Case Western Poll on VP: Undecided 27%, JRE 25%, HRC 14%, Dean 9, Clark 7

Gep 5%, Bill Richardson 2%.

Colin Powell for Bush (way ahead of Cheney).

rtsp://real.npr.na-central.speedera.net/real.npr.na-central/tavis/20040308_tavis_05.rm

(on today's Tavis Smiley show)

Including Clinton, Nelson, and Feinstein.

Having John Kerry as the nominee means that we lose a Senate seat if he is elected. We can't afford to lose two.

Erskine Bowles will take Edwards seat.

However, I don't think the Bowles vs. Burr race is over by any means.

I just saying that Erskine Bowles is a good candidate to win in the senate.

:)

It is priceless! Thanks for sharing it!

it's not mine. It's from georgewbush.org

It's a funny picture and I have gotten lots of comments since I put it up.

You posted it for our enjoyment! Thanks!

Countries invaded: 2
Nations still suffering: 3

Edwards also.

The folks I see every day here in central IL were almost universally impressed with Sen. Edwards, and most think he'd make a great VP choice. :)

got to them......

Thank goodness it will be Kerry picking this time! since they are attacking Kerry's National Security credentials, guess that Edwards is really gonna help with that. Plus Saying I'm the Son of a Mill worker who sees 2 America is not the job of a VP.

We need a Pit Bull that can mangle Cheney.
This is not a job for Edwards, but for......

He held his fire against democrats....

His current lead in the polls however is not a compelling reason to choose him. Of all the major candidates, Edwards got the least negative scrutiny of any of them, by far. Until January he was ignored, which certainly did not help him any. But when the public was tuning in, around Iowa, he started getting a lot of media attention, and it was almost all kid gloves. Edwards became the "designated other" to Kerry so the media could talk about their favorite sport, horse racing. None of this reflects negatively on Edwards. It's just that I am not at all surprised that he scores well in polls right now. Based on his positive run of mainstream media coverage, except for some hard core political junkies, and those with real attachments to another potential VP candidate, why on Earth wouldn't a casual Democratic voter name Edwards first as a good choice for VP? That doesn't make it true (though it might be anyway).

Edwards is the future POTUS candidate for 2008. He has little background to attack (attacking him as a trial lawyer did not work in the Senate campaign b/c of the type of plaintiffs he had). He will have all the experience he needs after being VP. He might be the perfect candidate for 2008/2012. He has too much talent to waste by NOT giving him the VP slot so as to set him up for POTUS in 2008/2012 whatever...

Edwards is inspiring, has a similar voting record to Kerry, is a strong campaigner and could help Kerry win.
He's the only choice that offers only positives - no negatives.

After Edwards, then Gephardt or Clark - though both might bring a state but both have campaigning weaknesses and are older - not a plus.

Richardson has taken himself out of the mix.

Graham just doesn't have it - will screw this whole thing up.

Bayh - though a DLC Ken doll, might play well with the inattentive - attractive and on message but dull and over middle of the roadish - uninspired.

McCain - Kerry could do worse - let's face it that if he were a Dem we would all like him. He has a record of reform mindedness, is progressive on taxation, was cosponsor of the Kerry bill on CAFE standards. McCain is a Hawk - that is his problem issue - but this might help the ticket in the General Election and he seems an honest and straight forward man. He would have to be convincing on types of judges he'd appoint. Kerry would really need to sew up the base in order to go out on this limb.
Would lend Kerry credibility as the mainstream candidate versus Bush the right wing idealogue who is out of step with America. Don't see how this ticket could lose the GE.

Biden - wouldn't bring a state but otherwise an excellent choice - don't see why he isn't mentioned more by pundits.

Daschle - Could he bring SD? He should be on the list but we would lose a Senate seat.

Breaux - pro-life so probably unacceptable to Democratic Party.

Bob Kerrey. Gary Hart. Sam Nunn. Have to mention some wildcards. Maybe even Chuck Robb?

Nelson - too much of a slow talker.

Hillary - would bring out the bases of both sides - if not such a lightening rod is a strong candidate.

Rendell and Warner - no name recognition so might be ill defined by Repubs, but otherwise would be helpful choices on the ticket - good campaigners and help regionally.