Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who will be Kerry's VP pick?

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:21 PM
Original message
Poll question: Who will be Kerry's VP pick?
There have been many posts speculating who will get the nod.
I think that it will be Edwards or Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. You included McCain and your name is Maveric
John, is that you? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmkinsey Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Max Cleland!
He's done alot of good work for Kerry,won't cost us a Senate seat, and has super strong motivation for payback against bushco.
OK, admitted long shot. VERY long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminbats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. Cleland will be on the ticket...
Edited on Wed Jun-30-04 05:13 PM by flaminbats
I think Cleland is a person who Kerry gets along with, will bring more positive press to Kerry than Zell would to the Republicans, and would strengthen Kerry's image on national security. Most importantly Cleland would be a choice that would surprise the media and the public, while bringing him the best kind of publicity when the new ticket is announced.

A final reason Cleland would be a great choice, he is the best Democrat Kerry could pick who can show the nation what a self-righteous idiot Zell Miller really is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'd prefer Edwards or Clark. Hillary would be a fucking stupid move
but I chose "Other" because I beleive Kerry will go with the safe choice, Gephardt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It won't be Hillary
Drudge is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why didn't you list Gephardt?
Did he say he would not be VP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I agree - Gephardt should be on here
I think he'd make a fine VP, and it's complete nonsense that McCain would make this list, but Gep doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. No, I say that he's a "No-wayer".
Gephart is a terrible choice and southerners, who we need to vote for Kerry, hate him. He's been a wash-up for a long time IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Not true
We don't need the south at all. There are more than enough EVs elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Why does the "conservative" South hate him
his lifetime ADA rating is only 83(pre 1990 average 61)? I favor Edwards myself but McCain and Hillary have no right to be up there while Gephardt and others are omitted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. My wife is convinced of Edwards too....
God, I would love that. But I don't want to even come close to getting my hopes up. My wife says she's 90% sure of Edwards but fears that it will be Gephardt.

I know a lot of people who hate bush but aren't enthused about Kerry, and for whom Edwards would get them off the fence ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlFrankenFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. If it ain't Edwards...
He ain't got my support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cjbuchanan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. So you would rather have Bush as P
Then someone else as Kerry's VP?

I don't understand that logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. And your vote will go to....???
A vote for anyone but Kerry, or even a non-vote, is a vote for bu$h.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. How childish
You apparently like Cheney better than, say, Clark or Gephardt. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. "You apparently like Cheney better than, say, Clark or Gephardt."
Well let's see...

Cheney is PNAC.

Clark said PNAC was "a great team" and that "we need them in Washington"

Gephardt voted for their lies, while falling on his sword in Iowa.

Not a nickels worth of difference among the three of them when you look at it objectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. "Not a nickels worth of difference among the three of them when you..."
Edited on Wed Jun-30-04 05:29 PM by Tweedtheatre
That has to be the poorest argument I've ever seen. Let's ingore everything about the men except for three facts I have about them. Dare I say you aren't looking at it objectively?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. Right.
Except Gephardt had no choice in voting for those lies. Had he not and had things turned even a little different, the entire party would be completely FUCKED right now. You seem to forget the times we were living in back then, when no one could speak out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. So you feel that
you'll trust Kerry to run the country, but you won't trust him to make the decision as to who his best running-mate would be? That's something that you are more qualified to decide??? :shrug:

I would guess that he knows more about all of the VP candidates than we all do, and we'll never know the entirety of what goes into his decision, but even if he selects someone who DOES NOT THRILL ME, I'm not going to decide that Kerry isn't qualified to be my president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalManiacfromOC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. Oh calm down and stop flaming her
she's not entirely serious. it's called a hyperbole for the effect of a strong opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. besides you kids cant vote
:D wait I cant either. Rats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlFrankenFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. lol thanks you guys :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. no problem, just be careful, I know your ABB all the way
we all have our prefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. I've recently become convinced that its going to be Graham
and that will satisfy me mightily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
15. Spectraman
Edited on Wed Jun-30-04 03:37 PM by iconoclastic cat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniorPlankton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
16. I put my money on Edwards
But then there are things in play (other than winning in November: Hillary's ambitions, etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crachet2004 Donating Member (725 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
17. It will be Gep...and Hillary should'nt even be on the list.
We don't need to cater to the South, because we are'nt going to be competitive, outside of Florida. Gep will help us with Seniors in Florida.

Edwards is a pig in a poke.

It will be Gep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
20. I don't have allot faith
I don't have allot faith in Kerry so far, because I don't hear him speaking for any of the radical change we need in this country. What I do hear him saying is that he'd like to do the all same stuff GWB and gang are doing, but he'd do it all "the right way".

I hope this is just an erroneous perception on my part. But I have a small fear that his VP choice may be somebody I'm just going to screw up my face about and say..."WHY?"

I'll vote for whoever runs, but I'm not convinced he's being clear with the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Talk of "Radical changes", may scare away some of the swing voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. No doubt you're right about that
But why don't we try and desensitize America just a bit? People shouldn't be so fragile intellectually that they get all freaked whenever they hear a new proposal (no matter how cogent) that just might be slightly outside the tired old box of thinking that got us all in the world of hurt were in now.

Americans love being big, rawkin' bad-asses, but we're intellectual basket cases who can't deal with even the slightest challenge to our comfort zone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mermaid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Too True
This is why we GLBT people have such a hard time in America. Most people cannot stand anything that takes them even slightly outside their "comfort zone."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
48. Yes
Yes. And I wonder what it is about America. Is it fear? Complacency? Stupidity? What?

And then sometimes I think the malady might be something even more sinister -- like an kind of atrophy of our humanity.

How did it get this way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mermaid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-04 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #48
56. How It Got To Be This Way
Human civilization has always needed a scapegoat. Particularly, those in power have always needed a scapegoat...one which they can label as "outcasts" and "undesireable."
first, it shifts attention away from their own wrongdoings...secondly, it focusses the anger of people against the chosen target, rather than against the target that anger SHOULD be focussed against. This is how terrorists are recruited, by the way.

While our foreign policy sucks, and is at least partly to blame for much of the poverty and suffering in the Middle East and around the world...their own corrupt leaders take and hoard resources intended for the people, and blame the United States for their sufferings. Thus, they focus the anger of the people against "the Great Satan (U.S.)" and NOT against them. This serves a dual purpose...it keeps the dictators in power, and limits scrutiny by the people of the wrongdoings of the tyrants who are at least also partly responsible for the sufferings of those people...and it focusses the people's anger against political targets of the tyrant's choosing.

Meanwhile, the suffering people, with no hope of a better life...have nothing left to lose by volunteering to be suicide bombers...and in fact, are often willing to do it, because they know their families will be financially rewarded for thier actions...and they, themselves, are promised a place in Heaven, and deliverance from the suffering, squalid, miserable existence they have to endure...imposed partly by the corporate, greedy, self-interest of American foreign policy...and the wrongdoings of corrupt dictators. for these people, becoming a terrorist recruit is the only option open to them to deliver themselves, and their families, from the suffering, and the squalid conditions they endure on a daily basis...and, of course, the message that their suffering is ENTIRELY America's fault is drilled nto their heads from an early age...and, as you well know, lies repeated often enough become the truth. This is called "demagogue" and an objective look at the current Bush Administration is a quick lesson in "demagogue."

It is not an atrophy of our humanity. It is the masses being manipulated by the elite ruling classes. It is the masses believing the lies, the demagogue. False information, false results. And of course, taking a feared, disliked, and distrusted group of "undesireable" people is a good way to unite people behind you, against targets of your own choosing...and shift attention away from things you do not want scrutinized.

This is why, by the way, Michael Moore is being so lambasted by the right wingnuts. He is inviting scrutiny of things the right wingnuts do not want scrutinized.

Also, human civilization has always needed some "outsider" to whom they can say..."you are not one of us!" "You do not belong!" This is because so few people possess the ability to look within and find validation for themselves...they must instead look to the outside and say, "well at least I am better than THEM..." Else, how do they know that they themselves belong...if they cannot tell someone else that they DON'T belong?

Humankind has always needed a scapegoat...and a bogey man, on which they can blame all of their society's ills...because, as long as they have it, they never have to examine THEMSELVES as a possible source of society's ills. The 1960's (and centuries prior, I might add) saw African-Americans as the bogey men...the undesireables...the source of all society's ills...the erosion of the "Ozzy and Harriet" fiction that most believed society was...or should be.

In our modern era, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals...along with multicultualists, athiests, liberals, tree-huggers, etc. are the scapegoats and bogey men of choice. You can probably also make a case for smokers and overweight people, as well as illegal drug users being lumped in as the new scapegoats, the undesireables.

The anger, the fear...this is being manipulated by the elite...the masses are being led by the nose, to serve the interests of the elite. They are being lied to constatntly...they are being demagogued about what the source of all society's ills are...and their anger is being focussed, and directed, by the elite...against enemies of the choosing of the ruling elite, the American aristocrats, the corporate moguls, the people who have the power in this country.

Most people have given up individual control over their lives...they do not want the responsibility. They would rather be led...and told what to think...they are content, like a horse, to stick their heads into the stanchions, and munch contentedly until they die. They are like sheep...they wish to be led. It is too much work, and too much responsibility to think for themselves...they would rather be TOLD what to think, and what to believe. So they are duped into serving the interests of the ruling elite, in direct conflict to their own self-interest...though they do not know they are acting against their own self-interest, because of the demagoguery that the elite class uses, to assure these people that, in the long run, they are acting in their own self-interest...and by throwing those who cooperate and do not make waves...the occasional bone.

This is just simply the way things work in human society, by my own observations of it. The answer, then, is...is didn't GET this way...it has ALWAYS BEEN this way! The scapegoats and bogey men have changed over the years, depending on time and place in history...but there has always been that scapegoat and bogey man. Now, of course, in the United States...swarthy skinned Middle Easterners are the latest scapegoat and bogey man...they are directing our fear there (by means of the terror color code) and thus shifting attention away from the evil that they do. I mean, why even have a blue or green on the terror code? It isn't like we're ever going to be any lower than "yellow." Sure, let's go ahead and make it blue or green, and advertise to the terrorists..."HEY, GUYS, OUR GUARD IS WAY DOWN, SO WHY NOT COME IN AND NAIL US RIGHT NOW, WHILE WE ARE ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH AND COMPLACENT??" We're not going to do that.
So obviously, the terror code becomes a handy tool by which to ratchet up the fear factor...and to direct attention away from places the ruling elite do not want attention focussed.

In 1930's Germany, the scapegoats and bogey men were the Jews, right? The Gypsies, right? today, in the Middle East...it is "The Great Satan...the United States" that is the scapegoat and bogey man. So, as you can see...throughout history, depending on time, place, current events...the scapegoats and bogey men have changed...but they have always been there! And it seems now that Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and transgender people are the latest fashionable bogey man and scapegoat.

The ruling elite are very careful to "dehumanize" the scapegoat, the bogey man...so that people feel no guilt or remorse in acting against the chosen target...they feel no responsibility for their actions, nor the pain and suffering they cause that chosen target...because their victims have already been "dehumanized." that is to say, the ruling elite has convinced many people that these chosen targets are somehow sub-human, sub-standard...the cause of all that ills society, etc. etc. etc.

And the only way we can change the situation is to put a human face on the scapegoat, the bogey man. We need to reclaim our stolen humanity. We need to put a human face on the suffering, the injustice, the indignities that we endure. And we need to hope people pay attention long enough to get the message and begin to think. And this, by the way, is what Michael Moore is trying to accomplish with Fahrenheit 9/11. To put a HUMAN FACE on the tragedy, the suffering, the injustice...and to direct attention toward the REAL CAUSE of that tragedy, suffering and injustice. and it's why the ruling elite hate Michael Moore.

It is also why they seek to discredit the messenger, in this case, Moore. Because they cannot discredit the things Moore brings to light in his movie (because they are true) they seek instead to discredit Moore...to paint him as a wild-eyed fanatic, a liar, etc...because then no one will believe his message.

Tnhese are the tried and true tactics of the ruling elite. This has existed in human society for as long as civilization has existed.

So the short answer is...We did not GET TO BE THIS WAY...this is the way WE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-04 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. Yeah
The scapegoat. I see your point here. Thanks for taking the time to write this post. It seems like nothing short of a new period of enlightenment could change the course we're on, but there's too much to be gained by the "princes" using these tricks to manipulate the masses.

Though I don't know much about how the alienation of GLBT actually feels because I've never experienced that subculture, I've been an outsider all my life too -- for other reasons no less real. But now I understand that the dogmas of social conventionality actually enable the creation of scapegoats -- and the manufactured mobs that try to drive them out the city gates.

Lately though, I feel the zeitgeist moving farther and farther from anything I even recognize as civil or civilization. I wish I had a voice to speak for the scapegoat. I stand with them. But I wouldn't even know how to begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mermaid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-04 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. But I Have Already Told You
how to begin. We begin by doing as Moore has done. We out a human face on the suffering, the tragedy. We direct attention and scrutiny of things the ruling elite do not want scrutinized.

However, we must be careful, lest latr centuries see us fall into the same trap. One could say that the oppressed will one day rise up...and Heaven help the oppressor on that day. BUT...we must be careful, then, as the oppressed...to not become the new oppressor, once we throw off our chains. Because that, too, is a cycle that has repeated itself ad nauseam, throughout human history.

The oppressed, freed from their oppression, then become ardent oppressors in thier own right. Don't take my word for it, we can see examples of it in just our own modern society.

Nowadays, we see conservative African American Baptist preachers rubbing shoulders with the very people who, 40 years ago, blocked them from entering the schoolhouses, and mowed them down with firehoses. They are standing WITH the very people who created Selma, forty years ago...and they are standing against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people!

This is an example of an oppressed group, freed of their chains, becoming an ardent oppressor in their own right.

One need only look objectively at human history to find countless other examples of the very same thing. Again, the participants change, depending on the place and time in history...but often today's oppressors were yesterday's oppressed. We must be careful that, as today's oppressed, we do NOT become tomorrow's oppressor!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
21. Now that Edwards has gotten enthusiasm..
I think it will likely be him. And that's fine with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. Is Clark even considered by Kerry?
If so will he take the "second banana" staus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. Yes.
Clark indicated during the primaries that he'd be a VP only if Kerry was P. "National security has to be at the top of the ticket."

Personally, I think Clark already has the position, but I'm basing that only on his expression when he's asked about his VP chances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. that's encouraging
If Clark is on the ticket, I would be more entusiastic about Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
24. Edwards or Clark, but I'm thinking Edwards would be the smarter move
Edited on Wed Jun-30-04 04:02 PM by RatTerrier
Why Edwards?

- Squeaky clean. No baggage. No bastard children. No arrests. No mistresses. The Helms Machine tore him apart and investigated him like crazy. They came up with zilch. Ever see a RW attack on him? He's near bulletproof!

- Youth. He's only 50. Matches up well against a crusty, unhealthy Cheney. Lots of energy and vigor. Softens Kerry's image.

- Optimism. It's a word thrown around a lot in this campaign. Edwards has lots of it. Always smiling.

- Looks. Maybe a little too squeaky clean. A bit wholesome, but women may swoon.

The bad (or stuff the GOP may hit him with)

- Lawyer (they'll play it against him)

- Inexperience (Hey, it didn't stop Quayle. Or Dubya.

- Pretty boy. You'll hear this a lot on AM radio.

- Too perfect. Must be something lurking there.

- Voted for Patriot Act. But it sounded like he actually read it. Favored parts, but not a lot of it.

And that's it.

As for Clark, I backed him in the primaries, and still think he's a good choice. But can he stand up against the RWers? Besides, I think his talents would be wasted as VP. I think he would be the best Sec. Of State we've ever had. Just think of the names in that guy's rolodex!

Gep is boring and stale, although a decent guy. He brings little to the table but some union support. Hillary has too much baggage. Plus, we lose a senate seat in NY.

Dean has been trashed too much by the GOP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
39. Good analysis, RT -- and very well thought through!
And I don't mean to sound like a high-school teacher grading a paper!

We should all follow your example of thinking issues and candidates through with our head, and not our heart. (Even if it doesn't feel as good, sometimes.)

Cheers -- :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Thanks
Edited on Wed Jun-30-04 06:29 PM by RatTerrier
I went to Edwards' campaign site to brush up on issues, and I came up with a few more:

Plus:


- Tough on crime

- Well thought out ideas on Homeland Security

- Tax plan that conservatives may even like

- Won't upstage Kerry, since he's not a big name. He does compliment him well.

- Has a link to DU on his official blog.


Negative:

- Seems to be pretty supportive of Iraq War. But does encourage UN involvement.

- Has a link to DU on his official blog. (you know the RW hates us!)



Granted, as a #2 guy, his ideas may or may not have any pull. But they could help frame the debate for the months ahead.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
49. Also:Southerner, good campaigner, charismatic (Kerry: charisma challenged)
More and more I want him to be picked, and for the Dems to send him to the South
for the next four months.

The one thing he has against him is being a trial lawyer.

By the way, contrary to cultural stereotypes, women do not vote
for candidates because of their looks. Women are more likely than men
to cast their vote based on the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. It doesn't hurt
Edited on Wed Jun-30-04 07:57 PM by RatTerrier
I didn't mean to be sexist, but sometimes looks really communicate a lot. People may pay more attention to someone deemed more attractive.

Hell, why do you think everyone despised Linda Tripp?

Why didn't Joe Lieberman do better (besides the fact that he was a Republican running in the Democratic primary)?

Appearance does have a subconcious effect on people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-04 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
57. Women are this way when choosing men for anything..even marriage.
They are not as superficial as the weaker sex. We look for "what's underneath" it all (pun intended)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
25. Kerry should announce Al Gore as
head of his commission to finalize and vet VP choice right after 4th of July holiday. That will put him in the news for a week or so. The typical Gore is crazy stories and the comparisons to cheney as bush*s VP-looker-forer. The gossip will be insane that Gore will do the same thing and pick himself for VP, and then after another week or so of endless inane banter the slate will be clean for Kerry to announce his final choice whoever it is.

BTW, WHOEVER it is should be met with wild-eyed unbridled enthusiasm by the dems, if for no other reason than to drive the repukes nuts. I've seen all the "Not Gephardt!" threads, but even he would make a great VP choice. He's got baggage, but if we get the "bush* is a MISERABLE FAILURE" Gephardt, and given the situation I think we would, he would be awsome. Plus, while the "what about the south" battle rages on, Gephardt comes from smack dab in the middle of *gag* bush*country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElementaryPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
30. It will be Clark. Two war heroes vs. two chickenhawk war profiteers!
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maveric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Thats my wish, but I'm not sure Clark would settle for #2.
He's not accustomed to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
31. Clark. But why in GD and not GD 2004? Sneaky, sneaky!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
33. My gut says Edwards.
I think he'd be an excellant choice too. He plays very well in Ohio and even in Missouri. According to a newspaper article I read today (sorry, no link), Missourians like him as a VP candidate better than they like Gep.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrustingDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
36. probably won't be...
Edwards, Dean or Hillary. A president doesn't like to be upstaged by his VP. All these are a lot smarter and more charming than Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kipepeo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
37. Dean? :)
I want it to be Dean, but I think it will be Edwards. I don't think there is any way in hell it will be Hillary, because pukes have created so much senseless hatred of her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
42. GEPHARDT SHOULD BE LISTED. He's in the top 3 in the polls.
I'm not for Gephardt, but he should be listed. I also happen to think he's a likely one for Kerry to pick. (I'd be happy w/anyone, as long as Kerry thinks he's good.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Agreed.
Gephardt should be on this list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kdowney Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
45. Kerry.
Kerry should get a black person on the ticket. What is he afraid of? Let the Republicreeps be the party of the white man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
47. My guess is that it'll be a shocker. One that's truly outside of the "Box"
Not McCain though, his being a keynote speaker at the Repuke convention might be a negative campaign issue...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
53. CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-!
KERRY & CLARK!



CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-CLARK-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oddman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
54. Mark Warner is on the inside track
Keep an eye out!


Wolfospitz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greekspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-04 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
55. It MUST be Clark or Edwards
Either one would be a boon for Kerry...wide popular appeal, charisma, intellegence on both sides. Might I add both are quite dashing! Clark is a military dynamo, but Edwards just has that certain something that you HAVE to like. Thus I voted Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-04 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
59. How many lawyers do you need in the EX suite?
Kerry is an attorney and the main man.

Wes Clark has the wherewithal to oversee the Pentagon

and the military-

Edwards, although I agree with everyone's assessment.. is an attorney and has not been involved either by his service or his expertise with anything relating to war time. We are not only at war in Iraq but at war with the Republicans. Bush is going to pull a fast one before or after the election...We need every man involved in democratic politics to be an expert in his field to beat back the scum that have taken over our country. I like Edwards, but not in the VP slot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-04 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
61. Nunn
Moderate southerner with National Security Credentials

A little conservative for my taste...but I think he would stack up well against Cheney in a debate (Assuming Cheney doesn't chicken out)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossfish Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-01-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
62. I voted for Clark...
I really have NO idea who will get picked.

I am intrigued by the Max Cleland idea.

Why is Hillary Clinton on the ballot? You know that is going nowhere.
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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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