Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CNN Veepstakes: Round 2 - Who'd you vote for?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:16 AM
Original message
CNN Veepstakes: Round 2 - Who'd you vote for?
Edited on Thu May-06-04 08:18 AM by sirjwtheblack
My votes:

Edwards
Cleland
Richardson
Feingold
Gephardt
McCain (because Kerrey being VP candidate taints the impending 9/11 Commission report, and that's going to be a LOT more valuable than ANY VP candidate)
Feinstein
Landrieu

So who'd you pick in Round 2?

edit: add this link: http://dynamic.cnn.com/apps/PE/veepstakes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. wes clark! :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Edwards got most votes with 95%. VERY telling.
IIRC:

Edwards
Cleland
Richardson
Feingold
Clark
Kerrey
Feinstein
Landrieu

This is kind of fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. yes, cmg, edwards definitely adds dynamism and popularity to the team.
and, it doesn't hurt that they look great together.
if edwards is good for the ticket, he's good for me! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. He got 95% of the votes when there were 24 (?) people from whom to chose?
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. No. He was paired with Jim Clyburn who got 5%
Here are the results of the first round:

SOUTHERN BRACKET
John Edwards (95%) defeats Jim Clyburn (5%)
Bob Graham (54%) defeats Bill Nelson (46%)
Max Cleland (74%) defeats Phil Bredesen (26%)
Mark Warner (63%) defeats John Breaux (37%)

GRAVITAS BRACKET
Dick Gephardt (69%) defeats Joe Biden (31%)
Wesley Clark (82%) defeats Bill Clinton (18%)
Bob Kerrey (62%) defeats Sam Nunn (38%)
John McCain (64%) defeats Tom Brokaw (36%)

WOMEN'S BRACKET
Hillary Clinton (66%) defeats Ann Richards (34%)
Dianne Feinstein (56%) defeats Janet Napolitano (44%)
Mary Landrieu (66%) defeats Blanche Lincoln (34%)
Kathleen Sebelius (51%) defeats Debbie Stabenow (49%)

SHOWDOWN STATES BRACKET
Bill Richardson (88%) defeats Gary Locke (12%)
Tom Vilsack (54%) defeats Ed Rendell (46%)
Evan Bayh (69%) defeats Jay Rockefeller (31%)
Russ Feingold (78%) defeats James Doyle (22%)

As you can see Clark got 82% against CLINTON. While Clinton might not even be eligible to be VP, he is still the most popular Democrat. So, Clark did pretty well, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. This is nothing against Clark, but maybe Clinton got so few votes because.
...he's ineligible for the position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Bill Clinton is not ineligible for Veep
He cannot serve as Pres again, but I read that a former Pres can be a Veep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Hmmmmm...just a wee bit impressive for Wes Clark?!
BTW, welcome to DU Sopianae! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
47. Hi Sopianae!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickgutierrez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. My bracket
Bob Graham (he'll definitely lose, but I've got to like the idea of bringing him on board if only because he WILL carry Florida)
Max Cleland (Take THAT, Republican Party)
Wes Clark (my #3 guy throughout the primary process, behind Kucinich and Kerry)
John McCain (only because Kerrey is involved with the 9/11 Commission)
Hilary Clinton (see comment for Cleland)
Mary Landreau ("I will NOT yield" -- remember that?)
Bill Richardson (could bring the Southwest even more into play than it already is)
Russ Feingold (would drive the fiscal not-so-conservatives in the current administration NUTS, and he may bring the Nader vote home)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angryinoville Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. Wes Clark!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freetobegay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. wes clark! :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkamber Donating Member (507 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. Ok my picks
Edwards
Warner
Richardson
Feingold
Clark
McCain
Feinstein
Landrieu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. Easy to predict that the final two will be Edwards and Clark
Edited on Thu May-06-04 11:10 AM by Rowdyboy
Edwards from the Southern/battleground side, Clark from the gravitas/women's side. I expect Edwards to run but Clark will give him a damn good run. After all, he bear The Big Dog, Bill Clinton 82%-18%. Granted, the idea of Clinton as vp is a little silly.

My picks this round were:


Graham
Cleland
Richardson
Bayh
Clark
Kerry
Feinstein
Landrieu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. i think clark beat the big dog
because the big dog is probably not eligible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Um. Bill Clinton is not a candidate.
And it you think for a second that Clark could beat Clinton - even in an unscientific online poll, that is very telling about your political instincts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Oh, for Christ's sake!
Half the people on this stupid list aren't serious candidates. This is a game.

And if you think for a second that Clinton would CONSIDER running as Kerry's vp-even in an unscientific, online poll, that is very telling about your political acumen.

See, its easy to be snotty online...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. Here's My Picks:
Bob Graham
Max Cleland
Bill Richardson
WESLEY CLARK!! (Our only hope for a win)
Bob Kerry ( No repbublicans,sorry)
Diane Feinstein (Hillary IS NOT running!)
Russ Feingold (On Wisconsin!)
Mary Landrieu


*Why would anyone pick Geppy, as cool as he is, over Clark???
Maybe, if you want 4 more years of chimpy . ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
29. You picked the EXACT
same ones that I did. Great minds must think alike. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-04 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. Give me a freakin break
Wes Clark is NOT "our only chance to win." That's just ridiculous. If he was good enough to be a difference-maker in the general election, he would've made more waves in the primary season.

Clark would be a dynamic running mate. I put him in my top three for that position... But I am so disgusted by the Clark supporters here who proclaim that he is the only way we can win. He's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-04 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. You can be disgusted all you want but
It's a legitimate viewpoint.

We are a nation at war and people are afraid/concerned/pick-ur-word about terrorism. Kerry (and Democrats in general) is perceived to be weak on defense. If he doesn't do something to change that perception, we lose. Simple as that.

It doesn't matter how badly BushCo is bungling Iraq. He's the devil they know.

There are plenty of people who would actually prefer to see Clark as Sec of State, but they also see that Kerry needs Clark for the "commander" theme (as Brownstein called it). The other possible VPs have nothing to offer on that score.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. It's an illegitimate view: Clark is not the only way to victory
If the election were held today, Kerry would win. If Clark were truly the "only way to win," you Clarkies would all pack up your bags and head out the day that Kerry announces someone else as VP. I don't think that will happen.

Kerry can win without Clark. Kerry will win without Clark.

I do appreciate your candor about the reason for supporting Clark as a VP selection. It's very revealing that the Clarkies are so tied into propogating the "culture of fear." I hadn't thought about his supporters in that light, but now you've made it clear. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Finch Donating Member (487 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. My Picks

Edwards
Warner
Biden
Borkaw
Feinstein
Landrieu
Vilsack
Bayh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Biden and Brokaw were eliminated in round 1...
you were not able to vote for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. I hope Feingold kicks Bayh's butt! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ImThatOneGuy Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. Pick the Southern Boys!
My personal picks have to be Wes Clark and John Edwards. They add the crucial dynamic charisma to the Democratic ticket that Kerry obviously lacks. Any one of those would be a terrific boost to Kerry and his message. An experienced Senator like Kerry would pair up wonderfully with an articulate and gregarious Southern Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregory Wonderwheel Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
19. Feinstein is a pro-Death Penalty pro-war hawk.
Feinstein is a Republican in Democrat dresses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
20. Same people you picked, except
I picked Clark over Gephardt (I think..., well I picked Clark somewhere!) and I picked somebody else over Cleland. Can't remember who, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
21. I did...
Graham
Cleland
Clark
Kerrey
Feinstein
Landrieu
Richardson
Feingold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. How come all the Clark supporters picked Graham over Edwards?
But most Edwards supporters picked Clark.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scoopie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Because the main reason we don't
like Edwards is his lack of FP experience.
Graham has oodles - but he doesn't out-oodle Clark. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. For me
it was Graham's experience on the intelligence committee, his opposition to the war in Iraq, and Florida's 27 electoral votes. If I had my way though, the brackets would have been done differently so that Edwards wouldn't have been eliminated so early. It just doesn't make sense having Edwards against Graham in the 2nd round, when you have Hillary Clinton vs. Diane Feinstein and Max Cleland vs. Mark Warner in other brackets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Then why did edwards beat Grahan in polls after the primary in Florida
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-04 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Because...
Ice cream has no bones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #30
40. A good platitude can always solve any perplexing riddle
That's cute. But do you have any real, rational reason to support your contention that Clark is the only way we can win or even the best way we can win? Edwards and several others have demolished Clark on every poll on point. The only place where Clark does well is here and on the online polls the DU Clarkies freep. And we know the election is what truly matters here.

Take a poly sci class, and you'll learn that image (ice cream, as you say) is what matters in politics. Perception is reality along the beltway. Sad but true. So, clearly the VP candidate with the best "ice cream," or the one whose "ice cream" best fits the Presidential candidate's flavor would provide the best road to the White House.

We're getting conflicting signals from the Clarkies (not surprising, since they certainly are not monolithic). But the overarching theme I see in you guys is that you guys do not really believe that Clark as VP provides the best road to the White House, but rather that he would be the best VP if elected (and then Kerry is killed). That's certainly a legitimate belief (although illegitimate in that it's based on incorrect assumptions: See my post below). But, regardless, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest - as many here have - that Clark is the only way Kerry can win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Sorry for the cuteness. Now for a serious reply :)
"Then why did edwards beat Grahan in polls after the primary in Florida"

Basically, because Edwards had name recognition and was getting media attention from the primary. So democratic voters were aware of him, and understandably, they tended to like him. But unfortunately for us, polls this far out have only limited meaning, especially when they are of only democratic primary voters.

"But do you have any real, rational reason to support your contention that Clark is the only way we can win or even the best way we can win? Edwards and several others have demolished Clark on every poll on point. The only place where Clark does well is here and on the online polls the DU Clarkies freep. And we know the election is what truly matters here."

In polls of how many Democrats want X person to be VP, Edwards does indeed win. However, those polls by themselves are not all that should be considered in picking a VP. It's a positive in Edwards' favor, not huge, but also not neglible.

"Take a poly sci class, and you'll learn that image (ice cream, as you say) is what matters in politics. Perception is reality along the beltway. Sad but true. So, clearly the VP candidate with the best "ice cream," or the one whose "ice cream" best fits the Presidential candidate's flavor would provide the best road to the White House."

Quite true. The thing that Clark brings to the table in this regard is perception of strength on national security and foreign policy matters.

"We're getting conflicting signals from the Clarkies (not surprising, since they certainly are not monolithic). But the overarching theme I see in you guys is that you guys do not really believe that Clark as VP provides the best road to the White House, but rather that he would be the best VP if elected (and then Kerry is killed). That's certainly a legitimate belief (although illegitimate in that it's based on incorrect assumptions: See my post below). But, regardless, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest - as many here have - that Clark is the only way Kerry can win."

I do believe that Clark would be the best VP if elected. As for the best VP electorally, I don't think that there is a really clear choice. If a Clark or an Edwards were from either Ohio or Florida, for example, then that person would be an obvious choice. But as it is, there are no serious VP candidates from Ohio, and the two from Florida both have their oft discussed drawbacks. I will be happy with basically any Vice President, although I would prefer Clark. I hope that Kerry makes his pick based largely upon electoral calculation, because I want to win.

Now, the two main reasons for picking Clark over Edwards:

1) We have a significantly better chance at winning Arkansas than North Carolina. (though North Carolina carries a bigger prize). If we win Arkansas and New Hampshire, and hold the Gore states, we win the election, even without Ohio, Florida, Nevada, etc.
2) Kerry's main weakness in national polls has been on national security. The only issues that Bush polls on top of Kerry are things like "terrorism" and "the war in Iraq." Clark could help in that area. Edwards isn't likely to. If a voter's main concern is economic populism, they are not going to vote for Bush anyway - if they are concerned about national security, they may think that the Democrat Kerry is "soft on defence." Note also that Bush's ad campaigns have been targetted on national security. It's all he has going for him, besides hating Gay people.

I don't think at all that Clark is the only way that Kerry can win. I think he would be a very solid VP pick, and based on what I know, he would be slightly better than Edwards. Kerry also has access to all sorts of internal polling data, and binders of info on Clark, Edwards, and other potential VP's, that I don't. So hopefully he can make a more informed decision and pick the best person, whether that is Clark, Edwards, Graham, Bayh, Nelson, Richardson, Vilsack, or Pinnochio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-04 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. Which really is silly
since VP is a legislative and not a FP position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Are all Edwards supporters...
As uninformed as Edwards?

VP is NOT a legislative position. VP is part of the executive branch. Yes, one of the VP's duties is to break ties in the Senate, but another is to oversee the National Security Council.

And the MOST important duty of VP is to step in should, God forbid, anything happen to the President.

Look, the majority of us support Clark precisely because we believe foreign policy and national security experience is critical. How can you expect us to favor Edwards as VP over just about anybody? We're just not swayed by the "two Americas" and "son of a mill worker" bullshit. Talk is cheap--give us someone who's been there and done it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Yeah, talk is cheap... that's why you find so much that ain't worth readin
Edited on Sun May-09-04 12:35 AM by atre
I really shouldn't grace your groundless personal attack with a reply, but I'm in a giving mood. Happy Mother's Day:

I guess you apparently think that "VP is a legislative position" and "VP is part of the executive branch" are mutually exclusive thoughts? So much so that you placed this point in bold as if you've actually scored a real point? I'm embarassed for you. You toss around insults like "uninformed" yet flout such poor logical deduction skills, all while appearing very bitter.

VP is primarily a legislative position, notwithstanding the fact that it is a position within the Executive Branch. Consider for a moment the position of Solicitor General, the person the White House has argue its cases before the Court. While the Solicitor General is certainly a member of the "Executive" Branch, it is patently absurd to suggest that it is an "executive" role, at least if you use any English Dictionary. Clearly, the position is "judicial" or "legal" in nature.

The VP's many "legislative" roles include not only "breaking ties," as you say, but PRESIDING over the Senate. This is the only constitutional role specifically vested in the Vice Presidency by the Constitution.

You are partially correct in that, in modern times, the Vice President has taken on increasing significance by the addition of new roles. It's true that Dick Cheney has a seat at the National Security Council (I don't think he "heads" it, as you say), but I don't think that Gore assumed this role; I believe it's more of a Bush II (Cheney pulling the strings) kind of thing. However, there are also other "new" roles enjoyed by the position. For example, the VP has also become the President's CHIEF LOBBYIST in Congress. Witness the fact that both Al Gore and Dick Cheney had not one but TWO offices in Congress.

Here is a list of Vice Presidents (incomplete obviously, since it ends at Quayle) hosted by the SENATE website: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact_collec...

You may be interested to notice that there is not a single General or institutional military man among them, while there are scores of experienced legislators. In fact, it doesn't appear as if any of them were selected for foreign policy creds, the only exception I can think of (Dick Cheney) was selected after the principal candidate couldn't name a single leader in a single global hotspot. Furthermore, his foreign policy creds come from foreign business experience and NOT by serving in the military (which of course, he's never done). And I don't think you'll disagree: that selection has turned out to have been perhaps the worst in VP selection in the history of the United States.

I can see it now... You're gonna parrot Condi and Bush and Cheney and say, "911 changed everything." If you want to play that game, fine... but it gives credence to everything they've said. We have to do things differently now...? pre-emptive war, torturing possible suspects, erasing our freedoms, tearing up the Constitution, military-cred VPs. Wonderful. When does it end?

Which gets me to why I bitterly oppose a Clark VP candidancy. I like Clark; I really do. But the problem with people suggesting we NEED Clark that such talk feeds this American culture of fear by suggesting that we have reason to need a military man on the ticket. Read the book "The Culture of Fear" or watch the movie "Bowling for Colombine" and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about. A Wesley K. Clark candidacy sends all the wrong signals to America: "Be afraid. Be very afraid." Even the peaceniks must appear battle-ready now. We've always been at war with Oceania, and we always will. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Your suggestion that only a military person would be fit to serve as President in the event of the death of the President is interestingly conservative and anachronistic; it's also been proven patently false. In fact, military service is not a prerequisite to a great Presidency, as is witnessed by Bill Clinton's term of office. And in fact it also often leads to quite the opposite. See General Grant, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Addendum
I've recently learned that this Vice Presidential role as "head" of the National Security Council is not a traditional role; it was in fact one created by the neocons so that Cheney could have a greater foothold on foreign policy. And this "NSC" is divorced from the popularly known National Security Council, and it is a council (which also includes, FYI, Scooter Libby) that operates solely within the confines of the Office of the Vice President. This "NSC" is part of what has been referred to as the Vice President's "Shadow Government," which also includes the Office of Special Plans within the CIA.

See pg. 102 of John Dean's recent book "Worse than Watergate."

If you think that a Kerry Administration would continue to employ these same strategies, I HOPE you are wrong.

Also, to put this all in context, as far as I know at this moment, vice presidents have NEVER in the history of the United States had foreign policy roles UNTIL Dick Cheney and his neocons hijacked the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-04 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
28. What I don't get
Edited on Thu May-06-04 10:48 PM by fujiyama
is why people chose Fienstien at all, and that too over Landrui. True, they both are DINOish dems, but atleast Landrui's from a conservative state.

Fienstien, like Lieberman, has no excuse. Plus, her reputation as a "gun grabber" alone would kill the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-07-04 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. It was either her or Hillary
and Hillary would make the freepers way too happy. Hence Feinstein.

But I voted for Janet N. over Feinstein in the first round.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHBowden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-04 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
34. 1) Clark 2) Gep 3) Nelson 4) Edwards
Kerry leads Bush on all issues except foreign policy matters; Clark will help us across the board.

Gephardt may be able to help in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan and is my second pick. Third would be Nelson for Florida, and four Edwards for general likability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-04 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
37. My picks. . .
1. John Edwards
2. Bill Nelson
3. Max Cleland
4. John Breaux
5. Mark Warner
6. Phil Bredesen
7. Bob Graham
8. Jim Clyburn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-04 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
44. Bias in CNN poll
I didn't take the poll because I don't have cookies enabled on my computer. But, I saw the match-ups and I was very dissapointed. It seems like they're pushing people into a moderate DLC type nominee, like much of the party establishment is. The only black person I noticed on the list was pitted against John Edwards, who they know most people will pick. Where are the liberals and people of color on CNN's list? This list has 1 liberal for every 5 moderates and a couple Republicans. WTF!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. I understand where you're coming from but
for good or ill, a defining feature of democracy is that whoever gets the most votes wins, unless you are *, of course. The candidates they've picked are probably the most popular choices, and I don't see the matchups as being unfair.

As a woman, I could point out that while we are more than half the voting population, CNN has put all the women in one bracket, i.e., they are 25% of the candidates, a gross underrepresentation, and forced to "compete" against each other. But I understand why they did it that way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
45. They've posted the Round 2 results--Clark & Edwards doing well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
48. Clark. Forgot whom else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
49. Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeinesRed Donating Member (735 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Kerry/Clark
I think that Clark would draw in a lot of undecided voters. That's not the only reason...that's a damn good foreign policy team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkamber Donating Member (507 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
51. Round Three is up now.
I'm predicting that the final combinations in all 4 groups will be

Edwards

Richardson

Clark

Clinton

Note that these are not all my votes, but I'm thinking that is what will happen in the final round.

One thing that was interesting was that in the Edwards/Graham match up it broke down to 90 Edwards and 10 Graham.

I know almost all of the Clark supporters here were voting for Graham and yet, Edwards won by such an high margin.

In this round the match up between McCain/Clark will be interesting as well.

We will find the results next week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Clinton had it tougher than I thought against Feinstein...
hopefully Landrieu will beat her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
53. My Picks
Warner

Richardson

Clark

Landrieu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. we voted the same n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
55. WHY WES CLARK
Why Wesley Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that way, and look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead. Kerry can co-opt the national security theme on Bush.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is "squeaky-clean".

There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:

1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. He has earned the respect of European leaders(he has even been knighted by a number of European nations) and understands the Arab world. NO ONE has Clark's credentials to help repair our alliances around the world and gracefully resolve the Iraq problem. Plus, something that many people do not realize, as one of our major military commanders, Clark had the "domestic affairs" responsibilities similar to those of mayors and governors. He was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advancement, etc.) of those under his command, numbering hundreds of thousands at times

2.Clark brings a "common man" background, someone who grew up poor, earned an appointment to West Point where he finished 1st in his class, became a decorated war hero--someone with the brains, talent, and drive to go into the business world and make lots of money--who instead chose to serve his country for another 30 years or so. If this man isn't a true American hero, I don't know who is.

3. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free Trade, and most domestic issues.

4. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush/Cheney on all issues, especially those where Bush would like to think he is strongest.
5. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background makes people feel secure. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control.)

6. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Cheney to millions of swing voters.

7. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

8. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As was demonstrated in Wisconsin, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

9. Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim, "Two Patriots, one mission." This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

11. Is VP the best position for Clark? Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State or National Security Adviser. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP, as long as Kerry respects Clark, he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected in National Security issues.

Please, for the good of the country, select Wes Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mattforclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
56. 3rd round
The obvious picks are

Edwards

Richardson

Clark

Landrieu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jab105 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-04 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
57. CLARK!!!!!!!!!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC