Two tickets that make sense

Clark/Dean -- I don't think Dean could win in 2004, but I don't think he'd kill us at the bottom of the ticket. After all, naming Walter Mondale as his VP didn't hurt Jimmy Carter in the South in 1976. They agree on the war, and I think that's going to be a factor in the choice of running mates. The only other plausible antiwar candidate (sorry Kucinich fans) is Bob Graham, and he's run such a lackluster campaign, that I wouldn't be surprised if he's passed over yet again.

Edwards/Gephardt -- The populist dream ticket. One's the son of a mill worker. The other's the son of a truck driver. Organized labor and trial lawyers, two of the most powerful forces in the Democratic Party, will love this ticket. And yes, they both supported the war, but (perhaps unfairly) aren't as closely identified with Iraq as Joe Lieberman. May have enough appeal in the South to eke out narrow victories in a handful of states (North Carolina and Missouri being the likely targets), but they'll also complete effectively in blue collar states like Ohio, West Virginia and Nevada.

as VP. Clark would need a Washington guy - Graham, Gephardt, Edwards, maybe someone completely unexpected. Clark could help balance Dean if Dean gets the nod, but I really can't see it the other way around.


Edwards/Gephardt - These guys are polling so low, it's hard to see either one as anything other than possible VP's. And no way would veteran legislater Gephardt take 2nd fiddle to rookie Edwards.

In some ways Edwards dissappoints me the most of all the Democratic candidates. Not because of his positions, but because he's overplayed his hand. He really should have stayed in the Senate - started thinking about the presidency 10-15 years from now.

First, I'm not sure a Washington guy really helps either Dean or Clark. Remember, if either of them gets the nomination, it's because they beat all the Washington insiders. I think being an outsider is part of their appeal, and I think picking an insider dilutes their appeal. Also, most of the insiders -- Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman -- backed the war. Graham didn't, but the guy barely has a pulse (ouch!).

Second, Edwards is moving up in the polls. He's opened up a lead in South Carolina. I don't think Gephardt can get the nomination, but I think his ties to organized labor, and the Teamsters in particular, can make a big difference in the general election.

and isn't mr personality... and is a bit more center than I... I really like Graham - and have for years. Have been sad to watch him appear like a tag along in this race.

You make a good point re outsider/insider. And the challenge of some pairings with either Clark or Dean due to the perceptions of the war position (though to read these boards - it gets orwellian - some who voted for were really against and some who have voiced against were really for.. :shrug:). Graham wouldn't do anything for Clark. But might Graham be an interesting match behind Dean (were he on the top)?

I don't think Gephardt can get the momentum he would need.

I have been impressed with Edwards - will his momentum in SC be able to translate elsewhere?

While lots of folks here "KNOW" how it is going to turn out and "WHO" can win and who can't - I still find it very interesting to watch unfold - and I think there are many variables yet to playout.

But I think Clark's lack of political experience will be an issue if he wins the nomination. Look at our last General - Eisenhower had Nixon, who'd served in both the House and Senate. Of course, these are different times.

I wonder - Bush didn't have that much experience - and he's done such a bang-up job working with Congress! Will the outsider thing still play as well come next November? After 4 years of Bush's incompetence, people might be ready for some experience in the oval office.

It's fun to handicap this stuff, but really - anything could happen in the next year and a half. I could even be totally wrong about Edwards.

Gore/Clark . . . yeah, I know Gore isn't running . . . but I can envision a scenario whereby no one goes into the convention with enough delegates to with the nomination, and maybe even a deadlock . . . I think is would be easier for the candidates with delegates to release them to a Gore draft rather than to one of the opponents they've fought against for months . . . there hasn't been a true convention draft in my memory, but I can envision a set of circumstances (albeit unlikely) where this could come to pass . . .

Dennis Kucinich on it somewhere.

I don't like Dean on any part of a ticket, he brings nothing being from a tiny, obscure NE state. Edwards/Gephardt is somewhat surprising, I can see the appeal, but probably odds are long of this ticket taking place.

now what more could you want?

I don't know what he was like back in '88, but he is no asset to the debate process, and he would not be a strong presidential or veep candidate.

I mostly dislike Dean, but I understand why he lures some people in. He's good at giving a certain perception of what he says that he is. The tough straight-talker etc. He throws the red-meat, and people devour it. That sense and ability to believe that you should carrall and manipulate groups of people for there own good and the skill at doing it was bread into him prep-school and Yale.

Gephardt has tried to do the same thing in a way, but he's not the right person to do it.

He also almost never, ever, ever, answers the question that was asked of him.

Edwards would chose someone with top notch national security cred, not someone who's basically considered a big-labor hack. Edwards would have to focus on defending his trial lawyer allegiance as it is.