Why do the GOP's fake fits of outrage get to influence the process of choosing the DEM VP?!?

[Sparkly]

That's what infuriates me. Supposedly, Clark was on the short list for VP until the rightwing purposely smeared him.

They smeared him, ergo, he's out of the running. Well, how convenient for them!!

Let's pick somebody "safe" and "not risky." Let's make sure our attack dog is nice, and doesn't have sharp teeth. That's what they do, right? (Dick Cheney, anyone?)

[writes3000]

1. If Wes wasn't on the top list, there is a better reason why than the GOP smearfest.

I really, really believe that.

[Avalux]

2. We don't know anything.

We don't know Clark is out of the running; for all we know the Obama campaign has been feeding the media (and the GOP) bullshit. I have confidence they're a lot smarter than showing their hand during the process.

KO reported that Obama made his decision during his vacation and the pick doesn't even know yet. So how could Wes Clark know he's out of the running? ;)

[Bicoastal]

3. This will get me tarred and feathered for sure...

...but I never thought Clark was a good choice for Veep--especially not for Obama.

Yes he's a general, and yes he's a brilliant man and a good Dem--but do you really want hand the GOP their next talking point on a silver platter? "They're the least experienced ticket in history. McCain's been in Congress forever. Who do you trust to keep your children safe?"

If, say, Biden was our candidate, on the other hand, Clark would be a perfect fit. But you don't pair a guy with only 4 years in the Senate with a Veep who's never been elected to public office--it's common sense.

[Clark2008]

4. Not if the voters are hungry for the change only non-politicians bring.

And... um... I think that is the message.

No tars and feathers, but a strong disagreement. :)

[Sparkly]

5. I understand what you're saying...

That's a perfectly valid point of view, even if I disagree with it.

As I see it, Obama is running as an "outside Washington" candidate -- new, different, outside the box. "Change." A politician who's been in Washington for decades doesn't fit with that. Some see "balance," some see a schism, or a weakening of the message. (Especially when it's a senator who voted "yes" on the IWR, given what Obama's been saying all this time and who he's running against.)

I also think Clark has plenty of experience -- it's just not the typical talking-type experience. (More the walking-type experience.)

"Who do you trust to keep your children safe?" A four-star general does no harm there.

[Beregond2]

6. Let's see...men who were elected president with little to no

national experience: Kennedy, Carter, Reagen, Clinton, Bush 2...

I can't see that meme being effective at all.