who is NOT a good vp choice ?

[JI7]

and i mean mostly from those who are being considered or are likely to be considered. and i don't mean people like al sharpton who we all know will not be asked or even in consideration. (not meant to offend sharpton or his supporters but i think it's something most if not all would agree to be true). also, please explain why that person(s) would not be a good choice.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Gephardt. He's a bore, a retread, and a turn-off.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. He's a politician of another generation...

And the midwest isn't voting for Kerry anyway.

[democratreformed]

2. Hillary Clinton

That's just my opinion, of course. I just feel like she would be too divisive right now and would lose as many votes as she would gain.

[NuckinFutz]

5. I agree

There is still too much furor and contention over the Clintons. I think Hilary on the ticket would do more harm than good.

[Piperay]

31. No Hillary...

I like her myself but she would be too polarizing, she'd bring out all the Clinton haters. :x(

[Ganja Ninja]

3. At this point, anybody but John Edwards.

I think the Democrats would be making a mistake if they don't choose him. He's the brightest young star in the party and since he's not running for re-election he would loose his national recognition over the next four years if Kerry looses.

[mistertrickster]

7. I agree--Edwards could help in the South.

Dean is too independent to be anybody's running mate. Carol Mosley-Braun impressed me in the debates.

I hope Bayh (the Democratic Dan Quayle--he still thinks we're gonna find WMD's) isn't in serious contention. Leiberman is probably out because he was too much of a pain in the buttocks attacking other candidates.

[rocktivity]

14. Edwards has everything we need--now and in 2012

Southern roots, humble origins, national name recognition, youthful exuberance. Edwards not only is in perfect balance to the Kerry ticket, he'll be only 58 when he steps into Kerry's shoes in 2012. The VP for 2004 MUST be the automatic frontrunner for 2012. Any woman other than Hillary would be consumed by a feeding frenzy of Dem AND Repub male challengers. There's no time, money or media support to "develop" an unknown. And anyone over the age of 55 runs of the risk of looking too old in 2012--or worse, too old school.

:headbang:
rocknation

[cosmokramer]

30. Beg to differ.

Aside from several key qualities he is lacking, Edwards has one serious, major flaw in qualifications:

Foreign Policy experience. Zilch. Zero. None. That is an automatic disqualification from the Kerry campaign.

[jmoss]

45. You have been badgering Edwards supporters for days.. and I fear that..

....you're running out of truthes..

"Foreign Policy experience. Zilch. Zero. None. "--I suppose people who sit on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee have no FP experience unless their names are Rockefeller or Kennedy?!

Your persistence in beating Edwards supporters down seems a bit overboard.

[cosmokramer]

49. Excuse me?

Is someone talking? Didn't think so.

[cosmokramer]

51. Actually, you are incorrect.

He doen't sit on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee at all.

He sits on the "Select Committee on Intelligence", and this is what they do:

"Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

That isn't "foreign policy experience" OR "military experience" OR "diplomatic experience".

Now, had he been on this committee, you might have a case...but he isn't, and never has been:

http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html

Now, I rest my case, with truths.

[jmoss]

59. This was the committee I was referencing Sen. Edwards sitting on..

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm

Thank you so much for taking some more of your precious time to thoughtfully correct my error.

[DemDogs]

61. More like half-truths - or worse

Edwards has served on the Intelligence Committee since 1999, I think. In that capacity he has visited with foreign leaders in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, at NATO, in London, etc. And he has met with our intelligence forces there, too. I don't know but meetings with Blair, Karzai, Sharon, etc. sounds like foreign policy experience to me, sounds like diplomatic experience to me. A lot of people said Bob Graham had this experience and used as evidence his service on the Intelligence Committee. Because the information with which they deal is the most sensitive you don't see the members grand-standing but they are dealing with the nitty-gritty of foreign policy. It takes a special gall to suggest that you are resting your case with truths when your recitation of the "truth" is so erroneous.

[rocktivity]

52. And how much foreign policy experience did the Pretzel-Dunce have?

What he learned at his daddy's knee? Edwards will have eight years to learn. And it isn't as though the Bush Regimes's foreign policy credentials are worth their weight in gold--I mean, oil.



:headbang:
rocknation

[cosmokramer]

54. And you see where the Pretzel Dunce got us?!?

yesterday's CNN/Gallup showed the weakness with voters for Kerry is with Nat. Sec/FP. Edwards gives him nothing there over Bush.

Times are different since a Pres and VP could lack FP experience. And the voters demand more.

[DemDogs]

62. Clark's policy: Bush is doing a great job as commander in chief

AND THEY HAVE IT ON VIDEOTAPE! THREE TIMES! AT LEAST!
Give me Edwards.

[Jai4WKC08]

71. Don't think so...

Once, but right after the invasion of Afghaistan. Kerry (and just about everybody) supported that action. And even then, Clark's complete remarks were cautionary about the administration's future.

If you know of two more times, post them.

And don't give us another out of context quote that praised the military, not the polticial leadership. We've all heard those way too many times.

[Sparkly]

80. Did I accidentally stumble upon FreeRepublic?

n/t

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

85. you gotta think about this for a second

Not to sound elementary, but this is VICE president were talking about... He doesn't have to be perfect.

[BL_Zebub]

4. Gephardt, Lieberman, Bayh, Breaux, Daschle, Miller, Edwards.

Just to name a few. Basically eliminate anyone in the current "leadership" of Congress and anyone who was remotely connected with this campaign.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Zell Miller isn't leadership...

Well okay, maybe Republican leadership.

[BOSSHOG]

6. An incredibly long list

Howard Dean - only because of geography (two new englanders on the ticket would be tough sell)

Mary Landrieu - she has to stay in senate and gain seniority

Barbara Boxer - don't need her to carry CA, but need her to stay in Senate

Evan Bayh - endorsed by bob novak

Zell Miller - added just for a monday afternoon chuckle. Actually, zell would be a great running mate for bush.

[Auntie Bush]

8. Also add Bob Graham to that list of no no's.

He already proved he has no national appeal.
Not in good health.
Perceived as a little old and kooky.
No IT factor or charisma.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Mary Landrieu would be great if she'd deliver Louisiana...

But this is a state where the democrats tend to be just as conservative as the Republicans without the appeal to the religious right. LA will be close but I bet it goes to Bush, even if Landrieu were on the ticket.

[goclark]

46. Women's Vote

Aren't we in need of the vote for women nation wide?
Wouldn't she help there too?

[Crunchy Frog]

28. The sad thing is

that Bush would stick Zell Miller onto his ticket in a heartbeat if he thought there was a political benefit to it, and the repub party and rank and file members wouldn't bat an eyelash over it.

They don't give a damn about purity and that is one of the reasons that they keep beating us.

On the other hand, some Democrats will piss and moan if someone is put on the ticket who used to vote Republican years ago, despite what his current politics may be.

[Rainbowreflect]

9. Me, I have too much baggage.

Lots of skeletons in my closet.

[californiahippie]

18. Mee too

I don't think i'll throw my hat in the ring this time around, for the sake of the party. A little too liberal.

[mobuto]

10. Tom Brokaw

That great liberal, John Fund, floated the idea in the WSJ. Like so many of his other floaters, however, its asinine.

[eissa]

11. Please not Gep

and others....

NO: Gep, Bayh, Lieberman, Clinton
YES: Graham, Harkin, Edwards

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. Dick Gephadrt.

That would make em SERIOUSLY upset at Sen. Kerry...

[PatGund]

13. Edwards

Edwards brings nothing of value to a Kerry campaign. Edwards shows too much of an "entitlement" attitude for my tastes, and he doesn't have much experience. A Southern Democrat with more foreign policy ability and experience would be a better choice.

[LandOLincoln]

24. You rang?

[DemDogs]

64. Entitlement? Are you joking? Edwards is self-effacing

This is a guy who earned everything he ever got, who swept floors and worked his way through college and law school, who started from nothing. And you think he feels entitled? He has so clearly said that he had the opportunities that he sees withdraw from others now and he wants them to have the opportunities that allowed him to succeed.
He worked hard to have a complete set of proposals (unlike Clark, who did, however, subsequently steal some of Edwards' ideas). He had a vision about why he was running that did start and end with "I" (unlike Clark). No one who worked with Edwards ever had a bad thing to say about him or his character (unlike Clark). Edwards did visit leaders overseas but he never took presents from known war criminals (unlike Clark) Edwards never ever praised Bush about anything ever, ever, ever (unlike Clark who praised Bush again and again ON VIDEOTAPE.)
Edwards has character and judgment and in the months of this campaign he never screwed up (unlike Clark -- remember his "Kerry has a bimbo off the record comment?).
Edwards has the kind of experience that we need on the ticket.

[SoonerShankle]

65. Wow! Mr. Negativity N. Divisiveness...

I know that we all have strong feelings about this election. And that we are all closet policy wonks ourselves, but geez! Assassinating the character of one of our own is so counterproductive.

Many of the candidates have similar policies. I doubt very seriously that Clark stole Edwards's ideas any more than any of the candidates stole Dean's thunder by continuously attacking Bush.

No doubt that Edwards is a nice guy who ran a positive campaign, but why malign Clark with statements about his character from Shelton, who was a friend and adviser of John Edwards (from Edwards's campaign website: "He is a fellow North Carolinian and has been a friend and advisor for many years. I will continue to seek his advice.").

The following sections are from a December 30, 2003 LA Times article:

"Clark Upset Allies By Meeting With Serbian War Criminal
Clark also was a soldier-diplomat who helped negotiate peace in Bosnia during the peace conference in Dayton, Ohio, and was praised for his negotiating skills. Those skills were on display again in the run-up to the bombing campaign against Milosevic's Serbian troops.

In one key meeting at Milosevic's White Palace headquarters in Belgrade, Clark methodically wore down the Serbian strongman -- repeatedly luring him into downplaying the size of his ground forces, then disproving each misstatement with photographic evidence.

"Clark was a facts person," said a NATO diplomatic who was there. "He would argue with very specific facts and get what we needed to achieve."

When negotiations with Milosevic ultimately proved futile, Clark commanded NATO's first military action in 1999. Overseeing an aerial bombing campaign that lasted 78 days, Clark led forces that defeated Milosevic and his army without one American casualty.
Less than a month after Clark vanquished Milosevic in June 1999, his bosses decided it was time Clark should leave. Defense Secretary William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton offered up a technically feasible bureaucratic explanation: Clark's successor, Gen. Joseph Ralston, would face a loss of rank if he were not promptly assigned to the NATO post.

Clark didn't buy it, then or now.

"I was fired," he flatly said early in November at a Milwaukee campaign stop.

Cohen and Shelton won't say exactly why they bounced Clark. But last summer, Shelton told a reporter: "I will tell you that the reason came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. ...Wes won't get my vote."
Cohen and Shelton won't say exactly why they bounced Clark. But last summer, Shelton told a reporter: "I will tell you that the reason came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. ...Wes won't get my vote."

Shelton has declined to elaborate, and Clark, in turn, has labeled Shelton's criticism "a smear," because Shelton made no specific charge that Clark could rebut. But there were others in the critics' chorus. Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the troops in Iraq, has been quoted saying he was certain Clark would not make a good president. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, in other interviews, essentially agreed with Franks.

Clark is stung, though not surprised, by the criticism. Like any military veteran, he has seen others who got on too fast a track eaten up by those who felt threatened.

Former ambassador to the U.N. and presidential envoy Richard Holbrooke thinks he knows what's happening.

"What's behind the criticism? Jealous generals," he said. "The worst nightmare would be to salute and call him Mr. President or Mr. Vice President."

The Shelton tiff, along with stories that followed about Clark's hard-charging, ego-driven style, made it clear that Clark's military record might be a mixed political blessing. Clark the cardboard cutout -- the "perfect modern officer," as the Washington Post Magazine called him in 1981-- might be as fallible as any politician, but he has yet to develop the politician's experience and survival instincts.

Holbrooke developed such confidence in Clark that he assigned him to negotiate, sometimes face to face with Milosevic. But it was Bosnia that also produced one of Clark's most serious missteps: his meeting, without State Department approval, with Milsoevic's most brutal henchman, Serbian general Ratko Mladic. Clark blames a State Department snafu for the lack of prior approval, but only he is responsible for swapping hats and posing for a toothy photo with the suspected war criminal.

"Nobody told me to exchange hats with Mladic. It was something I should not have done," says a contrite Clark.

Colleagues and critics of Clark say the general's experience negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords changed him for good, transforming him from a military man into a general-diplomat who could never simply salute and follow orders again."

I presume the presents you speak of is the exchange of hats with Mladic. Why do you resort to such namecalling and negativity. It is just plain unnecessary. Let me make up my own mind after reading the whole story, not sound bite negativity.

And how many times does the speaking for Bush thing need to be debunked and explained? Didn't we all want to give Bush a chance to do the right thing after he stole the election. We could all at least hope he would, even if deep in our hearts we knew otherwise.

And lastly, the Kerry intern comment has been thoroughly debunked by reporters who were at the off-the-record interview. Check out Slate and the DailyHowler (Feb. 13)

Edwards's experience: 6 years in Senate
Clark's experience: 34 years in U.S. Army, Joint Chiefs J-5, General, NATO Allied Commander, Supreme Allied Commander Europe....

Extoll the virtues of your chosen candidate, but quit maligning the character of fellow democrats who just may help us get Bush out of the White House.
:spank:

[SoonerShankle]

67. Quit maligning fellow democrats

:spank:

Grow up and quit assassinating the character of a fellow Dem who just may help us get rid of Bush.

Like Edwards all you want. Denegrating Clark isn't going to change the erroneous nature of much of the malicious info you espouse in your entry.

Clark didn't steal Edwards's platform any more than any of the others did Dean's anti-Bush diatribe. Most of the candidate's platforms are similar in many respects.

Clark was drafted by over 50,000 Americans who asked him to run, unlike Edwards.

General Shelton suffered from envy, and was/still is an adviser to fellow North Carolinian John Edwards (check Edwards own website for this info).

And the presents from war criminals you mention: Clark traded hats with one of Milosovic's generals. He later publicly admitted this was his own doing and a mistake (LA Times Dec. 30, 2003). The buck stops with him. He admits his mistake, unlike our current president.

Clark has explained time and time again that as a private citizen he hoped Bush would perform well early on in his tenure. Clark has long been a public critic of Bush. Only you and others like you have to stay hung up on what he said early on, rather than what he has said in subsequent YEARS (not months).

And Clark never made the "Kerry has an intern problem" remark that you attribute to him. This has been debunked on Slate, Daily Howler, and Spinsanity among others. A reporter who was actually at this off-the- record interview says it is not what was said, so why continue spreading rumor, innuendo, and lies.

We need to work together to beat Bush, not be divisive and petty.

[genius]

15. Anyone who will cost us a Senate seat

We need to keep as much of the Senate intact as possible.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Forget the Senate...

As long as our VP nominee isn't up for re-election in 2004 a senate person is fine. Having the VP gain us the white house is MUCH more significant than a single senate seat.

[genius]

34. A Republican Senate will handicap a Democatic President.

Edwards isn't running for re-election so he is one Senator who would be okay. Anyone who would have to resigne from the Senate is a very bad idea unless their governor is a Democrat.

[genius]

16. Right wing conservatives. They'll make the liberals doubt Kerry

Nominating a conservative VP will end up the same way as 2000.

[Leilani]

17. Everyone except Wes Clark

Today's CNN/USA/GALLUP poll shows Kerry leading on domestic issues.

Kerry behind Bush on terrorism, Iraq, & FP.

Wes Clark adds support where Kerry is weak.

Kerry is strong on domestic issues; other candidates don't add anything.

[Sparkly]

81. Kerry behind Bush on terrorism, Iraq, & FP

Exactly.

[mndemocrat_29]

19. Interesting topic

I like all of these people, but I don't think it'd be a good idea to have them on the ticket:

1. Hillary Clinton-Brings too much baggage to the ticket. I like that she's in the Senate, she should stay there (plus, Pataki would appoint a Republican).

2. Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham-I group them together because they both ran rather lackluster presidential campaigns. They would both be good in the cabinet (I'd in fact be rooting for them), but they wouldn't deliver their states (if they could, then they'd be frontrunners) and wouldn't add any new life to the ticket.

3. Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, and Nancy Pelosi-I love you all, but you're too liberal to run nationwide. Stay in Congress where you'll do the most good.

4. Howard Dean-You bring no geography to the ticket. I hope you either run for the Senate or are appointed to the Cabinet.

[lams712]

20. Any DLC/centrist/"new" Democrat/Blue Dog Democrat

would make me less enthusatic. I would still vote for Kerry, but my $$$ contibutions and volunteer hours would be down considerably. Kerry has the opportunity to seize control of the Democratic Party and change the present mediocre course its on right now due to the DLC/centrist influence.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Sticking a centrist leader in the VP slot...

Is sometimes the best way to get them to shut the hell up. Although, if we do this it's probably best to pick somebody who is too old to run for prez in 2012 and hope that Kerry doesn't die.

[lams712]

47. I agree...

....maybe I need to hold my nose and vote for a ticket with a centrist on it. Like you said, it might just shut them up for a while. If that's the case, then hopefully pick a person who would NOT be the presumptive nominee in 2012. I guess I could tolerate Bob Graham in such a role, or Wesley Clark.

[salin]

50. I don't mind blue dogs... but some have gone nearly red...

take Bayh - 'fiscal conservative' dem governor... the type - make a new program - OR a new tax cut be revenue neutral before supporting it. But some of these folks (including Bayh) left the fiscal at the door after bush was elected - and are tax cut happy (without the requisite cuts - because they would HAVE to be so deep that they really don't want those cuts... so they delay the payment on the taxcuts for later.) Bayh falls in the "no longer a Blue Dog" category.

[Jack from Charlotte]

27. Dick "The Stent" Cheney (NT)

[cosmokramer]

29. Edwards....

...and any other candidate with legislative only experience.

Kerry can't choose another legislative only candidate...no balance.

This, and the obvious flaws in the qualifications of Edwards.

Though I have to say David Duke would be worse. :)

[atre]

39. You only know one note, right?

Every one of your posts is anti-Edwards, as far as I can tell.

[cosmokramer]

41. Then you have not read all of my posts.

[atre]

42. Fair enough...

... but judging by your post count, I've read at least a third of them and IIRC all of those were anti-Edwards.

[cosmokramer]

43. I will not deny...

...my personal feelings about Edwards. I think he is a bad choice for VP, as do many others.

However, I disagree with the assumption that I am somehow concentrating efforts on posting that feeling about Edwards. The subject matter over the last week has been overwhelmingly VP selections and primary results--posting on those topics at this time in DU history is not only appropriate, but normal. I post primarily in the political forums, but I guarantee you it isn't all about Edwards.

Discussing Howard Stern doesn't interest me, and I don't care who saw what concert last night.

Actually, I see no reason to have to defend myself at all.

[atre]

77. Let's face the facts

You have over 300 posts, every single one of which is an attack on Edwards. Since this discussion, you've done nothing to dissuade me that is your mission here. Please, show me some links to threads where you don't attack Edwards.

[LandOLincoln]

57. Her posts aren't "anti-Edwards," they're anti-Edwards AS VP. So are my

posts, and with good reason.

Please don't be so touchy. We like Johnny Sunshine just fine--at least I do--but I think he'd be a disaster as VP. OTOH, I think he'd be a fine AG.

[atre]

78. The one-note crowd

Are you guys coordinating your anti-Edwards efforts? How many of you guys are there, by the way? You "all" are so similar it's hard to say.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Evan Bayh

He has pissed off a lot of Hoosier Democrats.

[salin]

58. bye-bye Bayh from these conversations

no on Bayh for veep.

[Torgo4]

74. Evan Bayh, However...

Could help us Hoosiers paper over the never-ending embarassment of Dan Quayle!!

[goobergunch]

33. Anybody that causes us to lose a Senate seat.

Meaning Nelson, Clinton, or Feinstein.

[mandyky]

35. Bill and Hillary are way too polarizing

The Clintons

[Dr Fate]

37. Has anyone thought of ROGER???

He IS a Clinton- and he would have the black-sheep vote sewn up...

[BringEmOn]

36. Republicans....of either party

[neverborn]

38. Bayh, Hillary, Zell.

[arewethereyet]

40. anyone who ran for president

from the south or northeast, H.Clinton or A.Gore

[Alex146]

44. Dean

sad to say it but we don't need to New England Liberals.

[katieforeman]

48. Graham, Clark, Gephart, Bye

As a Democrat, I think these are great men and would enthusiastically cast my vote for them. However, in a general election they could spell disaster.

Gephart- WE already have to defend Kerry's 19 year voting record. Do we really want to defend Gephart' too? Between them they have over 50 years in Congress. How many tax increases do you think they both voted for in that time period. Republicans are already trying to label Kerry as a tax and spend liberal-Gephart's presence on the ticket makes it doubly effective.

Unlike Kerry, Gephart voted for the 87 billion in Iraq. Kerry is already having trouble explaining the "nuance" of his votes against the first Gulf War and for the Second Gulf War, but against the 87 billion for Iraq. Trying to explain Gephart's position and Kerry's would require even more "nuance." Ultimately, Gephart's presence on the ticket gives more legs to the Kerry as flip-flopper attack.

Finally, Gephart is a clumsy attack dog. It's true George W. Bush is a "miserable failure" but you don't win elections by name-calling. Gephart hurt himself more than anyone else when he went negative in Iowa.

We need John Edwards. From his years as atrial lawyer, he knows how to attack Bush/cheney's credibility without damaging Kerry's credibility or his own credibility.

Clark- He opposed the war for strategic reasons. (In my opinion he was right.) However, trying to reconcile Clark and Kerry's positions would likely exacerbate the "flip-flop" perception.

Although Wesley Clark is extremely intelligent, he has a tendency to make gaffs requiring lots of retractions and restatements and clarifications of positions. Again flip-flop. flip-flop.

Edwards on the other hand is a disciplined experienced campaigner with a voting record virtually identical to Kerry's during the short time he has been in the Senate.

Graham- Like Clark he thought the Iraq War was a strategic mistake. Again, we don't need to add anymore "nuance" to the tickets positions on National Security. Also, has very long voting record. Who knows what's lurking there. Also very poor campaigner. Did anyone see the event on c-span where he started singing. I personally find his quirks very charming, but we don't need those kinds of stories. Also he just had heart surgery. Is he really up to the task? What if he has a heart attack or other cardiac problem.

Edwards is bar-none the best campaigner in the party today and he is young and energetic with a short voting record in the Senate.

Bye-most charismatically challenged ticket ever.

[elsiesummers]

53. Graham, Lieberman - not good.

Graham because he's sorta goofy and stumbles occasionally in interviews.
Simply not good at getting a message across. Also - the bovine heart valve. If he was not from Florida, no one would consider this guy. If Biden or Dodd, for example, had Graham's regional position, this would be a done deal - but because Graham is an inherently weak candidate he is not at the top of the list. If Kerry chooses Graham it is solely on the basis of Florida - 2000 redux. Yuck.

Lieberman - not because he's a bad candidate but because he argued so much against Kerry's positions that there is no way to reconcile his past remarks - the whole campaign would be on defence - and also not a good candidate electorally - and would lose a Senate seat.

Edwards is the best choice as an attractive and inspiring national candidate. There are many others that would be fine, but have various weakness.

[genius]

55. Bad choices: Bayh, Lahdrieu, Breaux, or Dem senators.

Conservatives will lose Kerry the election: the Nader factor. Democratic senators will cost him any progress during his presidency.

[cosmokramer]

56. I completely agree with you.

Too far right, and we lose the far left.

[jsw_81]

60. Lieberman

[shoopnyc123]

63. I wanna see Clark debate Cheney REAL BAD! (eom)

[MoonRiver]

66. JOHN McCAIN!

[katieforeman]

68. gephardt, gephardt, gephardt

Jonathon Kohn wrote a piece in the New Republic pushing Gephardt over Edwards. Here is my response to his arguments:

Kohn: Geography- Gephardt has a geographic advantage over Edwards because Democrats have better prospects in the Midwest than South.

Response: Picking a candidate solely on the assumption that he/she will carry home state or have appeal in neighboring states is a mistake. Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephardt lost in IA, his own backyard, this year. In the age of national media, home state advantage isn't what it used to be. Furthermore, there are many closely contested states this year. We need a ticket with appeal to swing voters in all of the battleground states. Edwards demonstrated his appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents in states like WI. Edwards finished ahead of Gephardt in IA. By making some of the Southern states contestable, Edwards forces Bush to spend time and resources there.

Kohn: Gephardt has a loyal labor base.

Response: Labor will be with us this year regardless of Kerry's running mate. The only substantive difference between Gephardt and Edwards here is the China vote. However, we can't really use this as a selling point because Kerry voted for China agreement. Furthermore, Gephart's labor constituency didn't demonstrate much loyalty to him in the primaries.

Kohn: Gephardt's somewhat more conservative social positions (Gephart voted for ban on partial birth abortions) will help us in the Midwest.

Response: To win a Senate seat in North Carolina as a Democrat, Edwards must be socially conservative enough to appeal in the Midwest. Besides Nader is running, Gephardt's vote to ban partial birth abortion could hurt us with potential Nader voters.

Kohn: Gephardt speaks language of blue collar workers in the Midwest.

Response: As someone who has worked in a mill himself,Edwards speaks it too. As I've already pointed out Edwards beat Gephart in IA.

Kohn: Gephardt is a better attack dog than Edwards.

Response: Gephardt is a clumsy attack dog. He hurt himself more than any of his rivals with his negative attacks in IA. Calling Bush a "miserable failure" won't help us in the general election. That kind of language turns off swing voters, allows Bush to dismiss our criticisms as attack politics as usual, and puts us in the position of defending ourselves. Edwards is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. From his experience as a wildly successful plaintiff's attorney, Edwards knows how to attack Bush/Cheney's credibility withour damaging ours in the process. Edwards didn't win his trials by calling the defnedent's names. We won't win this election by name-calling. Edwards is the most qualified running mate to make our case against Bush/Cheney.

Kohn: Gephardt's political liabilities are well-known and he's overcome them in many elections in the past.

Response: Gephardt's liabilities make the Republican lines of attack against Kerry doubly effective. How many tax increases do you think Kerry/Gephardt have voted for in their 50+ years in Congress? How many contradictory positions have Kerry/Gephardt taken on issues during their long careers as insider Washington politicians? How much special interest money have Kerry/Gephardt taken and how many favors have they done for unpopular constituents? (This really hurts with potential Nader voters because it blurs the difference between Democrats and Republicans.)

Furthermore, Gephardt voted for the 87 billion in Iraq. Kerry didn't. This adds fule to the fire of Kerry as flip-flopper. Kerry is going to have a tough time explaining some of his "nuanced" positions on Iraq. Failure to reconcile Gephart's and Kerry's votes could be a serious blow to the crdibility of Kerry/Gephart.

Edwards, on the other hand, has a short voting record that, much to Edwards' chagrin during the primaries, is almost identical to Kerry's. Kerry/Edwards could present a unified position on Iraq.

Kohn: Gephardt has more experience and stature than Edwards. This would help Gephardt against Cheney and make Gehart a better vice-president or president if something happened to Kerry.

Response: Our main line of attack against Bush/Cheney is not going to be that they lack experience. If we are going to win, we need to successfully attack their record and their credibility and present our own competing vision for the future of this country. Edwards can do this better than anyone. Furthermore, Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton when they were elected President. Edwards and Kerry were each beating Bush by about 10 points in recent national polls. This would not be the case if people didn't perceive Edwards to be qualified.

Choosing a vice-president is about shaping the image of Kerry in the public's mind. We need a vp whose close linkage to Kerry improves Kerry's brand and we need a vp who can effectively sell the Kerry package. Edwards is that man. Kerry/Edwards would be a ticket of optimism, change, and energy. Edwards is the best campaigner in our party today, he connects with voters and can sell them on Kerry. Kerry/Gephardt would be a ticket of old-style politics and Washington insiders.

Sometimes, the obvious choice is also the best choice. Please, please Senator Kerry and Democratic establishment, let's win this one. We would be crazy to pass up Edwards.

Kerry/Edwards 2004

[disenfranchised]

69. Katie, that's an awesome post.

I agree that the obvious choice is the best choice in this case.

[katieforeman]

70. Thanks disenfranchised

[spooky3]

76. I agree; great post, Katie!

[ArkDem]

72. Blanche Lincoln

.

[democratreformed]

73. I'll second this one. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw her name

on some of the lists. She doesn't appeal to me at all.

[Fleshdancer]

75. McCain n/t

[katieforeman]

79. Bayh

1.) Expectations
Democrats in the primaries and in polls have shown a clear preference for Edwards as VP. Many Kerry voters I talked to seemed to be under the impression they were voting for Kerry/Edwards. Some of them might feel betrayed if Kerry turns a deaf ear to their preferences. Furthermore, it would be difficult for Bayh to live up to the inevetable comparisons with Edwards. There might even be a slight dip in the polls after the anouncement of Bayh over Edwards. Kerry could loose some of the swing voters Edwards won over already.

2.) National appeal
Edwards was beating Bush by about 10 points in national polls, about the same margin as Kerry at the time. Bayh has no proven appeal outside IN.

2.) Midwest appeal
I'm from OH, and I don't know many people who have even heard of Bayh. Furthermore, I really don't think a swing voter in OH, will care if Kerry's running mate is from IN when she steps into that voting booth.

Just because Bayh's from a Midwestern state doesn't mean he will be able to connect with voters in OH or in any other Midwestern state. Home state or neighboring state advantage isn't what it used to be. People move from state to state more frequently and local media has lost ground relative to national media. Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephardt lost in IA. There is little evidence Bayh would help in OH or the Midwest and Bayh's somewhat stiff demeanor might not be that appealing to voters in other swing states either. Edwards connects with people. Bayh seems like just another stiff politician. Idon't think he's play all that well in the south or the midwest.

John Edwards has already demonstrated his ability to appeal to voters in the Midwest. He collected 34% of the vote in the OH primary.
I've personally had swing voters in OH say to me, "you know who I kind of like? John Edwards." In WI, John Edwards won among moderate Republicans and Independents. Bayh's appeal outside of IN is a big unknown.

3.) Nader
More of the left wing of the party might be driven into Nader's arms if we went with a DLC candidate. Edwards has the unique ability to appeal to swing voters and would-be Nader voters alike. Even Nader likes John Edwards.

4.) Campaigning skills
John Edwards is the best campaigner of the potential vp cnadidates. If I were John Kerry, Edwards is the one I'd want representing me and making my case every single day. Bayh is an unknown as a campaigner. My impression is that Bayh's really lacking in Charisma.

5.) Kerry/Edwards brand
Kerry and Edwards look great together. Edwards brings out Kerry's natural smile and warmth. A Kerry/Edwards ticket is just fresher than a Kerry Bayh ticket. Kerry/Edwards evokes energy and optimism guided by Kerry's steady, experienced hand. Kerry/Bayh would be a ticket of somewhat stiff professional politicians.

6.) Cheney debates
With his experience as a trial lawyer, I can't imagine anyone better to put up on the stage opposite Dick Cheney than John Edwards. Just the contrast between Edwards and Cheney would help the ticket. Edwards v Cheney would be youth and optimism v old cronyism. Bayh v Cheney would just be two politicians sorely lacking in charisma.

7.) Edwards has already been vetted during this primary process. He has experience running a national campaign and a national base of enthusiastic supporters. He's a disciplined candidate who stays on message and he has a short voting record.

8.) 2012
Edwards would be Super Candidate in 2012. With 8 years vp experience under his belt, he would be unstoppable. We don't want to 8 years of Kerry's accomplishments to be undone by another Bush in the White house in 2012.

I honestly don't see what Bayh brings to the table besides more years in the Senate and more votes to provide ammunition to Rove.

PS I've mentioned Bayh to friends and family in OH. After I explained who he was, they thought Bayh was a terrible idea too. They like Edwards!

Sometimes the obvious choice is also the best choice.


Kerry/Edwards 2004

[k in IA]

82. No Gephardt - I would be so depressed

[Clyyyde]

83. Next VP

Needs to be one of Fla senetors.

[DyedNTheWoolDemocrat]

84. I think any of the candidates are not wise choices.