Who do you favor as VP--Clark or Edwards

They seem to be the popular choices on DU. If it came down to these two men who do you most want Kerry to select as VP?

especially in strategic states. I'll depend on the party pros to figure out which one that is.

such as Truman in 1948 over Henry Wallace and LBJ with JFK in 1960.

I want to win!

the best chance of picking up some moderate conservative voters and conservative leaning independents.

n/t

I mean his speaking style.

Edwards' appeal seems to me also a potential hazard for Kerry. If only because the differences are so striking. Kerry is more stentorian, Edwards is so preacher-esque.

It may in the end turn out to be the greatest complementary pairing of styles, but I'm just not sure if it also poses a significant risk to Kerry's unfavorables.

I won't even vote in this one. You guys deserve to win one.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Un-Clark?

I like Clark

With Iraq looming larger everyday the electorate would favor Clark's experience over Edwards'.

Frankly, I think it's a no-brainer for Kerry. The odds are that things will not improve or get worse in Iraq (Clark's strong suit) while the economy will improve some (Edwards ran on jobs and the economy)

want someone to think about us, our children and their future.

of bigger problem.

We have a war in Iraq because it's part of a bigger RW project to transfer a lot of wealth and all the benefits of society to a few very rich people and to pass all the risks and all the costs of society down to people on the bottom.

We can put metal on the ticket to address one of the several tools the RW is using, or we can have a presient who deals with the big picture, which is that transfer of wealth.

"We can put metal on the ticket to address one of the several tools the RW is using, or we can have a president who deals with the big picture, which is that transfer of wealth."

Kerry is the Democrat running for President, and he already has several medals. Either he or Bush will become President. Bush has no medals that I know of, nor does Nader far as I've heard.

but I am still interested in gold, silver and aluminum.

Either one of these gents would make a fine addition to the ticket, with a nod to Clark, who's a smarter choice right now, IMO.

There was an excellent article at alternet a week or so ago titled "The Estrogen Factor" (I'd think you should be able to find it there, still: alternet.org) calling for Kerry to choose Edwards as his VP based on his appeal to women.
I think it's a sound argument. I think Edwards is personable, charming, and good-looking, and he gives one good stump speech. Evidently, James Carville called Edwards' "Two Americas" speech the best of the Democrat primaries...I'd agree. I saw Edwards speak really early on here in Seattle...the guys just a natural.
Getting women out to vote is absolutely essential for a Democratic victory. Men (white men, that is) vote for republicans something like 60%, so the Dems rely on women and minorities, especially the black vote, to win national elections.
I suppose one could argue that Clark is as appealing to women as Edwards, or possibly more. Still, I go with Edwards on this one.
Read the article at Alternet.org...it's really a good one.

It was as demeaning to women as could be. I wrote the author a letter about a week ago....

Here it is,

I read the article by Lakshmi Chaudhry, What John Kerry needs. I laughed and then started to cry. As a woman voter and one of the millions of "Security Moms" out there, I can say that I want to win, and get Bush out. I don't want cute...I want a qualified Vice President.

I would prefer a Retired 4 star general NATO Commander Rhode Scholar who helped write the Dayton Peace Accords and Lead the only war ever fought by NATO which saved 1.4 Million Albanian MUSLIMS from Genocide without causing a single American casualty and was against this war and happens to also be telegenic and super sexy with manly angular good looks.....

Then a Personal Injury Trial attorney with a few years experience in the Senate who voted for the war, against the 87 billion dollars, and added a few things in the Patriot Act...who has been campaigning for the last 2 years.....and to this day links the War on Terror to Iraq.

What's ironic about the article is that I could have sworn that John Kerry was doing just fine with the Female vote....and needed to work on the men per many polls. According to a line in this article "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 the linked article should remind of the meme that was floating around in New Hampshire back in January (the one that spurred all of the "sweater stories"....that General Clark was not polling as well with Democratic women....but was doing extremely well with the male vote.

Furthermore, The Democratic Party is already known as the "mommy" party. Talk of soft on Defense and on National security ain't going away. It's the only trump card the Republicans have! I would rather take it away from them (as we fight these 2 dang wars) with 2 Democratic Heroes vs. 2 GOP Zeros. The Heavy Medal Ticket is the way to go....to enable us to beat Bushco at their own game.
What we need is a ticket that will kick the Bush/Cheney's ass......and we don't need the Son of a Mill worker to lose this election for us. Heck, the man has yet to be vetted by the media. I don't even want to be think of a John-John/Senator-Senator/Voted for War-Voted for War/Voted against the 87 billion-voted against the 87 billion ....Hey lookit me VP!

For those political commentators who thinks that only Democrats will be voting on November 2nd, I guess they may want to push Edwards on the ticket. Lord knows, it's popular! But this election ain't American Idol......and I don't want someone on the ticket that was put there by Media manufactured adulation.

Thanks, but no thanks!

Respectfully,

Ok. I can understand that the article was demeaning, but, lets face it...isn't this about selling a product?
My experience with Clark supporters is that they are white men...I've seen more women interested in Edwards.

Well, whatever, right? Because if Kerry already has the female vote, he should get a VP to sell to another group...like southerners, white guys, hispanics, blacks...

I don't know. I agree that Clark would also be a good pick. I like him a lot. However, what accounts for his poor primary performances?...I mean, Edwards did way better. There were a lot of women who could have rallied behind Clark at that point, but must have gone with Edwards...just a thought.

The majority are a bunch of women trading photos of him standing with an open shirt, or posing in his spandex trunks lol

Of course they are also highly conversant with advanced doctrines of Modern War, International diplomacy, and skilled economic analysts ...

And, not only do I think the General's appearance is one of the sexist I've ever seen, I also happen to think his brain is keeper, too!

kerry needs help with white men mostly. one of the reasons kerry did well in the primaries was because he won the women's votes.

Have you noticed?

:eyes:

I wouldn't cast a vote based on the fact that Clark seems to blink at much slower rate than most people, but it does distract me. I know another guy who can sit and talk for long stretches without blinking, too.

Maybe I should confine myself to the lounge today. I think I have "seriousness fatigue."

Don't tell him I said that! He should see me try to dance--I'm sure he's a better dancer, more intelligent, and more principled than I will ever be.
Just ignore me, please. I've gone squirrelly.

I'm lost in squirrelly-land myself

the dynamics of the race even without a veep may be moving past the point where he is even needed for a extra landslide. In fact some of the dynamics of the war and security debacle make Clark look better if for no other reason than a lot of expert trusted work has to be done to restore our whole military plus foreign policy. This has me a bit worried in that it is like the Republicans stranded in campaign limbo while Dean rose and fell like an eclipsing meteor. Bush's messes have made the discussion about a VP complement murkier and necessary to postpone. But I have faith in the quality and intelligence of our people in this and am sure I will be enthusiastic about their choice as I have been with most of what they done so far.

Unless they pick Lieberman.

I voted Edwards. I still believe Clark would be more useful in another top position with more oversight on military and hands-on positions.

This result is the standard result. There never will be a change. The Clark supporters are never going become Edwards supporters. I still don't understand why they would want to put Clark into a positon like VP, when he could actually do something with his experience as Sec. of State.

to have slow blinking diplomats.

I still want someone to back me up on that...
oh, that's freakin' hilarious...

I understand that the person who blinks a lot is lying!

Maybe he has good working tear ducts and doesn't need to blink very often to keep his eyes moist. So he is more intelligent and has more tears than anyone else. lol

I once watch "Jesus of Nazareth," and the actor portraying Jesus hardly blinked throughout the whole mini-series! I think not blinking very much can be a good sign: it could be someone who's very honest and intelligent.

Clark's non-blinking is probably from being in the military. You're afraid to close your eyes for fear of being killed. When my husband was in WWII he was in the Phillipines and didn't sleep for 5 days! He said the adrenaline kicks in when bombs and bullets are flying by. :shrug: Just a thought. :) It sounds logical to me, but what do I know? :evilgrin:

That's about the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Mostly, because Clark would be in a better position to influence foreign policy as VP because he'd have a hand in overseeing both the State Dept AND Dept of Defense (as well as the other players in the NSC). Granted that the VP's role is up to the President, I do not believe that Kerry would choose Clark and then not use his skills and experience. And the current structure of the NSC puts the VP at the helm.

Also, I really do not believe that a Republican Senate would confirm Clark as SoS.

Finally, for a plethora of reasons that have been repeated endlessly, I strongly believe that Clark on the ticket best enhances Kerry's chances of winning the election. I understand that Edwards supporters feel differently, but that's not how I see it.

This poll is up nearly every day.
Clark always wins - for which I'm thankful - but we know the outcome.

You can vote only once! That is not how we do things down here in the South! :)

Like we do in Illinois? :evilgrin:

...Republican. I'm not sure if this has to do with voter fraud or if something is really f****d up over in the spirit world. :)