Dean supporters, who is your vp choice ?

for those who supported dean in the primary, can you please tell who you want john kerry to pick for vp. and can you please pick from those we so far know kerry is already considering such as clark, edwards, gephardt, etc.

I would consider Edwards (he can help out in the south) or Bill Richardson (help out in New Mexico).

Strong, outgoing to balance Kerry's introspection.

Would be a great combo.

and i really hope its Clark for VP.

I like Edwards and wouldn't be upset if it is him.

I really like Clark because he is very good at going after * on Iraq, it is a strong foreign policy team, and the vets v. the chicken hawks could do a better job figuring the best way to get out of Iraq for everyone and mend fences with the world (Sup. NATO Commander has some experience).

I like Richardson because overall he seems like the candidate who offers the most to the ticket. Hispanic, foreign policy experience, even repubs are always complimenting him on cutting taxes in NM.

I really have less of an opinion of who he should choose than who he should not choose. I will start questioning the foundation of my entire belief system if for some bizarre reason he were to chose McCain. Although, I do think that's just a floated possibility and not a serious consideration.

I'm also not particularly fond of Gephardt.

I lean toward Clark because I think he strikes a chord in my home state, but then so does Edwards. Still, my home state is all but a lost cause for the Dems. I only think it might have some small degree of influence of the Senate race.

Overall, I trust Kerry's judgment. I think he and his campaign staff have a firm understanding of the issues that are important in the VP selection and will make their choice accordingly.

p.s. anyone but gephart and of course, lieberman. i'd have to REALLY hold my nose if he picks joe shmoe.

Clark or Edwards...but, really, whomever would help Kerry most.

....both of whom I had considered as strong running mates for Dean, and still think they would work, even with Kerry.

Edwards would also be acceptable, but he'll probably end up as Attorney General anyway, and might better serve in that position.

Just no Gephardt, and no DLC Dinos (Bayh/Lieberman/etc.)

Naturally, the Doc himself would be a great choice, though he's already ruled it out himself because of the geographical thing.

...I don't expect any potential team to actually address MY concerns, outside perhaps health insurance and outsourcing. I still voted for Gore when he selected Lieberman. Unless Kerry selects Zell Miller, I just don't care.

I truly think that Kerry needs to choose someone who was opposed to the Iraq war to balance Kerry's ambivalence.

If he picks Gephardt the Republicans will run that picture of Gep grinning away with Shrub in the Rose Garden during the signing of the Iraqi War Resolution.

I supported Dean through Ga. primary, and still love his honesty. I support Edwards for VP because he is exuberant, can really engage the crowd, has a very positive messsage,has Southern roots, and compliments Kerry's somber appearance.

Although I hate to say this, he's a GOOD LOOKING GUY too! I know this shouldn't matter, but, sorry folks, it does. Ever since TV, looks have made a big difference.

His style and passion impressed me in the primaries. His common man schtick would be a good balance to Kerry's more patrician style. It would be great if we could pry a few Southern states out of the bushistas' grip.

That said, I've made the jump to being an active Kerry supporter and whoever he picks for Veep is not going to change that.

That's just the pundits talking.
Why these damn limitations all the time?
:)
Can't anybody think out of the box?

yeah, some of it is just media talk.

but it has been confirmed that clark,edwards,vilsack,and gephardt ARE being considered by the campaign itself. i'm sure the campaign is considering others, but so far the ones i named are the only ones they have confirmed to being looked at.

There are many great democrats to consider.

I am sick of this white male club. If India the largest Democracy in the world has had a female and hails one even now what's the problem with this so enlightened Democracy here? Dems can break the mole here for a change, show some guts.

in that order.

Was against welfare reform. Had one of the most far-reaching health care plans, just short of single payer. But Dean people are against him. I will never, until the day I die, understand the Dean campaign.

kerry would be totally turning his back on the dlc with a pick like gephardt.

and look at who is pushing gephardt. it's the labor unions. arne't they part of the democratic base, the liberal base ?

But he voted for the war and the patriot act. Can't forget that, no matter that Dean wasn't going to repeal the patriot act anyway and Kucinich didn't introduce legislation to repeal it either. No matter that they both called for getting inspectors back into Iraq. Oh, you know the drill. And I bet you know what I'd like to do with that bat some days too.

Dean: Repeal parts of Patriot Act that restrict basic liberties

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.dean.html

I have some ideas for the bat myself. Here's Dean's latest idea for "the bat."



That Bastard!

Which is so different from Kerry how? Which means we need parts of it, which makes Kerry's and Gephardt's vote for it bad how?

The thread is directed to Deanie's and the lack of support for Gephardt is obvious. And there's no logical reason for it.

At least you guys seem to finally have realized Dean never supported repealing the whole Patriot Act, which makes his view on it the same as every other Democratic candidate. Including Kucinich, who introduced legislation to "repeal parts of" the patriot act, not the whole thing.

I'm sick of these red herring votes being held against good and decent Democrats, like Dick Gephardt.

because it's up for review.

So what if Deanies don't support your choice for VP?

I guarantee you that most "Deanies" in this thread would vote for a Kerry/Gephardt ticket, he is simply NOT the first choice.

It's the complete lack of logic in citing votes as reasons for not supporting candidates. It's ignoring the reality of everything else a candidate said since 2002, or has done or stood for over the course of their lives. And to continue it past the primaries is unbelievably ridiculous.

People are just stuck on the primary campaign rhetoric and refuse to move off of it. There isn't a thing in the world wrong with Gephardt as a VP choice and if he can move union voters and if those are the voters the campaign knows we need, I'm all for it.

is able to keep people awake, I realize that, you should too.

You seem bitter that Dean supporters are not interested in Gep.

May I remind you that most PEOPLE are not interested in Gep as a VP candidate. Dean supporters represent a sampling of the voters in this country.

http://rdu.news14.com/content/nc_decides_2004/?ArID=44056&SecID=322

Which is why my responses are directed at Dean supporters.

And apparently, Dean supporters are realizing that their previous notions of Kerry putting people to sleep was a load of hot air. Once Kerry took the stage, it was obvious why he's the candidate. Complete command, overwhelming presence. Everybody else just faded into a distant memory.

"Former Dean grassroots activist Lew Frederick of Portland said his concerns about Kerry's charisma all but faded by the end of the rally.

"He's clearly got the energy. He's clearly got the passion," said Frederick.

Kerry is not only "our last best hope. He's also a great candidate," added Susan Hagmeier. "He's anything but boring."

"I thought people would go Dean all the way, but it seems there are a lot of Kerry people here today," said Holly Forrest, 40, of Vancouver, Wash."

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_051704_news_kerry_oregon.1d13d4b6d.html

perhaps the writers read DU?

The ones who took the time to find out for themselves instead of repeating media bullshit.

the media. They are simply catching up with us.

That's ok, I'll take sleepy over creepy anyday. ABB for me and most Dean supporters, Gep included. :hi:

and is anything but boring. That's the conclusion the Dean supporters came to yesterday, as quoted in the article I posted. If DU Deanie's did as well, okay, but it's news to me.

convey that better IMO. I donated to his campaign today, along with many other Dean supporters-please don't forget that.

Just asking for some rational thinking, that's all. Gep isn't my first choice either, but I'd rather have him than most of the other names being thrown about. I'm Clark or Edwards myself. But Gep has been a great Democrat and served us well for alot of years and I don't think people ought to forget it.

etc... are reasonable choices as well?

I think people realize Gep has a good record on many issues, but the "Rose Garden" is a mighty tough pill to swallow, so in effect he lost his standing as a top notch choice.

I think that most people are like me even though I supported Edwards, with times being like they are now.. I looked at the group and thought to my self we need Kerry's experience,this was when he was behind, most of us must have come to the same conclusion about the same time, he started to rise in the polls, Kerry isn't boring, he is a poised man confident and acts like an adult compared to the cowboy...Edwards and Kerry make each other look good, Kerry has the experience to bring Edwards around and we will have a young democrat in the wings...But we need Dean..Clark...Gep...Sharpton, Carol, Dennis and all the rest.

Gephardt basically kissed Bush's ass during that whole process. I hate to say it, but the man makes Daschle look like an anti-war leader.

Let's not let his intentions get lost in the rhetoric.

“Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment. That is too high a price to pay. I am glad the President said in his speech Monday that diplomacy is the first choice for resolving this critical matter.

“This resolution also limits the scope and duration of the President’s authority to use force.

“It requires presidential determinations before our Armed Forces may be used against Iraq -- including assurances to Congress that he has pursued all diplomatic means to address this threat, and that any military action will not undermine our ongoing efforts against terrorism.

“Finally, the bill provides for regular consultation with and reporting to Congress on the Administration's diplomatic and military efforts and, of great importance to all Americans, on the planning for assistance, reconstruction and regional stabilization efforts in a post-conflict Iraq. The efforts we must undertake in a post-conflict Iraq could be the most enduring challenge we face in this entire endeavor, which is another reason for doing everything humanly possible to work through the U.N. to reach our goals.

“Now a word on what this resolution is not. In my view it is not an endorsement or acceptance of President Bush’s new policy of pre-emption. Iraq is unique, and this resolution is a unique response. A full discussion of the President’s new pre-emption policy must come at another time -- but the acceptance of such a momentous change in policy must not be inferred from the language of this Resolution.

“It is also important to say that thus far the President's predominant response to 9/11 has been the use of military power. Obviously, self-defense requires use of effective military force. But the exercise of military power is not a foreign policy. It is one means of implementing foreign policy.

“In the post-9/11 world, we must construct a foreign policy that promotes universal values, improves living standards and increases freedom in all countries - and ultimately prevents thousands and thousands of young people across this world from becoming terrorists. We will never defeat terrorism by dealing only with its symptoms; we must get to its root cause."

http://dickgephardt.house.gov/info/press_releases/index.asp?ID=441

and on Sept 27, 2002:

WASHINGTON — In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush made a strong effort to work hand in hand with Congressional leaders to build a bipartisan consensus for the war on terrorism. In the State of the Union address he said eloquently, "I'm a proud member of my party. Yet as we act to win the war protect our people . . . we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans."

The president assured Americans then that politics would not play a part in deciding issues of life and death. Which is why when Karl Rove told a Republican party meeting last January that talk of war and terror themes could play to the G.O.P.'s advantage in the 2002 elections — or last June, when a computer disk containing a presentation by Mr. Rove revealed a White House political strategy to focus on the war as a way to "maintain a positive issue environment" — I didn't want to believe it. And when Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, remarked that the White House waited until the start of the election season to promote action in Iraq because "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," I hoped it wasn't true.

But now there's no denying it. President Bush himself has decided to play politics with the safety and security of the American people. It started in New York two days after the one-year anniversary of Sept. 11. Injecting politics into the debate on Iraq, the president told reporters that "if I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people, say, `Vote for me and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' "

Four times in the past week Mr. Bush has echoed these words. On Monday, he went so far as to say that the Democrat-led Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." In a recent speech in Kansas, Vice President Dick Cheney also entered the act, saying that our nation's security efforts would be stronger if a Republican candidate for Congress were elected.

Those sentiments were quickly amplified by Tom DeLay, the Republican whip in the House. One Republican member of Congress even went on national television to question a Democratic colleague's patriotism and accuse him of hating America — simply for saying we needed a debate on Iraq.

This is not how a great nation should debate issues of war and peace. To question people's patriotism for simply raising questions about how a war is to be fought and won — to say that anybody who doesn't support the president's particular policy on national security is against national security — is not only insulting, it's immoral.

Like many Democrats, I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq. Some in my own party have criticized me for that support. But this is a case that deserves to be made on the basis of policy, not politics. It's clear that in a world plagued by terrorism, protecting our national security means worrying about where terrorists could get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Around the world, Iraq is the No. 1 candidate for spreading those weapons. We must deal with this diplomatically if we can, but militarily if we must.

Eleven years ago, the Persian Gulf war debate on Iraq took place after an election, which helped keep politics out of it. Because of the urgency the current administration has placed on Iraq, we are asked to vote on the issue this fall.

Calling for a Congressional vote is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is building a broad, bipartisan coalition to provide the support necessary for the country to get behind — and stay behind — any war effort. Democrats are committed to trying to develop a final bill that will draw the broadest bipartisan support possible for dealing with this threat.

But the statements by the president and the vice president only serve to weaken that process, undermine trust and thwart cooperation. If Mr. Bush and his party continue to use the war as a political weapon, our efforts to address the threat posed by Iraq will fail. Military action, if required, may meet with quick success in Iraq, but a peaceful, democratic Iraq won't evolve overnight. It will take the active support of both parties in Congress over the long term if we are going to win the peace. That's only going to happen if we act, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans.

Were it not for Gep Biden/Lugar might have passed and we may not be in this mess were in today.

If Gep wanted the restrictions he preached about he should have kept his ass out of the Rose Garden and not buckled under to *.

The point is to consider his intentions and the whole of his comments. He was not just completely kissing Bush's butt and it's not fair to say that he was. It would have been much better if he'd supported Biden/Lugar, but he didn't. It wouldn't have mattered because we'd still be where we are today. He was much less of a Bush apologist than Lieberman, for example, and it ought to be remembered.

Of course he's not Lieberman, and I'll go as far as to say I have a great deal of respect for Gep on many issues.

He's just not MY first choice for VP is all.

and Dean people don't think in lock step. Get over the obcession with "Dean people" won't you?

Tell me how do "Clark people" feel about Gep?

I would have liked Dean as VP because I think he helps Kerry where Kerry is weakest and that is with progressive dems and independents who oppose the war and might flirt with voting Nader. But I know he isn't in the running so my favorites are:

Richardson of NM
Graham of Florida
Edwards of NC

Edwards is a much better campaigner, but his support for the war and the Patriot Act have cost him my support.

But, since Kerry keeps moving to the right and avoiding talking about the war, other than to back it, I don't imagine the DLC will allow him to pick anyone that might actually be other than center/right.

Madeline Albright
Jaime Rubin

We need some diplomacy people, since shrub and crew have totally destroyed our reputation around the world. It will take the VP and the State Dept. working overtime to whip things back into shape.

It's gotta be Clark, or Kerry loses.

I thought I knew almost all of them at DU... :shrug:

I'll admit I posted that too quick. I'm sorry. I'm not really new to this board, but I have only started posting recently, and I sure don't want to do something I shouldn't. I have always been a Clark supporter, so I just wanted to admit my error. It was not intentional. I regret not learning more about Dean. He was treated so unfairly by the media and others. Cripes, they still bitch about "the cream," which wasn't a scream at all. Again, I'm sorry, no hard feelings I hope?

-Ding

It's Gephardt.

It's Edwards. Gephardt alienated too many people this time, and there not enough time left fopr him to kiss enough butt to get people past that.

Gephardt will get the nod in exchange for his good work taking down Dean. Count on it.

Want to make a friendly wager on it?

?

Friendly enough?

demobrat , you're covered.

Kerry is leading Bush on all issues except terrorism and foreign policy. Edwards only vaginas the ticket up.

Gephardt would be my second pick, though I hate the guy, given he increases our odds of winning states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri.

second choice, Dick Durbin (my favorite Sen.)

Everything I read about him makes me think he'd be great.

I don't think it should be any of the other candidates for some reason. Although I know it has been done in the past.

I think Kerry's VP choice could really make or break the election and it better be a good one.

As long as it's not Gephardt or McCain. No VP pick is going to make me enthusiastic about Kerry. It's long past time where he could've done that himself.

(before I ever heard of Clark) my vote should count.

So I say CLARK! CLARK! CLARK! CLARK! CLARK! CLARK! CLARK!