I'm beginning to think Dean's gonna choose Graham as VP

and i think that might be a smart choice... (there are others i prefer over graham, but i still like the guy enough)

i've just been reading and listening to dean's speeches and interviews in the last several days and he's brought up SEVERAL times the line "with the exception of senator graham" yadda yadda, both with respect to the war vote and a history of balancing the budget, etc. as well, he mentioned last week with larry king, when speaking of a running mate, that the south is very important for him, especially being a northerner and that that'd be a first consideration... moreover, he said that he needs someone with washington experience...

it's really adding up to be a dean/graham ticket folks...

at first i had a gut feeling about a dean/edwards ticket, but i just don't think dean can or will pick someone who voted for the war... that goes against the core of his message...



your thoughts?

yep.

But I'd rather he went for Clark, myself.

******

Blog Graham! Join the original blogger at his new campaign blog.

Contribute to Graham For President (Enter "Laura Kinsale" as your BobCat if you want to give me credit toward my pledge to raise 1k for Bob.)

mustn't interrupt the "inevitability" campaign tactic. The media has chosen Dean, and that's their storyline for now.

Ask newsguy from CNN. They know who they want.

I just love rich people who have the luxury of wealth that protects them from the consequences of their actions.

On this point at least:-)

though it'd be even better if you knew what you were talking about... :eyes:


i think it's an obsurd observation to declare that the media LIKES dean... IMO, they've been very harsh on him overall, exceedingly so in fact (painting him as an ultra liberal, angry, unelectable candidate)...

now, that he's getting the attention from the media doesn't mean they're favoring him... it merely means his campaign (with its phenomenal success so far) is FORCING them to cover him, to pay attention... and that's what the democratic nominee (whoever it is) is gonna HAVE to do in the election... MAKE them pay attention to you... in these times especially, that's how it works my friend..


like you insinuate in your smartass retort: i should know

that by labeling him a liberal antiwar candidate early on he collected liberal antiwar $$$$. They covered him and not Kucinich who was actually a liberal speaking out at antiwar rallies, which Dean never made himself available for, did he?

He made the media happy by attacking the other Dems and the Democratic party, which made their job easier.


Now, Tweety reports tonight that the corporate media has decided Dean needs a press plane FIVE MONTHS before the primaries.

Nothing to see here.

>>>that by labeling him a liberal antiwar candidate early on he collected liberal antiwar $$$$<<<

have you been living in a cave with osama somewhere?? the media didn't give two fucks about dean early on when he was getting anti-war money... hell, they didn't even know who he was!!

dean got this media attention when people started hearing his message and responded by grassroots organizing and fundraising... he MADE them (us) pay attention... what about that don't you understand besides the fact that kucinich's campaign has failed to energize a large base?

your arguments are devoid of the reality...


>>>Nothing to see here<<<
you're damn right about that

back in January after he started attacking the others. By March, DeLay was laughing about promoting Dean to divide the Dems. I watch this closely as a MWO devotee. I watch the media closely.

His supporters started flocking to him based on who the media said he was back then, an antiwar liberal.

Dean used the anti-war movement to gain popularity and then, on the very day he declared his candidacy in Vermont, not one mention of Iraq.
Not in a twenty-six minute speech, btw.

See the following:

"The next day, at his official campaign kickoff, Dean gave a 26-minute speech and didn't mention Iraq at all. It was a remarkable performance from someone who has spent much of the last year pitching himself to peace activists as some kind of anti-war candidate.

Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers."

More:

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15232&CFID=81%2078495&CFTOKEN=3253804

It's more astonishment. ("Who is he? What's going on?") Despite the fact it happens every day, I always get a chuckle out of how wrong the punditry are.

blm was just looking for a wiseass response, and thus picked the easiest one...

It would take the wind out of Rove's sails, that's for sure. No more "George McGovern" or "peacenik" nonsense.

Graham's presence on the ticket would all but neutralize any advantage Jebco's presence in Florida gives to the GOP. It would force Dumbya to devote some time and money to campaigning there.

Also, Graham's assaults on the Bush Junta over Iraq and 911 stand out as well.

If he doesn't get the nomination himself, he's on everyone's list. He's got obvious synergy with Dean (because of his Iraq vote, particularly). The only other logical Dean picks I can think of are Landrieu, Clark, and (wait for it) Gore. I'm seriously warming to Graham, though, especially given some recent Landrieu comments in the press.

I also think Graham would totally understand (and well execute) his mission in that event: (1) win Florida; (2) attack Bush.

If Graham was on Dean's ticket, he would be 68 years old when he became Vice President. He would be 72 years old if re-elected to a second term. My question is this, would you want a 76 year old man as the Democratic frontrunner in 2012? This is assuming he will still be around after the stress of 8 long years.

I can see him as a Presidential candidate this year, but if he ran four years from now with that heart condition he has...I don't think so!

And then there's Strom Thurmond (or was). I don't think 76 is particularly old.

And I'm not sure I see your point. Graham shouldn't get the VP nod because, eight years from now, he might be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Again we assume Democratic primary voters are incapable of making rational decisions. What's up with that?

for Prez! By 2012 he might be ready to retire! And there will be a whole new field of younger Dems to take the mantle! :kick:

But in eight years Bob Graham will not be that person as Truman was for FDR, Gore sought to be for Clinton, or Humphrey under Johnson.

IMHO it is usually a good idea to pick someone who is younger than the candidate, healthy, and most importantly qualified to be President. One of the many mistakes Dukakis made in 1988 was to pick Bentsen as his running mate. He was great as a debater, but he would not of won Texas for Dukakis and by 1996 would not of been in any kind of condition to take the mantle for the Democrats.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/rr40/index.htm

It's time for a grown-up in the White House. As president.

It was obvious he was slowing down to anyone close to him, and the pressure of the office aged him rapidly during the eight years he was in office. If this is going to happen let's at least have someone younger than the nominee, and healthy enough to survive. Finally it was not a Bush/Reagan ticket in 1980, which is similar to what you are talking about!

Imagine Reagan running for President in 1988, as a 77 year-old man. This is something I do not want our party to do.

2 terms as president would be fine. Then the VP candidate who groomed under him could take over. Perhaps Clark, perhaps Edwards, maybe Dean.

How old would Dean be when his VP stint is up?

if he became VP he will be 56, and eight years later 64. Just barely in the VP age range, although he would not be my first choice. But he's a great primary pick!

Graham has the political machine to deliver Florida. Add New Hampshire and all the blue states from 2000 and we have a dem President with votes to spare.

Graham has the national security credentials and experience balancing the budget. It fits perfectly with Dean's message.

I agree that Dean would have a hard time picking a VP who voted for the war. I like that ticket a lot.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Governor/GovBioHome.html

I **love** Bob Graham! However, I don't like giving up that Senate seat to whomever Jeb Bush decides should fill it.

But my hope is that the impact of that is minimized (i.e. there are enough coattails with a */Graham ticket that the Democrats regain control of the Senate, even if we lose his seat in Florida).

but if Dean were to win the nomination, I think that a man with the experience and credentials of Bob Graham would be a fine addition to the ticket.

Anybody but Lieberman!

Like asking Frank Sinatra to sing backup to Bobby Vinton. Why ruin a perfectly good Democratic Presidential candidate?

but the Graham references you site aren't anything but being honest. Remember he once said "I'm the only candidate who has appointed judges," got called on it, then said, "Among the front-tier candidates," and got called on that by an unhappy Graham campaign. To which he replied, "Right, I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't be handicapping candidates."

So, as the only other candidate who's been a governor, Graham gets all those "except for Graham" remarks that go with Dean's gubernatorial experience.

Eloriel