I think he would.
Let's not forget that he didn't do that bad in the last round of Democratic primaries. I think he actually won a state. He's pretty popular and fairly uncontroversial.
He would appease those in the party who want a socially moderate democrat on the ticket, and also one who's big on security.
2007-10-29 15:17:42 · 7 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You bet. Vice versa wouldn't be bad either.
2007-10-29 15:21:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
"He's pretty popular and fairly uncontroversial." ???
I guess you haven't heard of the Priština Airport Incident.
This is from Wikipedia:
Priština International Airport
One of Clark's most argued decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation at Priština International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. Russian forces had arrived in Kosovo and were heading for the airport on June 12, 1999, two days after the bombing campaign ended, expecting to help police that section of Kosovo. Clark, on the other hand, had planned for the Kosovo Force to police the area. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, and was told "of course you have to get to the airport" and "you have transfer of authority" in the area. The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however refused to block the Russians through military action saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians. American General Hugh Shelton called Jackson's refusal "troubling," and hearings in the United States Senate suggested it may amount to insubordination, with Senator John Warner suggesting holding hearings regarding whether the refusal was legal and potentially changing those rules if it was. British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie, however, agreed with Jackson and told Clark this on the day Jackson refused the order.
2007-10-29 22:53:14 · answer #2 · answered by another_guy_named_steve 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What an awful pair.
Neither should be considered for such a high office.
Mrs. Bill Clinton shouldn't even be a Senator.
She has done nothing substantial in politics in her entire life. She clearly does not understand (or does not care to understand) the Constitution and the core principles that made this country great.
She is anti-freedom and anti-capitalism.
Former General Clark is what I would refer to as a "wimpy" military person. I have never seen him where he came across as strong and assertive. For a military person he talks almost exclusively about diplomacy and appeasement.
These are simply awful candidates at every level.
2007-10-29 22:26:28 · answer #3 · answered by InReality01 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes, but Bill Richardson would sure up the Latino vote. He was in the Clinton Administration.
2007-10-29 22:22:48 · answer #4 · answered by Brandon ツ 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I didn't like him when he was on the Joint Chiefs and I don't care for him now. He's a Brass Nob Polisher and little more. Yes, he would make a FINE running mate for Schrillary. They deserve one another.
2007-10-29 22:22:35 · answer #5 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I liked him last time, and still think he's better than most.
2007-10-29 22:25:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would just give me one more reason to despise her.
2007-10-29 22:21:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋