Edwards, Clark would have been the perfect alternative to Dean. Especially to a party that’s desperate to beat Bush and has huge doubts about Dean being able to do that. But Kerry wasted Dean in Iowa, and he’s taken the Clark role.

The Democrats can’t just make this election about the economy and health care and the budget. National Security Has To Be Addressed In Serious And Important Ways. There can’t be any lip service to this issue. Not have 9/11.

I’d like Clark to be on the ticket, but if he’s not, whoever gets the nomination would be a wise man to get Clark and Zinni on their sides. A former NATO supreme commander and a former Commander-in-Chief Central Command are a formidable pair.

It was no secret that during the 2000 campaign, Bush was going to make Powell his Secretary of State if he were elected. So why couldn’t the Democratic nominee make it no secret he’d do the same with Clark and Zinni.

I never understood what the fuss about Clark is/was. He’s a capable military guy, but he strikes me as an empty suit on the campaign. His knowledge of domestic policy seems pretty poor, and he’s never really answered for me when precisely he changed his evaluation of Bush. Add that to his “I never bother to look into those charges.” on the Moore desertion claim and his “Right to an abortion up to the end of the pregnancy” and I see a candidate who will get pummelled in a general election.

He just doesn’t seem all that sharp outside of his forte. I think he would be one of the weaker candidates the Dems could run. Rhodes Scholar, 4 star general, but not much of a candidate.

Troy

Worked pretty well for Eisenhower.

With all due respect to Ike and Clark, managing a world war and managing a war on a tinpot Balkan dictatorship are are completely different orders of magnitude.

And Bush is no Adlai Stevenson.

Troy

That’s for sure.

Adlai Ewing Stevenson, (1900-1965), American political leader. His importance lay chiefly in his efforts to raise the level of political debate in the United States. He shunned emotionalism and appealed to reason. As a speaker, he had an unusual command of language and a sharp and subtle wit. His eloquent speeches and statements were directed toward educating Americans on the nature of the world in which they lived and the challenges that faced them in it. Unsuccessful in two presidential campaigns, Stevenson never dominated United States politics, but he did affect the ways in which Americans looked at and discussed public affairs.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/stevnsn.html

With all due respect to Ike and Clark, managing a world war and managing a war on a tinpot Balkan dictatorship are are completely different orders of magnitude.

And Bush is no Adlai Stevenson.

Troy[/quote]

I agree on Adlai, but all of your criticisms in the first post apply equally to both of them. Eisenhower was famously clueless on domestic and foreign policy, always turning to Dulles in meetings for answers.