OK, let's talk about possible VP choices

I feel like whenever the question of VP choices comes up, you always hear the same names: John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Etc. There seems to be an assumption that thre is only a very small group of people who are qualified to be VP. But personally, I think this short list of people is just a result of laziness -- you just name the people who happen to be at the top of your head at that moment. There is a large pool of people who can be considered for VP, including:

Governors and former Governors,
Senators and former Senators,
Generals and former Generals,
former cabinet secretaries, and
maybe a few House members.

That gives us a very long list of potential people. (Did I miss anyone?)

So, I figured it might be fun to take a look at the list of some of the potentials, and see if there are any people we haven't considered.

Current Democratic Governors

Arizona - Janet Napolitano
Delaware - Ruth Ann Minner
Illinois - Rod Blagojevich
Indiana - Joe Kernan
Iowa - Thomas J. Vilsack
Kansas - Kathleen Sebelius
Louisiana - Kathleen B. Blanco
Maine - John Baldacci
Michigan - Jennifer Granholm (not elligible - born in Canada)
Missouri - Bob Holden
New Jersey - James E. McGreevey
New Mexico - Bill Richardson
North Carolina - Michael F. Easley
Oklahoma - Brad Henry
Oregon - Ted Kulongoski
Pennsylvania - Ed Rendell
Tennessee - Phil Bredesen
Virginia - Mark Warner
Washington - Gary Locke
West Virginia - Bob Wise
Wisconsin - Jim Doyle
Wyoming - Dave Freudenthal

Current Democratic U.S. Senators

Daniel K. Akaka - Hawaii
Max Baucus - Montana
Evan Bayh - Indiana
Joseph R. Biden Jr. - Delaware
Jeff Bingaman - New Mexico
Barbara Boxer - California
John B. Breaux - Louisiana
Robert C. Byrd - West Virginia
Maria Cantwell - Washington
Tom Carper - Delaware
Hillary Rodham Clinton - New York
Kent Conrad - North Dakota
Jon Corzine - New Jersey
Tom Daschle - South Dakota
Mark Dayton - Minnesota
Christopher J. Dodd - Connecticut
Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota
Richard J. Durbin - Illinois
John Edwards - North Carolina
Russell D. Feingold - Wisconsin
Dianne Feinstein - California
Bob Graham - Florida
Tom Harkin - Iowa
Ernest F. Hollings - South Carolina
Daniel K. Inouye - Hawaii
Tim Johnson - South Dakota
Edward M. Kennedy - Massachusetts
John F. Kerry - Massachusetts (not eligible for VP slot :))
Herb Kohl - Wisconsin
Mary L. Landrieu - Louisiana
Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey
Patrick J. Leahy - Vermont
Carl Levin - Michigan
Joseph I. Lieberman - Connecticut
Blanche L. Lincoln - Arkansas
Barbara A. Mikulski - Maryland
Zell Miller - Georgia (not eligible - Endorsed the Asshole)
Patty Murray - Washington
Ben Nelson - Nebraska
Bill Nelson - Florida
Mark Pryor - Arkansas
Jack Reed - Rhode Island
Harry Reid - Nevada
John D. Rockefeller IV - West Virginia
Paul S. Sarbanes - Maryland
Charles E. Schumer - New York
Debbie Stabenow - Michigan
Ron Wyden - Oregon

When I look down the list, I actually see a lot of potentially good choices. Since Kerry is a northeastern senator, I kinda think that he is likely to look for a non-senator who is from a more conservative part of the country (South, West, or Midwest). But that's just me. :) Who are the superstars on this list? Who is not currently known by the Average american, but would likely be seen as a solid choice? And who isn't on this list who might make a good choice?

Wouldn't be a bad darkhorse choice. And the VP candidate almost always seems to come out of nowhere...

...as such, I think any one of his primary opponents would be the best choice. I think national name recognition at this point is much more important than geography (although that will help), or even demographic group.

I can't see any other potential VP delivering what we need with the exception of Edwards. He's got national name recognition after the primary, his blue collar upbringing offsets some of the Kerry perceptions that are out there, and he is southern. Even if he can't deliver all Southern states or even his own, I think his presence will definitely calm some wary southern voters enough to have an impact.

I just heard that horror CNN say that one of the topnames being mentioned is Gephardt.
A Kerry/Gephardt team is not forward thinking but a vision of a day long gone!
Why do we keep hearing that name? It would be a terrible mistake IMO.

He's a fantastic man, he can rally labor, and he can deliver a state we would not otherwise get.

presently in a Senate seat out of contention - unless we can get someone Dem to replace. Iowa's Vilsack is a good man - I don't know if he has the national juice to help the campaign, but he also doesn't have a terrific amount of baggage. He is articulate and smart, plays well with others - his wife is credited with at least a small chunk of Kerry's Iowa surprise.

All that aside, I still like Wes Clark up there kicking ass with Kerry. Take the Defense/Foreign policy issue right out of the equation. He also has good cred on business and economics. Winning combination.

edit - replaced chuck with chunk :eyes:

She's a tough straight shooter and it would be great fun to unleash her sharp wit on W* and his administration.

Maxine Waters is sharp, stands her ground well and isn't ashamed to be a Democrat.

She is one of my heroes - however I understand she is ill (cancer I believe). I've not seen anything from her in a while or seen her interviewed. I know she'd kick ass, but don't see her on the ticket, unfortunately.

esp. after he won the govship from her. it would be a sweet dream indeed!

It is sad that these two strong straight shooters would not be considered. If they were men they would be called STRONG and real leaders!

pleasepleaseplease don't let Kerry pick this guy. This will be the kiss of death. Gephardt is a great Congressman, but his selection will not play well with America.

A Kerry-Gephardt ticket will go over like a fart in church.
(pardon the expression)

We need a dynamic number 2....and it ain't McCain, so let's stop talking about that as well.

Nice man but it won't play in 2004.
We don't need nice we need a World Recognized Leader!
Gephardt could not beat Kerry. He had to get out of the race when he had labor behind him.
If we are going to go with someone who has shown more flair with the American people it would be Wes Clark(who got into the race too late) or Edwards.

Gephardt and the Labor vote come on, give me a break.
Edwards or Clark can carry labor.
Labor will not vote Repub because of someone other than DG.
Just get a visual of Kerry and DG together - that is not a good visual for 2004.

Democrats deserve a better ticket, we have worked too hard and cried too long about this sorry administration.

She still hasn't decided if she will campaign for him or not.....she may be "too busy". She is really ticking me off.....I was truly excited when she was elected, and I looked forward to her becoming Governor. To my dismay, during her first few months in office she was out doing more photo ops with *Bush than anything else.

and now she is governing as one. At least she was honest about it.

She has experience with national security issues and foreigh policy. And having a woman on the ticket would cause some excitement.

I look at a VP as being able to step into the Presidents shoes if needed.

Hillary would be terrific VP, she has tremedous experience, is articulate and speaks well off the cuff.

She could easily be VP for 8 years and then run for President.

Harman has solid experience, but she is a clean slate for national voters.

I've been watching her on CSPAN recently. She was educated at Harvard,right? Not that Harvard or Yale(ala GWB) can make you smart but I think she went to Harvard.

Not a bad choice at all for me. But, she is from California and if we are to go on the red/blue stuff she may not help the ticket.

but I don't know how that would really add to the ticket, since she represents a state that we probably will win.

bill richardson. he is from a small state granted, but that small amount of electoral votes could very well help turn the election.

also he is bilingual, and will be able to probably help bring in hispanic voters a big swing voter group.


peace
david
:hippie:

... there are only really two women who would be good...

Blanche Lincoln

Mary Landreiu

Both have far more national security experience have won at a state wide level and are moderates to balance Kerry...

I would say Feinstein, however I don't think she would work as a VP at the top of the ticket she would work, she might be a moderate liberal but she has an attitude and exudes a strength and "no bullshit" attitude that with a strong male moderate southern running mate she could do well...

But at the bottom of the ticket... Kerry and her could looked like a hen-pecked husband and his far more assertive wife... sad but true... her politics are similar to Kerry but she is clearer and comes across as stronger... but as VP to Kerry no!

my governor, Baldacci, won't get tapped. He's got his hands full right now sorting out Maine.

...I would think that Edwards, Gephart, Graham, and Clark should be the short list. The others are still needed in the job they are currently doing.

He has too much inside the beltway baggage. Edwards has the least amount of such baggage.

although I believe that one of the female gov's or congress women would mobilize voters, and take some of the pressure off Kerry. If he had a female vp, the press would be dealing with that factor to a large extent, instead of perceived or bogus chinks in his armor.

I actually like the idea of having "Military" Mary on the ticket. I think it would send a great message to pick a woman. Energize the party, as well.

it is becoming increasingly clear that to win Kerry is going to have to make Iraq and Bush's credibility key issues in the election. A VP choice also is often someone who is in attack mode much more than the presidential candidate himself. Dean also has a record outside of Washington as a successful Governor. Finally, it seems to me that Kerry is having trouble with left leaning Indpendents and democrats who oppose the War and Kerry's vote for it--a Dean selection would be a powerful olive branch to these people.

You want someone who will make the case that Dems really ARE the opposition party.

Someone different than Kerry in experience (Senator vs. Governor)
Someone different than Kerry in image (Statesman vs Firebrand)
Someone different than Kerry in temperment (Caution vs Passion)

Dean won't completely overshadow Kerry, but the combination will strengthen each in areas where they are the least effective.

Who gives a damn if they come from the same neck of the woods - that didn't hurt Clinton/Gore.

an area that's mostly Republican. That's why the geographical imbalance was not a problem. Choosing Dean as VP adds nothing geography-wise and only takes away, I think. There are plenty of other governors with better geography (like Vilsack), and I don't think we want a real firebrand this time around.

but i have to say rick boucher of VA he is a house member but he is probably the most popular dem in VA even more so than Mark Warner

Don Imus was EATING OUT OF EDWARDS' HAND this morning. Even after JRE left, Imus went on and on about how much fun he was to have on the show, how he could see how Edwards won those juries over, and did so well in the primaries. Edwards' likeability factor is huge.

Moreover, he complements Kerry. Kerry is the Brahmim war hero, who has the experience and gravitas. Edwards, son of a mill worker, self made man who exudes sunny optimism, youth and dynamism. He energizes the ticket and brings an aura of excitement.

Kerry and Edwards are a dynamic duo: remember that great line from "Jerry McGuire": "you complete me." That's our ticket. Kerry/Edwards 04.

Picking a VEEP by state or region is a tenuous strategy. Who says Gephardt could carry Missouri? He only represented a Congressional district. He didn't even win neighboring Iowa in its caucuses.

I like Bill Richardson, but worry about the ghost of Clinton-era scandals. Mary Landrieu could also be a good candidate. I like Clark, but would prefer to see him in the Cabinet, or as Governor of Arkansas. Jane Harmon is absolutely terrible on tv.

Edwards is by far the best choice.

Imus and his Bush supporting co-workers were salivating over Edwards because an unborn child channeling, phony populist, personal injury attorney would help guarantee Bush four more years.

That's a hell of a slander of a damn good Democrat, who may WELL be Kerry's pick for VEEP, and in 8 years the President.

Such mean, bitter, words. Quite a bit of Freeper-speak in your post.

If Edwards the lightweight you insist he is, WHY would the right wing be so damned afraid of him?
- - - - - - - -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54335-2003Feb10?language=printer
With Edwards, White House Shows First-Strike Capability
Tuesday, February 11, 2003; Page A19

Is President Bush afraid of John Edwards?

<snip>
But the White House and Bush's political arm, the Republican National Committee, seem preoccupied with Edwards, a first-term former trial lawyer. A month ago, when Edwards began his candidacy, the RNC put out a 10-page report a day later branding him "An Unaccomplished Liberal in Moderate Clothing and a Friend To His Fellow Personal Injury Trial Lawyers." At the time, the GOP had not issued similar takedowns of the other Democrats in the field.

A week later, on Jan. 14, a White House official told the Associated Press that Bush was delivering a speech on medical malpractice as part of a "whack John Edwards" day. When Bush called for limits on awards in medical malpractice suits last July, he spoke in North Carolina.
<snip>
A key Bush activist, Tom Rath, has joined the American Association of Health Plans, an adversary of Edwards, to help the HMO lobby's political efforts in New Hampshire. The group last week released a poll showing Edwards in fifth place in the state.

In private conversations, Republicans linked to the White House often talk of Edwards as the most dangerous of the Democratic candidates, because he is handsome and southern and "undefined" in the public imagination. That gives him the potential to create a populist challenge to Bush...
<snip>

a smear campaign make.

really does like kerry. and it can be said that in 92 imus helped elect, or at least reestablish clinton.

until his speech at the annual tv & radio dinner, in which by imus' own admission he gave a terrible speech that "made flop sweat drip from my brow"

after that the relationship between clinton and imus deteriorated (he was a frequent guest in the 92 election)

but imus genuinely like john kerry (although by his own admission he'd rather have seen biden as the nominee)


peace
david
:hippie:

Was a trial lawyer before coming to the senate. Bush's team will exploit this for all it's worth, since people hate trial lawyers and the majority of the public wants tort reform and is against lawsuit abuse.

the WH will launch Opeation Smear against him/her. If the Second Coming happened and Kerry picked Jesus Christ as VP, the RNC-blast faxes would be out within the half-hour:

"KERRY'S VP PICK SOCIALIZED WITH KNOWN PROSTITUTES"
"VP NOMINEE SOFT ON DEFENSE - SAYS 'PEACE BE UNTO YOU ALL'"
"DRINKING PROBLEM? VP PICK REVEALED TO HAVE PROVIDED HOMEMADE WINE AT WEDDING"

Congressman John Lewis - one of the most inspiring civil rights leaders we have had -

*

I am serious about this - all the other names leave me wanting - and don't shake things up the way we need to
it is time for us to make noise about those we really see as amazing choices and John Lewis would be that kind of choice

He should be in the Cabinet at the very least.
He is a strong leader and a team player.
So smart and so compassionate.

I'd hope that Shirley Franklin would get his House seat.

inspired. Yes. Yes.

... then again i am quite far to the right on foreign policy... but I'm not going to have an argument on that now...

But broad national serive... would be a good idea, civic programs like urban renewal and conservation work, perhaps education work and health care work for all kids for 18 months between HS and College would be a very good idea imho... yeah sure the military could be an option and in return for taking part in this say the Federal government payed for party of these kids further education?

I think it would be great to get kids from all over th country involved together in medium sized groups and helping out in all kinds of comunities...or alternatively in the army... either way i think it would be good... and not a bad thing...

As JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" we need to ask todays young people (which technically still includes me)to give something to their country... I think that this is both right and proper... imho

I think any of the following would be some good candidates (in no particular order, except for the first):

1. Mary Landrieu-My fave choice, and as one poster so ably put it, she's the only person who can bring the ticket both to the left and to the right (a rather impressive feat)

2. Mark Warner-A Southern governor-we don't have very many who could pull this off, but he's a well-liked administrator that would go well on the ticket.

3. John Edwards-The superstar new Democrat-having him as VP would guarantee us a good nominee in 2012 and would aid us in the South. His biggest hindrance may be that it seems too obvious for a selection process that favors the unknown.

4. Bill Nelson-a likeable former astronaut on the ticket. He wouldn't overshadow Kerry, would beat Cheney in a debate (though, really, who couldn't beat Cheney in a debate?). The only problem with him may be that we'd lose his Florida seat to Jeb Bush's appointment.

5. Tom Vilsack-if Kerry wants to put more of a lock on the Midwest, Vilsack couldn't be a better choice. An administrator, a two-term governor from a swing state, his seat will go to a Democrat (Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson) and he'd be a good match with Kerry.

6. Maria Cantwell-A future Landrieu, if you will. A left of the middle Democrat who gives off a very moderate vibe, Cantwell seems poised for superstardom after ousting a two-term senator in 2000.

7. Jane Harman-A tough as nails member of the California delegation, she would be a great addition and a fiery campaigner. However, she may be too similar to Ferraro (liberal rep from a liberal state) to pull it off.

8. Blanche Lincoln-If she wasn't running for reelection, she'd be perfect-a moderate, extraordinarily likeable senator from a Southern state who really comes off well and would get unparallelled press coverage. Wonder if Mike Ross is interested in running for the Senate...

9. Jim Hunt-a very popular former governor of North Carolina, he'd definitely have the same potential of Sam Nunn to shape up the South.

10. Mike Easley-my third choice from North Carolina, but still impressive, a young, good Democratic governor. Once again, he's running for reelection this year, but if Kerry chooses him early, there's a certain retiring senator from North Carolina who would run well here...

I would've liked to, but-we elected one of the most impressive gubernatorial classes ever in 2002, with potential VPs Napolitano, Sebelius, Rendell, Blagojevich, Richardson, and Henry all among them. However, it is too soon for these governors to run-but look out for them in 2012.

I agree with most of them.

I'm pleased to see Mark Warner on your list. Here in DC, we get a lot of news from Virginia. I swear, I thought we'd never win that state again, but he figured out a way to do it. He hasn't really had much national exposure, but he's been quite popular in VA.

I also like the two NC governors you mentioned. :thumbsup:

I agree that it's not his time yet, but I hadn't thought about him for a national slot.

I have heard from some local news that there has been some "talk".

Mark Warner just had a huge victory here in VA. He was able to get his budget through the VA legislature. This includes a sales tax increase, and a tobacco tax increase. It also includes help to lower income families. The legislatiure is GOP controled.

I am biased but think M. Warner would make a good choice.

how bizarre you mention him, i was just thinking about him...

he would definitely deliver nc, that's for sure.

i think he's retired tho.

Clark beefs up Kerry on terrorism which may help us across the board.

Gephardt can deliver rust belt states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and will put Missouri in play.

Richardson's proletarian demeanor will take the aristocratic smell away from the ticket. Richardson in theory would also juice up latino voters.

But how tough would he be on Cheney in a debate? And how will he critcize Bush? And could he seriously carry GA? We know the Repukes are going to steal Georgia. Nunn is worst than Breaux and Bayh with his tipping over to the otherside.

How old is he now?

Kerry's short list..

Gephardt
Edwards
Vilsack

Kerry's long list...

Kerrey
Bayh
Nunn
Richardson
Rendall
Lewis
Sibelius
Harman
Napolitano
Shaheen

When word was out that Clinton was seriously considering Al Gore as a running mate, I didn't take it seriously. "Why pick someone from his neighboring state?" I remember joking..

Not only was I completely off base, but Al Gore proved to be the most effective running mate since Lyndon Johnson!

. Clark is not good on TV, if Lieberman (for all his faults) could get beaten by Cheney, imagine Clark?... also Kerry has his national defense and Clark really doesn't help with moderates by himself as he doesn't have a voting record and has been caught on different sides of different issues on a number of occasions... HE is not ready if he's serious about politics let him run for Gov in AR...

Gephardt will not deliver PA, OH and the rest of the rust bealt... MI is not in question imho... there are no people who will vote for Kerry because of Gephardt... the blue collar unionized worker Geppy would appeal to will vote for Kerry anyway... Edwards or Warner however would appeal to more moderate blue collar workers who Geppy would not appeal to... Geppy is a Mondale/Humphreys democrat and those voters will vote Dem anyway...Edwards and Warner appeal to moderates... Gephardt would not...

Richardson... sorry but look at him! he's a good guy and a great governor, but he over weight and unfit, he brings you 5 electoral votes that Gore and Lieberman won anyway and he might push you over the top in Nevada as well, either way you still lose as he wont win you FL or AZ and he wont help you in critical places like WI, OH and PA... furthermore he is no where near as good as Warner or Edwards on TV...

Bad Choices man...

Frenchie's post below shows that it is.

But at this point of yours: "Clark is not good on TV"

That was a joke, right?

...the guy stutters and is unsure of himself... he was getting better... but he too much of a risk... Edwards will appeal to moderates and voters in the midwest... Clark might, add to this Clark positions are inconsistant... its not his fault he's a novice... but Kerry needs someone who is not going to make the mistakes that Clark would... Edwards, Warner, Landrieu, Bayh, Nelson none of these candidates would do this and they would help Kerry far more than Clark ever could...

I've seen Edwards sputter and stammer. Did you hear him on Imus the other morning, when asked about his own military service? Pitiful.

Edwards had a well-rehearsed stump speech that he pulled out for all occassions, whether appropriate or not. Sounded quite silly in the debates, when he tried to pull out memorized pieces to answer only vaguely related questions. You can bet Cheney would take him apart. Fortunately, you can also bet Cheney will never get the opportunity.

...i've heard Edwards speak and yeah it was a great stump speech.. he was miles better than Clark in the debates... he was competent Clark was all over the shop... to be fair Clark was improving, but a VP shouldn't have to learn on the job...add to it all that apart from being the clearest articulator of the Democratic party message Edwards is also the most likable and his record is at least consistant...

Clark would not help Kerry with any group one iota as much as Edwards or the likes of Warner or Landrieu or Nelson or Bayh would... Clark is a nice guy... but he would be a very bad choice for VP..

Luckily Clark hasn't even been interviewed by Johnson and nor is he having his background checked either, Johnson, Shrum (the main person who called for Gore to pick Edwards in 2000) and even Kerry are more sensible than that... he just brings nothing to the table that other better potential VPs could, and most of them could bring more than what ever it is Clark can bring (military credentials is it today?)...

I will state here and now... Clark will not be Kerry's VP and will not even be considered

Not so fast, Finch. ;)

"Blast you vile woman" :7

that said i really doubt he'll get picked...loads of people will be check anyway... but i think he would be a really bad choice, Edwards, Warner, Nelson or Landrieu are far far stronger and more effective choices imho... but thats just my view....

...interesting thing that could really help either Landrieu or Lincoln... with the crimes committed by US troops in Iraq, Bush is apparently losing ground amongst married woman nationwide (soccer moms)Bush really really needs to hold Kerry to a draw amongst this group or he's in trouble... Kerry's team seems to have noticed this, in his latest ads you have both his wife and daughter making apearances... Landrieu or Lincoln, tough moderates from moderate states might help exploit Bush weakness amongst this group even further... question is how well would they perform amongst other demographics, moderate male voters in particular...

She's very effective with moderate, perhaps nominally Republican, women. She articulate, experienced and qualified. Winning the election will require moving the Democratic Party to the center (like it or not, that's the only way to win with Nader in the race). Landrieu is a true centrist, and would help to accomplish that.

Her down sides are that she's only won narrow victories and that she is to the right of the party on the abortion issue.

Warner might be a good choice too.

...Landrieu would be great to exploit it!

Warner i like but politics wise he's very similar to Edwards... moderate, southern, populist and that pretty much squares with my belifes... but i think Edwards would be a stronger campaigner and TV and debate performer, that said I think Warner would be good, just not as good as Edwards...

Landrieu's other problem is that she is Catholic. I find this rather petty and stupid, but I imagine there are people out there who don't want two Catholics on the ticket.

Given the base, and the type of swing voter the Democratic Party can capture, I do not think that religion really matters when it comes to electing a candidate. In fact, I think Kerry's faith was almost a non-issue in the primary--which shows how far the country has come on this issue in 44 years.

...Vilsack is a catholic too... the important thing being a practicing catholic brings to a candidate is the same as being a practicing Christian or Jew of any kind... it cements the idea that that person has a "solid moral" core that influences their polices... of course this isn't necessarily true you don't have to be an observant Jew or Christian or Jew to be a moral person but in voters minds it has this effect... being catholic really isn't an issue for anyone who might vote democratic only really really extreme Christian fundamentalist might have an issue with this... the important thing is that being religiously observant has positive connotations in many voters minds... so i don't think its an issue really....

Edwards who is even better than Bill Clinton at framing arguments and making the case for Democratic proposals ...

or Clakr... who is not anywhere near as good as Edwards when he's on TV, framing arguments and convincing voters...

Sorry you just cant not compare the two... don't get me wrong Clark was developing into a strong candidate, but he just didn't have the time to develop and failed to react to the collapse of Dean (he had largely marketed him self as a southern electable version of Dean) and challenge Kerry, at the head of a ticket with a moderate Southerner with plenty of experience such as Breaux as his VP he could have been a really strong candidate with Kerry at the bottom of the ticket he does nothing to address any of Kerry's weaknesses...

with your Clark vs. Edwards knowledge. Please know that Edwards has been crammed down our throat by the media.....both as a presidential candidate and now as a VP possibility. Only the media naives would not figure this out...but it is really, really clear to many who have insight on what the media is good at doing.

The Clinton comparison is a media made up song....that only begun to be sung after Edwards came in second in Iowa. How come no one noticed the Edwards' "extreme" oratory skills that he apparently possesses until after the media started to recite this meme?.....at the same time it is widely known that Edwards only had one speech...that he recited over and over again!

Edwards has yet to even be vetted by the media! PERSONAL Injury lawyer is what he'll be called.....not Trial Attorney. I almost shudder when I think of how they will tear up this unexperienced junior senator from North Carolina. If you understand what they did to Clark and what they are doing to Kerry is bad.....you ain't seen nothing yet. By the time they are finished with Edwards.......you will need a vacuum cleaner to pick up the pieces!

Clark did fine in the debates......answering all of the "gotcha" questions and getting "General" election treatment from the media througout........Were you a Republican? Were you a Republican? Where you a Republican? Are you calling Bush a deserter?

Hell, after one debate (where even Finneman won) Clark was declared the winner....and then NOT. Can you explain that? No, of course you can't. It's kinda of like when Bush won a debate. Did Gore really lose, or did the media decide who won and lost and then proceeded to change public opinion. Sheeples are called sheeples for a reason.

In the meantime, Edwards answered most questions in the debates this way....I am the son of a mill worker....I am the son of a mill worker. I, I, I, I, I, I, I,......am the son of a mill worker. VP is not a "I" job...it's a "He" and/or "We" job! Edwards only talked about himself and how he could empathize with the common man during the campaign. That ain't exactly what a VP does.

Please, for you to take what you got out of the nine ring circuses masquerating as debates shows more about your handling of the art of analysis than it does about the candidates.

Why did Kerry announced at some point that he wouldn't be attending more debates? Because they were not debates.

In reference to how well Wes Clark performs on Television......you are just so far away from reality, until it's not even funny. The man was a military analyst for heaven sakes....spending endless hours on television.....how do you think he was drafted to run for President? Clark was the only candidate to win a state that was not his home state of sort aside from Kerry. AND he did it without the Media limelight that was only available to Kerry and Edwards.

All I can say in conclusion is, you know not what you speak of.

The man is genuinely popular in Louisiana, and when combined with the Landrieux 'machine' (they are to Louisiana what the Kennedys are to Massachussets), we could put Louisiana into play, and possibly Arkansas and Tennessee. Additionally, sen. Breaux would help our Congressional candidates, as well.

Look, I know he's conservative, but he's NOT a 'Zell Miller Democrat', by any stretch of the imagination.

she'd be great, but probably wouldn't help win the election!

John Edwards can help win the south. I think he could pick up the NASCAR vote.

Three guesses who I'm for! :D

ClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClarkClark. . . . . . . Guess who I want as aVP?
(Think hard now)

let me just consult my crystal ball. I'll get back with you when I have a definitive answer.

.

Of course I'll accept whoever Kerry picks but, my heart belongs to Wes. :P

rarely does a vp change an election result. kennedy/lbj, maybe bush/cheney, but other than those, the vp choice matters as much as a john nance gardner personalized pitcher of warm spit.

this time though?

might be one of those rare times.

wes clark would help solidify the dems as strong on defense and peel off some veteran support for bush. would this be enough to alter the election? i would not count it out. clark appeals to white, blue collar types in the rust belt battleground states of pa, mi, oh, wv, mo where that population sector is weak on kerry.

john edwards? great on the campaign trial, would bring in many younger voters, and going out on a limb, i think he would be attractive to the african-american community where he can effectively make the case for that voting sector's life narrative. (yes, i know how absurd it is to say that a white man can talk about the african american experience, but edwards can at least make the plight of african americans the nation's and not just "another" interest group's. but, can these be translated into additional electoral college votes? probably no.

dick gephardt? strong with labor/seniors in the battleground states, has many markers with labor and seniors that he can rely upon to get feet on the ground>>get out the vote necessary in these battleground states. can he deliver missouri? maybe.

that's it for helping win the election, (unless hilary clinton was chosen).

but more at issue is perhaps who will most help a kerry administration get its policies and initiatives thru a gop congress that is added in its attempts to undermine kerry policies by a craven media and right wing think tanks.

after all, what good is kerry as president if his programs are stillborn in a congress run by the gop? a kerry administration would likely appoint 2-4 supreme court justices, and a whole array of other kerry presidential appointments will be vigorously attacked by the gop and their moneyed minions.

clark has no experience with congress. edwards a single term in the senate giving him some facile recognition on what it takes to get things done in congress. gephardt though, has 30 years of experience in congress, has herded a vast number of bills through a contentious congress, knows the culture, and has an historical knowledge of the institution. only lbj as vp had more capabilities dealing with congress in support of a democratic administration's policies.

i want the democratic party to win the white house and govern effectively. i think gephardt helps this best.

I don't see Gep bringing any more votes than Kerry would bring alone. And as for populist appeal - Edwards takes that in a landslide.

We need a ticket with energy, dynamism. If we don't get the electoral votes, it doesn't matter a whit how many years of experience on the Hill we've got.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And Beyond....

"clark has no experience with congress"?

Clark has a lot of experience dealing with Congress, both with actual members of the House and Senate, and the way the committees and staffers work.

As principle on the Joint Staff for strategic planning, he would have worked closely with Armed Service and Foreign Relations committees and their staff. But as a regional commander-in-chief overseas (which he was for five years), he would have interacted directly with members of both houses on a whole range of issues, since he was responsible for budgeting, manpower management, housing and other facilities, education, healthcare and so forth. A little bit like how a state governor interacts with his or her state legislature, only more closely since the regional CinC is actually responsible for and accountable to Congress for all those functions in a way that a governor is not.

True, Clark's experience isn't as extensive as an elected legislator who would have been there every day. But then, he wouldn't have the drawbacks that come with a career voting record and the compromises that any effective legislator must make.

Besides, I'll say it again--the day is over when a VP does nothing more than break ties in the Senate. He runs the National Security Council, and rides herd over the other members of the cabinet, especially State, Defense, the CIA chief, Homeland Security, and about a dozen others who play a role in security/foreign policy issues. Clark's expertise in defense AND diplomacy makes him uniquely qualified to make a major contribution to Kerry's administration in this role.

Isn't it obvious?

as is the entire MA Congressional delegation.

Moderate (balances Kerry's percieved liberalis), she's has a strong national defense record, she's well spoken, and she appeals to moderate independents (if Nader stays in, the only way to win is with the moderate independents). Some far out liberals might be upset with her, but my guess is most of them weren't going to support Kerry anyway.

Other good choices: Vilsack (from Iowa, and important and close state, good with the midwest industry/agriculturial voters), Gephardt (good with unions--critical to carrying the industrial midwest), Mark Warner (he just got a major--and good--budget reform passed through the Republican controlled Virginia legislature. His plan will keep the government from laying off teachers, firefighters, policeman, etc).

General Wes Clark just completed a run for political office, and although he did not succeed in winning his race, he did much better than he will ever be given credit by the media pundits.

The same Talking Heads who deliberately both smeared and/or ignored Wes Clark during the primaries are the ones who came up with the "he's a bad campaigner" meme. The fact is that Clark raised an impressive amount of money during his short run (more than Edwards and Kerry and Dean in the month of January). He also worked the Internet in a way that came second only to Howard Dean's performance. He was really the only candidate besides John Kerry that won a state that was not his "home" state (and did it without free national media...as they virtually ignored him following Iowa...Edwards was the media darling throughout).

Wes Clark, as a political novice, handles the Republican Mean Machine Smears and the Democratic challenger's attacks remarkably. You see, Clark got it from all sides during the primary, precisely because of the threat he represented to all concerned. He got, what one would call "General Election" treatment from the get-go.

In reference to possible baggage, Clark was already vetted by the media during the primaries (as well as being vetted by a Republican congress in 1997 when he became a 4 star)....(unlike Edwards who was treated with "Kid" gloves by the media...but watch those gloves come off if he gets the VP nod).

for those worried about Clark attacks such as the Shelton-Cohen Cabal, think again. Since Shelton attributed his initial unsubstantiated attack on Clark to "just politics" during the Milosovic Trial in December, what else is there that has not already been discussed? Waco, WWIII, Hat Exchange, fired by Cohen, Perfumed Prince? All have been debunked, addressed or retracted. As always in politics, the smears that were leveled at Clark were orchestrated with an express purpose seeking a desired result. What's new about that? John Kerry is going through the very same tactics now. Difference is that John Kerry with Wes Clark on the ticket would have the entire Democratic Party and many millions of dollars to come to their defense. Also know that I can give you a long list of Clark military allies....as well as the list of the 55 Ambassadors who endorsed Wes Clark during the primaries.

The other smear of Clark being a Republican bodes well in the General Election. Kerry can even use the Clark Video in where he praised the Bush foreign policy to highlight how Americans tried to have faith and support the President....but he veered off into the wrong direction....and now our country is also taking that route.

And please don't underestimate what this man would bring to the table besides possible electoral votes. General Wes Clark's vast knowledge on all things concerning "real" national security, a proven military track record, a fresh non political face, charismatic energy, stellar Rhode Scholar intelligence, Southern every man roots, and a diverse electorate following (American Indians, Hispanics, Veterans, Gays, Jews, Muslims (due to Kosovo), the Southwest (came in 2nd in New Mexico and Arizona), Catholics, Baptists, the anti-war voters, the moderates, the Independents, and yes....the irked Republicans).

Also, don't neglect the coattails that John Kerry needs to provide the Democratic Party to win various Senate and House races (in more than one state).

Best of all are Clark's clear articulation of patriotic earnest concern for this country and his ability to discuss religion and tying it to Family values....in a way that even Fundamentalist Christians can agree on.....

The April Marist poll shows that 53% of Americans are most concerned with the War on Terror (33%) and the Iraq situation (20%)....while the economy is of concern to 44% http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/PZ040426.htm

Importantly, what Nascar Dad is not going to go for the General as their link to justify voting Kerry as opposed to the Bush machismo myth? Kerry can't get them on board any better than by having Wes on the Ticket. Edwards attracting Nascar voters is laughable......He oozes soft female cuteness....not hard angles and the tough type of charisma needed to woo these voters.

"but support from women is not Kerry's biggest problem. Closing the male side of the gender gap is." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4863243/

The quote above from this article should remind us all of the meme that was being floated in New Hampshire back in January (the one that spurred all of the "sweater stories"....that Wes was not polling as well with women....but was doing extremely well with the male vote).

Personally, I think that it's about time that the Democrats put up their Heroes against the GOP Zeros currently occupying the White House. Kerry as the trust of a majority on the economy, and Clark would certainly neutralize the National Security advantage currently held by the Bush/Cheney team.

Maybe some think that Clark would be a big risk....But maybe, John Kerry needs to make a bold, courageous and brilliant choice.

Many in the media constantly state that John Kerry needs to "define" himself. What better way than by re-inforcing his perceived weakest flank while doubling his hero persona? Winning a particular state might be important, but the right presentation of the national security issue in this post 9/11 world would actually increase John Kerry's odds of winning in many states.

Plus Clark has proven his classy style of attacking the GOP. It's uniquely strong and concise yet elegant and refined. A great looking and smiling pitbull with muscles....tearing Cheney and Bush to shred at every turn of a well articulated sentence.

Now, that's my case for Kerry-Clark ticket....the Heavy Medal ticket.

It'd needlessly divide the party again (why did he pick Clark instead of Edwards, Dean, Gephardt, etc)? I think he should look for someone who has experience, but is still a fresh face nationally.

And I concur! Who better than Wes to be able to step in should the unthinkable happen?

and far better than I ever could.

I will support Kerry no matter what, but IMO there is no VP choice that makes any sense other than Clark.

First of all, she was elected less than a year ago. Second of all, she's a huge DINO.

It's definately a potential Kerry win there.

...first off Kerry/Gephardt is like Dull and Duller... it will not fly Geppy as capable a legislator as he is would not bring in MO... he is a congressman and does not hold a state wide office and has never won a statewide office...

Edwards - Despite being unlikely to bring in any southern states his populism will give Kerry a way way better shot in PA, WV and OH than he has now... he is also just a far better candidate all round than Kerry, except as far as experience goes... so get him on TV get him to make the case he will really compensate for Kerry's failings in the charisma, excitement, moderate and populist departments... just get him a hotel in Ohio and take him on trips to WI PA and WV occasionally he will win you these states...

Mark Warner - Best potential governor next to Tom Vilsack, but better name, from the south, much more impressive wins in a formerly strongly GOP State... and a political philosophy of moderate southern
populism similar to Edwards' also good on TV and about Kerry's high too...

Mary Landrieu

Blanche Lincoln

Evan Bayh

Bill Nelson

... and thats my two cents...

I really like the ideas of Landrieu and Warner.

Bayh however is a terrible idea. I doubt very much so that he does anything for you in Ohio, certainly doesn't bring you Indiana, and is boring as hell.

..on a personal level i really really respect the guy and agree with him on some things... then again I'm a moderate...

...he has a good record, but he is dull as hell, however sometimes he can be very good at conveying an argument in a quite and thoughtful way... I also doubt that just because he is from IN that he would be able to help in OH anymore than he would help with moderate voters nationally... the problem is he injects no excitement into the ticket I think that the candidate who is most qualified to be Kerry's VP and introduce this excitement into the ticket has to be Edwards... however I am really warming to Mark Warner... and i think that both Landrieu and Nelson have potential, but they are risky as they are unknown quantities...

;-)

Edwards, Landrieu, Breaux, Warner, Nelson are all good choices.

Not dynamic (but neither bush nor cheney are dynamic) - but very credible, very well respected in Florida (elected multiple times as governor and as senator), well respected by moderate democrats - and by more liberal democrats....

the new official short list for Kerry...

Bayh
Edwards
Gephardt
Vilsack

as opposed to his geography. I'm not a big Edwards fan, but I think he would fit the VP role well.

He's an orator, he connects with people extremely well, he has that Southern charm, and as a Senator his record is short so Bushco couldn't do much with it. People already know him, too, and they really seem to like him. And as far as taking on Cheney, Edwards would be awesome. We need a fast-talking lawyer up there to dance with that guy.

Yeah, I hate saying it, cuz the guy's basically DLC, but I think Edwards would be the best V.P. choice.

I recall his abortive primary run, and I was rooting for him them. I think he could be an interesting VP.

Same for Bob Graham from Florida.

...

















just kidding :-)

...but even then it wont go to either it would be considered too big a risk, that said either would be good imho, if risky...

..Feinstein would only be good as the top of the ticket with a moderate southerner male running mate... she’s like Kerry with balls and consistency!...

...there are no minority candidates for the job of sufficient seniority except perhaps Richardson... but he would not be a good VP imho... Obama if he where already a senator would not be moderate enough and Ford is too junior... while much as I like Lewis he is perceived as too much of a liberal African American representing only his own constituency in congress, where as Obama and Ford can both be considered to represent a broader range of constituents, that is when both get elected to the senate that is... (here’s hoping)...

...No Landrieu and Lincoln are the only viable female VP candidates... and i doubt they will be chosen... Edwards, Warner, Nelson, Bayh and Landrieu however must be the top five for me...

Mary Landrieu

...i do worry however that a woman as VP would be a risk... the problem is the last time a woman was nominated she was a weak candidate a liberal from a liberal state who had never been elected to state-wide office running with a liberal at the top of the ticket... but Landrieu or Lincoln would be far far better... moderates from moderate states from which both have been elected and reelected...

...But I'm still unsure... in the end I'd go with Edwards...

He seems pretty solid on foreign affairs.

Speaks with such authority that, regardless of whether you agree with him, you've just got to stop and listen.

Kerry needs Clark, the best attack dog out there. Clark is the best defender as well. As long as we are at war, Democrats need Clark.

When you look at recent history you'll see that candidates for president often pick a VP to "balance" the ticket, Gore picked Lieberman to distance himself from Clinton and Shrub picked Cheney because Shrub had little experience governing.

Unfortunately, Americans still think that Shrub is better than Kerry on the "war on terror" and national defense. I don't see how they could see him as such with Wes on the ticket, plus Wes has an articulate plan to get us out of Iraq and as a soldier, knows not to get us involved in any wars unless absolutely necessary.

Add to it the geographical balance, and the fact that Wes is a likable guy and one hell of a great American and you have the perfect VP candidate.

Intelligent, experienced, articulate and liberal.

http://www.robertreich.org/reich/biography.asp

...he would be excellent in a Kerry cabinet, but would and could do nothing for Kerry nationally or in any region, and just because a candidate is liberal does not qualify them, Kerry needs a moderate, Kerry is a liberal, last time we had a liberal and a liberal on the ticket was 1984!.. you need balance, folks on the right of the party like me would like to be represented... and on top of it all its unconstitutional as Reich is from MA...

Just what the ticket needs!

Don't get me wrong-- I love Reich-- supported his campaign for Governor. And he's a smart guy (smarter than Kerry IMO). But other than brains, he wouldn't bring anything to the ticket. He's not a natural politician.

SOUTHERN BRACKET SEEDS:
1. John Edwards
2. Bill Nelson
3. Max Cleland
4. John Breaux
5. Mark Warner
6. Phil Bredesen
7. Bob Graham
8. Jim Clyburn

SHOWDOWN STATES BRACKET SEEDS:
1. Bill Richardson
2. Tom Vilsack
3. Evan Bayh
4. Russ Feingold
5. James Doyle
6. Jay Rockefeller
7. Ed Rendell
8. Gary Locke

GRAVITAS BRACKET SEEDS:
1. Dick Gephardt
2. Wesley Clark
3. Bob Kerrey
4. John McCain
5. Tom Brokaw
6. Sam Nunn
7. Bill Clinton
8. Joe Biden

WOMEN'S BRACKET SEEDS:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Janet Napolitano
3. Mary Landrieu
4. Debbie Stabenow
5. Kathleen Sebelius
6. Blanche Lincoln
7. Dianne Feinstein
8. Ann Richards



http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/veepstakes/misc/story1.html

To add Clark to the Southern list and the Showdown state list. Gee, I wonder why. Guess it would make him look real good to show up on 3 different list, all of which he qualifies for, hey?

No other candidates were listed in more than one area, so why should Clark be listed in more than one area? The point of it was to take each of the candidates strengths and talk about it.