I thought he was on the short list? I agree, I don't see why not, even though there are plenty of good options.

Not much from me, but I think Cenk hits it dead on here.
(disclaimer- The Clark family does have a personal/friend relationship with Cenk, the narrator of this video)

I have a suspicion that Clark and Obama would relate really well and complement each other at an intellectual level.

Really, it's hard to think of downsides to an Obama/Clark ticket.  In addition to the all the reasons you cited, he's a southerner who I believe could put Arkansas, Tennessee, and other such states back into play.

As much as I would personally love to see an Obama/Clinton or an Obama/Sebelius ticket, I can't help thinking Obama/Clark would be the strongest ticket of all.

a real liberal and progressive on many issues.

Progressive Blue

In Babylon 5, vice president Clark blew up a popular ethnic president's space ship and imposed martial law.

Can we afford to ignore the prescience of popular '90s science fiction?

If I were Obama, I think I'd pick him. He is a Clinton loyalist, which would help unite the party (assuming Obama is not willing to pick Hillary herself).

He is a good communicator and has strong credentials. Watch him take apart McCain on national security here without coming across as strident:

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=1556

Also, with Clark on the ticket we wouldn't lose a Senate seat in a state with a Republican governor if Obama won the presidency.

Matt Stoller has been making the case for Clark as VP over at Open Left:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=6119

As I wrote on a different thread, I suspect Clark would help Obama with older Jewish voters too. When he was running for president, articles about how he comes from a long line of rabbis (at least his birth father did) ran in Jewish newspapers all over the place. This may seem superficial, but I think it wouldn't hurt Obama.

I also think he should be considered.  

First, his military credentials crush those of McCain.

Second, he stands apart as an example of the well reasoned use of force...something we've been sorely lacking.

Third, his time in NATO has made him a helluva smart foreign policy guy.  He gets the idea that action in one country isn't static, and that it affects a region and the balance of power in that region.  McCain seems to lack that knowledge.

Fourth, he's southern, and might be helpful in a place like Virginia, with a large military population.

Then again, he'd make a great SecDef.

His relationship with Clinton is probably what's keeping him off of that list - Obama's campaign has not been particularly warm toward former Clinton supporters.  While the Clinton supporting public seems to be migrating nicely, the inner circles seem to be having their issues still.

Obama is wise though to look outside of Washington and especially outside of Congress - he needs an experienced, popular governor in my opinion, preferably as far away from Washington as possible.  Warner withdrew himself from any consideration, leaving Sebelius, Richardson and Schweitzer as definite possibilities.  Schweitzer is probably the best pick, because of his interesting background and popularity in a usually red state.

I like Wes Clark, and I hope he has a place in the Obama administration, but I think Obama needs to reinforce "change" and "hope" with concrete examples - like someone that has never been caught up in Washington.

I think Clark is a great VP choice.  I don't see much of a downside.  He doesn't bring a heavy chip to the table in terms of the eletoral map, but judging by the polling trends we're seeing, I'm not sure that matters very much.

Twelfth Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves

What state of residency is Clark currently listed in? He was born in Illinois, but I can't find where he is currently. Because, according to this, electors in Illinois (kind of a big, easy state and 21 EVs for Obama) wouldn't be able to vote for Obama/Clark if Clark currently lives there.

It's the same reason Cheney switched his residency back to Wyoming after living in Texas for years.

I think that if they go with Clark, you're just going to hear HOWLS of complaining.  For one sole reason: he isn't Clinton.

his own in a debate on issues other than national security, especially against the odds-on favorite Tim Pawlenty?  That's my only concern with General Clark but other than that, he would be in my top five list.  Even if he's not well-versed regarding domestic matters, Obama's 59-32 advantage over McCain in Rasmussen according to economic issues will probably mitigate any troubles for Clark.

He still isn't Hillary.

Unity is a two way street.

I was a Clark supporter in 2004 and have the utmost respect for the man but I feel he would be a terrible choice for VP.  Despite conventional wisdom  I think the worst thing Obama can do when finding a VP is choose someone with military experience.  Right now the debate is: what is foreign policy experience?  McCain says it's military and Obama says it's diplomacy.  By choosing a VP with military experience Obama concedes to McCain that military=foreign policy.  Once that has been conceded, it doesn't matter who the VP is, Obama has no military experience while McCain is a war hero.

Additionally, as I pointed out in a earlier diary in recent elections balanced tickets haven't work.  Our last four tickets have been Dukakis/Bentsen, Clinton/Gore, Gore/Lieberman, and Kerry/Edwards.  Dukakis chose Bentsen to balance his ticket by bringing more experience, Gore chose Lieberman to balance his ticket by bringing in a moderate with a strong moral image, and Kerry chose Edwards to balance his ticket by bringing on a young southerner.  None of this tickets made it to the White House.  The only one that did was when young, moderate, southerner Bill Clinton chose young, moderate, southerner Al Gore.  The ticket wasn't in any way balanced but instead was enhanced.

Choosing a VP with military experience does not automatically confer Obama with military credentials. What it does offer is two things : 1) It tells the Beltway that Obama has a 4-star general backing him up in the Oval Office. Think about Bush's pick of Cheney. The Cheney pick told Washington insders that an experienced washington hand was available. The media narrative was that this was a solid pick. I see a Clark pick in much the same way.

2) It allows Clark to go after McCain on national security with Obama. When Obama critiques McCain on national security it is possible for some in the MSM to dismiss Obama was naive. When Clark voices the same criticisms it underscores what Obama said.

All thins being equal Obama should have a 15-20 point advantage on the economy, energy, health care, environment, getting us out of Iraq, and change. McCain will keep this race close with the threat of who do you trust in a national security crisis.

I'm very open to the choice of Clark.  He's got a great background that compliments Obama nicely and would play well with independents and crossover Republicans, especially older voters who may be hesitant to take a chance on Obama because of his relative youth and inexperience.  He would blunt any national security and inexperience attacks the Republicans are sure to make.  Everyone also says he's a good progressive, although I've never heard him speak on domestic issues.

On the downside, I haven't really heard him speak enough to know whether I think he would be a good campaigner.  I also don't have any clue how well he and Obama get along and I think personal chemistry with and loyalty to the President is important for a good VP in office.  Last, he doesn't have any real political strength with a particular constituency or in any state.