Why Gephardt or Edwards not the best choices for VP: IRAQ WAR!

In my opinion, we need somebody that will give us ADDED (or counterbalancing?) credibility, not somebody that played the role of tutu-democrat on the Iraq war issue. I think this makes Clark the best option from the ones I am familiar with.

his FULL SUPPORT for the IWR. Why the HELL are we even considering Gephardt. A Kerry/Gephardt ticket will NOT give me a reason to be happy about the 04' election. Gephardt offers nothing to to us. I would like to see Wes Clark/Mark Warner/Tom Vilsack/Bill Richardson with Kerry.

Remember, Gephardt stood WITH TOM "Hitler" DELAY!

:puke:

Edwards won't even consider the thought that he was either wrong or mislead so I do not see him either.

Doesn't mean Kerry is.

Which I personally don't even even prefur one way or the other in determining who would make the best vp, but alot of people who are really sort of enveloped in anti-war-ness or what they perceive that to be seem to really believe that that is important, having voted against the Iraq resolution that is.

Graham is the best option in my opinion for a whole host of reasons though. He hates Cheney, he knows his shit on a balance of foriegn/domestic/federal/state policy better than probably any of the candidates. He comes from the most important swingstate by more measures than any other swingstate, and is the most popular politician from it.

Gephardt is a shitty, shitty choice. Edwards isn't, just not the best in my opinion

I could be wrong, but I thought he was more of a hawk than Bush at the time.

He will alienate many fence-sitters, as he's seen as just another one of those troublesome, boring, do-nothing but bitch names they've heard about their whole lives. I started to type "...we've heard about our whole lives." and I realized that I'm not a fence sitter. There is no question that I'll vote for the party or candidate most able and likely to beat George Bush. But it sure makes me realize how un-excited I am about Kerry. Adding another boring boob to the ticket would make my heart sink. Kerry is silent while Bush is hammering him daily. Or at least, Kerry has been unable to make himself a subject for talking heads in any meaningful, positive way. He should just be out there, fighting back...but we see little, and what we do see is negative.

Now think about the Wal Mart Nation. They're not reading every headline from around the world, as many here on DU and other sites do. They make up their minds from those commercials and scripted news stories. And along comes Dick Gephardt to liven up the ticket?? Are they insane?

Much of the talking heads this Sunday were yammering about Kerry's being "Dukakised," and they were pretty much signing on to it. Campbell Brown was especially dismissive, ready to hand the whole thing over to Bush right now. So adding Gephardt to the ticket will give nothing new and exciting for the press to talk about, they'll just wait for Kommander Karl's press releases misrepresenting every vote Gephardt ever took, and hammering home the idea that the Kerry/Gephardt team are just a couple of boring old Washington insiders who always voted with the mainstream in the name of job security.

Come on...Gephardt? How about some fresh ideas. I'm 45, and I'm sure as hell not excited at the prospect of a Kerry/Gephardt ticket. Is this how they expect to hold onto younger voters?

Won't vote for either Edwards or Gephardt..Better
find someone else to run with Senator Kerry. Many
of your constituents on this end of the state,
hope you have other gentlemen
in mind.

After choosing a representative national sample of more than 700 people, political scientists conducted what is called a deliberative poll. They created a group of well-informed voters by giving them home computers and exposing them to the candidates' commercials and policy positions. These voters, using microphones with the computers, discussed the candidates and the issues in small groups that met online once a week, starting in January on the day of the Iowa caucuses.

Over the next five weeks, as Mr. Kerry built up momentum among both real-life primary voters and the control group in the experiment, Senator John Edwards enjoyed the biggest surge in the well-informed test group, which was won over by his personal traits as well as by his policies, notably his protectionism on trade. Besides appealing to the Democrats in the test group, Mr. Edwards did better among the group's independents and Republicans, and he emerged as the strongest candidate against Mr. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/politics/campaign/02POIN.html

n/t

O8)

i think clark would make kerry more vulnerable to attack.. remember, we're talking about a guy with NO political experience at ALL, never run for public office -- the republicans would counter, is THIS the kind of guy you want being second in command? now do i agree, no, of course not... but i think it definitely makes him vulnerable... as well, clark's weakness is his debating skills... not too sure how well he'd do against cheney...


but i do like clark more and more everyday... and i feel CERTAIN he'll be in kerry's cabinet. he's become more and more outspoken, and thus, a great asset to the democrats.

out of Iraq. With the situation in Iraq deteriorating the way it has, I think Clark's lack of political experience would easily be excused in favor of his experience in military strategy and international diplomacy.

It's not a question of whether Kerry wants him on the ticket. He needs Clark on the ticket.

Imagine if Kucinich were on the ticket. All the media would do would be ask them who's right about war, Kucinich or Kerry.

Trust me, Kerry is NOT going to pick a VP who allows the press to ask that question a million times.

Right now the focus should be strictly on "WWKD"...let the candidate come forward and establish a theme to the campaign, react to this regime and start getting people to focus on the differences at the top of the ticket. I'll be content on waiting til August to play the Veepstakes out.

Kerry will show his strength in Foreign Affairs. If you haven't seen the speech he gave at Westminster College, it's worth hearing. He's also very well connected with the military and diplomatic circles. You could see him actually calling foreign leaders on a regular one-on-one name basis.

The Veep should focus on the domestic side of things. The economy is not going to drastically improve by August or November, thus the convention would be a great time to really shine a light on the mess this regime has made of the Clinton boom of the '90's.

The "ground game" here is not to win the South. The Repugnicans won elections galore bypassing the South, the Democrats can do the same. Just holding our Eastern, Midwest and Western states and adding those around is the future of this party. That's why Ohio, Missouri and West Virginia are critical. We win those three and the SCOTUS can't steal this election. That means finding someone who will do well there, and I'm sure being closely looked at in Kerryland. This still leaves the names Gephardt, Edwards as well as a bunch of Governors (they're never bad to have on a ticket) to at least look at. Honestly, I'm wide open as to whom to select and just want to listen to Kerry for a while.