Kerry doesn't need to buttress his FP and military credentials.

I keep hearing the argument that Kerry 'must' choose a certain person as his VP to buttress his military and FP credentials, to which I say 'baloney!'. Kerry himself has more than enough credentials in both areas, and selecting the afore-referenced candidate as his VP would a.) be construed as an admitted weakness and b.) be seen as pandering.

A MUCH smarter move on Kerry's part would be to select someone young, vigorous, bright, personable and well-liked who could reach out to those voters Kerry himself has some trouble reaching--- Independents and disaffected, moderate Republicans. He needs help in the South, so a popular Southerner would also be a good choice. Guess who fills the bill on both counts?


Kerry-Edwards in '04!

"Independents and disaffected, moderate Republicans. He needs help in the South, so a popular Southerner would also be a good choice. Guess who fills the bill on both counts?"

Unless you can offer proof to the contrary?

:shrug:

And it wasn't 'his own'. He's from NORTH Carolina, and was only BORN in SC. He's also the only person who ran SECOND in any Southern state.

And here's a pretty compelling table: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/paag.phtml

Look at all those second places.

would consider the NC primary a real contest. The turnout was low enough that the loyal Edwards supporters could make it a "win".

Dean won Vermont. Who won Arkansas? :shrug:

I think I said most folks, everyone's entitled to their opinion of course.

Kerry clinched the nomination in early March as I recall. While you could have called it prior to that, I don't remember too many people calling it after just Iowa.lol

But you did you would realize that the caucus system dose not work in NC. In fact there was only one 3 caucus sites in my county. Now if we had a primary where independents and repukes could vote there would be a place to vote 2 minutes away from my house. And local polls are showing a Kerry/Edwards ticket tied with Bush.

But the race was over long before the NC primary. Don't you think that impacted how many caucus sites were set up and how many voters turned out?

But like I said caucuses don't work in this state. We could have had a huge voter turn out if independents and rupubs could have voted. Wake county is pretty big just for only a few caucus sites. But as I said earlier a Kerry/Edwards ticket is tied with Bush in NC.

Unless I missed something.

How well did he do in open primaries? Oh, that's right-- he dropped out before we had any, because he couldn't get DEMOCRATS to vote for him in sufficient numbers to stay in.

Silly me.

Silly you.

WRONG.
In open primaries, like Tennessee's, the neo-cons, who will NEVER vote for a Democrat in November, voted for Edwards to keep Clark out. Clark won in all the major cities, where there are more Democrats. Edwards won in the neo-connish rural areas.
I'm tired of arguing this point with people who weren't working the ground here in Tennessee, as I was.
I was here. You weren't. I know what happened. You don't. And that's all the proof I need.

:bounce: :bounce:

actual progressives instead of right wingers all the time. Why do DEMS always think they have to appeal to wingnuts? Perhaps then the Greens and/or Nader would be moot...

We need the middle to win this thing, and the Greens and Nader voters don't provice enough votes to do that.

in my eyes.

and you aren't the only one who votes. the fact is edwards has proven he can bring in more voters for kerry than the others have.

.

and polls show edwards helps bring crossover republicans to the ticket.

so it is meaningless to me. I also have no respect for polls. They can be slanted to depending on the way you ask the question. I don't want all crossover republicans if it means my candidate takes republican positions. I care about other issues besides abortion.

They have been shat on. They are the people who would work for Kerry if he gave a shit.

Kerry is going to have to devote a lot of time trying do get us out of the largest deficit in history. The domestic agenda will need Kerry's attention...... his VP should be someone experienced in Foreign Policy. Wes Clark can even help with the domestic issues. He has a Masters degree in economic...he use to teach it, you know. We cannot have a VP selected just because he has a nice smile and pretty hair. Choosing the best man for the job is NOT pandering. It's just smart politics.

:shrug:

Look...I like Wes Clark well enough. When he speaks on military matters he is brilliant. What I don't understand is why some people think the best position for him is VP and they state his Foreign policy experience and the foreign leaders who have supported him as the reason is needed as VP.

To me that is a resume for Sec. of State. I don't recall Cheney going out and meeting with foreign leaders and speaking at the UN. That was Powell.

What Kerry is going to need is someone to help him win back the Senate and help in the House. Without a change to the deadlock in Congress it won't matter about what Kerry proposes. It won't get through. Edwards is the type of man who can go out on the ground and do the fund raising and help to bring in more Democratic candidates. Then Kerry can get some of his proposals through.

I agree that Clark would be out there speaking with Foreign leaders, but that is why Clark is best for Kerry as Sec. of State and Edwards is best as VP. Together they provide the best of both worlds for Kerry.

of a boyish and irrelevant VP?
Why?

That the 8 years as VP that he was boyish and irrelevant? And again, did Cheney or Powell speak to foreign leaders and the UN?

I know that you do not like Edwards and most likely will write in Clark or someone else then vote for Kerry if Edwards is picked as VP, but you didn't answer the question about Clark.

If Kerry picks Edwards for VP and Clark for Sec. of State, would you still write in against Kerry because of your dislike for Edwards?

And I don't see Edwards as Boyish and irrelevant. I see him as intelligent, energetic and hopeful. If you ever read his real solutions booklet, you would have known that there were real hard facts behind his smile. I see him as the future of the Democratic party.

On edit:

And, yes, I would still write in a vote. A Kerry win doesn't equate a Clark SoS - it would still have to be approved by a mostly neo-connish Congress.
Besides, Holbrooke will be SoS - which is fine with me.
And I hope the future of the Democratic Party is Harold Ford Jr. - not a merry Mr. Sunshine.

Let me explain something to you Edwards people - before Clark came along, I pondered the race and picked Kerry and Edwards to vet for myself. Edwards failed miserable. Kerry did OK. Wes was perfect on entry. I know more about Edwards than you think I do. I live right next door to North Carolina and I have family who live there. They're not impressed, but he's an improvement over the neo-cons they usually have and that's the nicest thing they can say about him. They really resent that he has spent his whole time as senator running for president.
I just think he's fake and I hope the Dem Party doesn't go that route.

Another problem is that he is seen as particularly vulnerable on issues of national security ­ but that might be resolved, at least partially, by his choice of a running mate.

While the Kerry campaign "has been very close-lipped" about those choices and "many names have been nosed about," Mr Mark said, retired General Wesley Clark, a failed contender for the Democratic nomination, looked increasingly like a front runner.

"Clark may have the best shot," he said.

The choice of General Clark would continue a developing trend when it comes to vice-presidential picks, which once were designed to expand a candidates' geographic reach.

Now, Mr Mark said, "the choice is more about reinforcing a certain message than collecting a region's vote. Clark is strong on national security matters and Kerry is perceived as weak, so it would be a good fit."

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=9179&cid=15&cname=Politics

(However, I will vote for Kerry no matter what.)

Kerry could use someone with domestic governance experience. Someone who balanced a budget. Someone who provided health care. Not that I want to name any names.

"Someone who balanced a budget. Someone who provided health care. Not that I want to name any names."

How about Clark. He balanced the military budget and was in charge if health care. When did Edwards do those things? Dean did though.

Just a small little fact. ;)

...I think either would help Kerry.

But Clark would be an invaluable asset in dealing with Iraq. And as another poster notes, he does double duty as an advisor on domestic fiscal policy.

I'd have no problems if Kerry chooses Edwards as Veep, but I'd like to see him as the next AG.

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=26-May-2004&prgId=14

In the first segment, David Axelrod talks briefly about Kerry walking the line between talking about his military service without being TOO military in his advertisements.

polled, rate Kerry well above * on domestic/economic issues, but well below him on foreign policy/national security.

and many are buying it. Of course, this is totally false, but try telling that to the masses that believe we are "safer" with Bush.

Clark emphasizes Kerry strengths, and he never threw his ribbons or established a defense voting record that can be picked apart. Like it or not, that's what we're dealing with...

Rove is trying to use fear of terrorism to beat Kerry in November. If Kerry picks Clark for VP, this strategy will backfire big time on the Republicans. The War Heroes ticket (with the VP being one of the most highly decorated military officers since General Dwight D. Eisenhower) will trounce the chicken hawks.

"It is not until one reads Holbrooke's book, To End a War, that one finds out that after the APC went off the road, Clark grabbed a rope, anchored it to a tree stump, and rappelled down the mountainside after it, despite the gunfire that the explosion of the APC set off, despite the warnings that the mountainside was heavily mined, despite the rain and the mud, and despite Holbrooke yelling that he couldn't go." http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_8.html

Clark is the type of man that will deliver male votes for the Democrats.

that the Clark supporters, at least those who inhabit blogs, tend to be in the swing states.
There are four of us from Tennessee on DU who support Clark.
Scads of Ohioians and scores of Arkansonians.
These are your major swing states this year (and I'm basing this on personal observation, recent polls and stories) and the Clarkies reside in these states.
That's interesting in and of itself, military credentials aside.

kerry has knowledge on a variety of issues and he will actually be the president and make the final decisions and take responsibity unlike in the bush administration where we know cheney is the one really in charge. he doesn't need the vp to be the one who goes out and speaks on national security/foreign policy issues. notice the debate right now on many foreign policy/national security things seems to be between kerry and cheney. how embarrassing should that be for republicans ? the guy who is supposed to be their president has to pass on one of the number #1 jobs of the president to the vp.

having a different one from Bush. Given what has happened in Iraq the anti-Iraq war coalition are the most important voters, and the ones that are the most enthusiastic campaigners. Unfortunately they have no candidate to campaign for in this election.

clark ran as anti iraq war but dean kept saying clark supported the war. but there were anti iraq war people who voted clark and there were ones that voted for kucinich and others. even ralph nader who is anti war thinks those who voted for iwr are the best picks for vp.

a man with singularly shitty political judgement who ran in swing states. I don't believe that many antiwar people voted for Kerry. The Iowa caucuses are the thing that fucked it up. They are run like the political machines of old. They are a sham. It would have been a different story if the primaries started in Califorinia and the West Coast.

What's your point. I am personally from Iowa so I know where of I speak.

because they are part of the establishment and showed it by running in the iowa caucuses.

I admit this. I am interested in power. I have a better shot in California and the West Coast. Liberals should move those primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire next time. You conservatives took over with super tuesday. We have a right to change the playing field as well. Needless to say Edwards winning says nothing. It is just spin.

and i'm from california. not sure what this post is about.

Ronald Reagan picked George Bush the Elder. It didn't hurt him, and it wasn't played as a sign of perceived weakness, if anything it helped Reagan. Same with George Bush the Junior and Dick Cheney. Same with Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Picking a seasoned weighty running mate is often seen as a sign of strength. Think JFK and LBJ. Gore had more stature at the time than Clinton did. The only thing Michael Dukakis had going for him at the end was Lloyd Bentson as his running mate. Whoever Kerry picks, I hope he is able to promote the ticket as the Democratic leadership team. People expect more from the VP nowadays than they used to.